The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHK Agenda - 2023-02-07Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, February 7, 2023, 4:00 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 - J. Haalboom Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura Pages 1. Commencement 2. 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. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 3.1 Item 4.1. Rachel Redshaw, MHBC Planning 3.2 Item 4.2. Chris Uchiyama, LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., Reema Masri, Masri O Architects, Melissa Carter, LMC Properties 3.3 Item 4.3. Rachel Redshaw and Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning 4. 3.4 Item 4.4. Chris Uchiyama, LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Discussion Items 4.1 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 1198 20 m Fischer Hallman Road, DSD -2023-050 4.2 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 149- 25 m 151 Ontario Street North and 21 Weber Street West, DSD -2023-048 4.3 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 30-40 20 m Margaret Avenue, DSD -2023-057 4.4 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 83-97 20 m Victoria Street North, DSD -2023-049 4.5 Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022- 20 m 2024, DSD -2023-053 4.6 Sub -Committee Updates 10m 4.7 Status Updates - Heritage Best Practices 5 m Update and 2023 Priorities, Heritage Impact Assessment Follow-ups 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 6. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator 3 M 242 341 493 511 Page 2 of 511 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 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 6 DATE OF REPORT: January 9, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-050 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer Hallman Road RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 12, 2022, prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding a proposal to redevelop the subject property municipally addressed as 1198 Fischer Hallman Road. The subject property is neither listed nor designated under the Ontario Heritage Act but is included on the Inventory of Historic Buildings. The proposed development consists of constructing approximately 411 new residential units with: • Two 14 -storey towers with a 3 -storey podium along Fischer Hallman Road; • 96 stacked townhouse units proposed in 6 buildings, with a central amenity area; and • 51, 3 -storey cluster townhouse dwellings framing Rockwood Road along the eastern side of the property. The existing house on the subject property is proposed to be demolished. It is a one and a half -storey dwelling which was constructed circa 1855 and is representative of the Ontario Farmhouse (also known as the `Loyalist Ontario Home') style of architecture. The existing building was assessed for cultural heritage value, and although the property meets the prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 for designation, the draft HIA concludes that the building should not be designated as there has been significant loss of *** 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 511 heritage integrity of the property as well as several alterations which have compromised the cultural heritage value of the property. The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the February 7, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions the Committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments which will be taken into consideration as part of staff review of the HIA and processing of related Planning Act Applications. A motion or recommendation to Council is not required for the February meeting. 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, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 1198 Fischer Hallman Road Page 4 of 511 5 � 1 i1r s f HERITAGE_.. 1 10 M PACT ASSESSMENT t\11 c 01a E _ 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, ,. f Kitchener, ON ; 'C� 1�,� - Yor— H Date: � � � �(' �L'i' "► ~� � December 12 2022,, p�[iy "' Prepared for: ;A: ` Activa [�Ti L; IL AsIh-urtr l) 14 rAJ4 1 Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC)s��.�r��c��c•l�cI ilk ' 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 ' '��- - T: 519 576 3650 e J Am IR r! j 0 F: 519 576 0121 Proiect No. Y325Y + ' `' i, .r+� ZA-i"mAl 11-P Ii�r • r . ►s- 1441 JA IF If, 071.4 W p er,. Y 1861 of the Cour /Ili . %4 -1 l i 49A♦. loin ,MHBC P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN i �+ & LANDSCAPE r ARCHITECTURE Room, Kitc.►f- ��"ixb:ic 1 i Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel.................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossaryof Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities......................................................................................4 ExecutiveSummarY................................................................................................................................5 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................6 1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................6 1.2 Description of Subject Lands.........................................................................................................6 1.3 Heritage Status..............................................................................................................................9 1.4 Land Use and Zoning...................................................................................................................10 2.o Description of Surrounding Area and Context................................................................................. 11 3.0 Policy and Legislation Framework........................................................................................... 12 3.1 The Planning Act.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020).............................................................................................. 12 3.3 Ontario Heritage Act.................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Region of Waterloo Official Plan.................................................................................................. 13 3.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan...................................................................................................... 15 3.6 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014)........................................................16 4.o Historical Overview..........................................................................................................................17 4.1 Indigenous Communities..............................................................................................................17 4.2 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township.....................................................................................17 4.3 Historical Overview of the Hamlet of Williamsburg.....................................................................19 4.4 Historical Overview of the Subject Lands.................................................................................... 20 5.0 Description of Cultural Heritage Resources............................................................................. 30 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 30 5.2 Description of Potential Built Heritage........................................................................................ 31 6.o Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources...................................................................................... 39 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 39 December 12, 2022 MHBC I i Page 6 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6.2 Evaluation of 3.3.98 Fischer -Hallman Road, "The Hett Farmstead"...............................................40 6.3 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest......................................................................... 43. 7.0 Description of Proposed Development................................................................................... 43 8.o Impacts Analysis..............................................................................................................................44 8.1 Classifications of Impacts............................................................................................................44 8.2 Impact Analysis for 3.3.98 Fischer -Hallman Road, "The Hett Farmstead" ...................................... 45 8.3.3. Impact of Destruction.................................................................................................... 45 9.o Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures.....................46 9.3. Alternative Development Approaches.........................................................................................46 3.0.o Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................................................48 3.3..o Bibliography..................................................................................................................................49 Appendix A -Map of Subject Lands....................................................................................................... 52 AppendixB -Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix C -Tacoma Building Condition Report (2022)....................................................................... 54 Appendix D- Terms of Reference......................................................................................................... 55 AppendixE- Curricula Vitae................................................................................................................ 56 December 12, 2022 MHBC I ii Page 7of511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Lucy Chen Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Senior Heritage Planner Technician Glossary of Abbreviations CCNHCD CHVI CHL HCD HIA MHBC MHSTCI OHA O -REG g/o6 PPS 2020 SOS December 12, 2022 Senior Review, Co-author Research, Field Review, Co- author Map Figures Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Cultural Heritage Interest or Value Cultural Heritage Landscape Heritage Conservation District Heritage Impact Assessment MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Regulation 9/o6 fordetermining cultural heritage significance Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Statement of Significance MHBC 13 Page 8 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Acknowledgements This report acknowledges the assistance provided by City of Kitchener Planning Staff, the Waterloo Historical Society, the Grace Schmidt Room in the Kitchener Public Library and the Waterloo Region Museum. Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener is situated in the traditional territory of Haudensaunee, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Anishinabewaki, and Attiwonderonk (Neutral). These lands are acknowledged as being associated with the following treaties: • Crown Grant to the Six Nations or Haldimand Tract (Treaty #4) signed on 1793 and Treaty 3, signed 1792 This documenttakes into consideration the cultural heritage of indigenous communities, including their oral traditions and history when available and related to the scope of work. Present Owner Information: Activa, c/o Alex Sumner 2821889 Ontario Inc. 55 Columbia Street East Suite 1, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 4N7 December 12, 2022 MHBC 14 Page 9 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Executive Summary MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture ("MHBC") was retained to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment for 11.98 Fischer -Hallman Road', Kitchener, Ontario based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City outlined in Appendix `D' of this report. In conclusion, the subject property has significant Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) for its physical/design value and contextual values. The following provides the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: The property includes a dwelling constructed circa 1855 which is representative of the Ontario Farmhouse (orreferred to as the Loyalist Ontario Home) and is likely the last remaining dwelling from the former hamlet of Williamsburg. The property is historically linked to its surrounding. A moderate impact of destruction has been identified as the identified heritage attributes will all be removed. Alternative development options were explored, however, due to the extensive loss of heritage integrity, it is recommended that the existing dwelling be removed on the basis that the following will be completed: • Completion of an Interpretation Plan that acknowledges the historical contextual value of the property. If any artifacts or records are identified during demolition, the heritage consultant acting on behalf of the owner, should contact the necessary parties (i.e. Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum) to inquire if they meet the scope of the collection. 'The property was formerly known as 1198 Westmount Road. December 12, 2022 MHBC 15 Page 10 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background In March of 2021, MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture ("MHBC") was retained to complete a Heritage Due Diligence report for 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road 2, Kitchener, Ontario (the 'subject property") (see Appendix `A'). The proposed development includes the removal of all existing buildings and structures on the subject property and the construction of 14 blocks (Blocks A -F include 5 units and Blocks G -N include 16 units), two apartment towers (Tower A is 10 storeys with 119 units and Tower b is 14 storeys with 167 units) which front Fischer -Hallman Road. The total number if proposed units is 463. There is also a one storey amenity building between the towers along Fischer -Hallman Road and green amenity area within the centre of the development. There is a total of 207 parking spaces provided. A review of the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register confirms that the subject property is neither listed' nor designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act nor is it included as residing within the City of Kitchener's identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes. A pre -submission consultation meeting was held on July 7t", 2022 which identified the requirement of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and a Conservation Plan (if required). This HIA is based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City of Kitchener for the proposed development of the subject property (see Appendix `D'). The purpose of this scoped HIA is to assess any potential impact on cultural heritage resources as a result of the development and provide alternative development options, mitigation and conservation measures as necessary. This report is supported by the information provided in a Cultural Heritage Assessment Overview (2012) which was completed by MHBC as part of the road widening of Fischer Hallman Road from Ottawa Street to Bleams Road. 1.2 Description of Subject Lands The subject property is located at 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener (legal description is Lt 2, Rcp 1483 Kitchener, Save & Except Pt 11 58r7o61 & pts 7 & 14 on Ex Plan Wr1o81139 City of Kitchener). The subject property is bound by Fischer -Hallman Road to the west, Bleams Road to the south, Rockwood Road to the north and Tamvale Crescent to the east within the City of Kitchener (see Figure 1). The property includes a one and half storey dwelling with gabled roof and stucco exterior with a one storey addition on its eastern facade and contemporary metal clad outbuilding. There is a collection of trees around the existing dwelling, however, the property is primarily open z The property was formerly known as 1198 Westmount Road. December 12, 2022 MHBC 16 Page 11 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario green space. There is vehicular access to the property off of Fischer -Hallman Road. The property is approximately 5.43 acres. 6t . 0- .�� y `µ ql Location Map r i 1r; Fa v,- LEGEND F-'.- 2 Subject Lands 1198 Fischer+lallman Rd City of Ki chmer RE4 m of WaiEdm Figure i- Map figure identifying subject lands (MHBC, 2022). DATE: Cc'toloEr247P2 -GALE_ 12,00 f � I FILE= Y325Y DRAWN: LC December 12, 2022 MHBC 17 Page 12 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figures i & 3- (above) Photograph of existing dwelling on-site; (below) Photograph of existing outbuilding on-site (MHBC, 2021). December 12, 2022 MHBC 18 Page 13 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.3 Heritage Status In order to confirm the presence of cultural heritage resources which have been previously identified, several databases were consulted. These databases include the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register, the City of Kitchener Official Plan, Waterloo Region Public Building Inventory, the Ontario Heritage Act Register (Ontario Heritage Trust), the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP), and the City of Kitchener Interactive Map. A review of the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register confirms that the property is neither listed' nor designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act nor is it included as residing within the City of Kitchener's identified Cultural Heritage Landscapes. The property was listed on the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee Inventory as a property 'under review', however, an evaluation was not completed as permission from the owner to access the property was not granted. A Cultural Heritage Assessment Overview was completed by MHBC in 2012 as part of the road widening of Fischer Hallman Road from Ottawa Street to Bleams Road. This assessment determined that the subject property had both physical and historical/ associative values, however, further research and investigation (i.e. building condition assessment) was needed to determine its cultural heritage value or interest. December 12, 2022 MHBC 19 Page 14 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.4 Land Use and Zoning The subject property is currently zoned Residential Six (R-6), which permits multiple dwellings with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of o.6 and maximum building height of 2.0.5 metres. The proposed cluster and stacked townhouses are permitted by this zoning category, but the proposed building heights (11-12 metres) and FSR would need to be amended to accommodate the proposed form of development. A rezoning would also be required to permit the proposed apartment/mixed use building. {COUNTRY HILLS ;.[ i 44000 iRID' JR© t'll ll '„ 9 1 o; �ROSENBERG - - 7_� l ERiNBROU Y } Figure 4 — City of Kitchener Interactive Map identifying subject property by blue line (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, accessed October, 2020) December 12, 2022 MHBC 110 Page 15 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2. 0 Description of Surrounding Area and Context The subject lands are located on the south end of the City of Kitchener and is surrounded by both residential and commercial development. Adjacent, non-contiguous, to the west is a low-rise commercial plaza and to the north is both residential neighbourhood and commercial development. To the east are residential subdivisions and to the south commercial development. Figures 5 & 6: (above) View of streetscape looking northwards towards subject lands; (below) View looking southwards adjacent to subject lands (Source: Google Earth Pro and MHBC, 2019). Decemberiz, 2022 MHBC 111 Page 16 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.0 Policy and Legislation Framework 3.1 The Planning Act The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 1.8 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, ... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 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. December 12, 2022 MHBC 112 Page 17 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario The PPS defines the following terms Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. Built Heritage Resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers. Protected Heritage Property: means 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. This report evaluates the proposed development on subject land to determine cultural heritage value or interest and overall significance. 3.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 19go, c.o.18 remains the guiding legislation forthe conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This HIA has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub -criteria. 3.4 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: 3. G Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage resources are the inheritance of natural and cultural assets that give people a sense of place, community and personal identity. Continuity with the past promotes creativity and cultural diversity. The region has a rich and diverse heritage, December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 1.3 Page 18 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario including distinctive cultures, traditions, festivals, artisans and craftspeople, landmarks, landscapes, properties, structures, burial sites, cemeteries, natural features and archaeological resources. These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3. G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3. G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy ,3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3. G.16 the Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy ,3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3. G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) Historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; (c) Description of the proposed development or site alteration; (d) Assessment of development or site alteration impacts; (E) Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (f) Schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) A summary statement and conservation recommendations. December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 14 Page 19 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3. G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by. (a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; (b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and (c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3. G. 19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with PolicY3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: (a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and (b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3. G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. Section 12.C.1.19 states that in order to ensure conservation of the City's cultural heritage resources the City uses covenants and easements under the OHA as well as by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act. December 12, 2022 MHBC 115 Page 20 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario A Heritage Impact Assessment must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements outlined in the City's Terms of Reference for HIAs (Section 12.C.1.25). To ensure design/ integration of cultural heritage resources into development the City will prepare guidelines within an Urban Design Manual to conserve contextual value in areas in which the cultural heritage resources are located (Section 12.C.1.4.6). In addition to this, other policies are in place such as, 12. C.1.4.7. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. This report is written within the framework of these policies to ensure compliance as it relates to the proposed development on the subject property. 3.6 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014) The City of Kitchener completed a cultural heritage landscape study in December of 2014. This purpose of this study is defined as follows, "to provide a working inventory of the City of Kitchener's cultural heritage landscapes which will serve as a planning tool in the assessment and management of these resources as the community changes to evolve." The subject lands are not within an identified Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 16 Page 21 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.0 Historical Overview 4.1. Indigenous Communities The City of Kitchener is located on the Haldimand Tract, which on October 25, 1784, after the American Revolutionary War of Independence, was part of the 950, 000 acres granted to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. This grant was compensation for their role in the war and the loss of their traditional lands in New York (Wilfrid Laurier University, 202o). The City of Kitchener is included in the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishnawbe and Haudenosaunee peoples. The Haudenosaunee People also known as 'Six Nations' and 'Iroquois' were nations included in the Haudenosaunee Confederacy which originally included the Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Mohawk, and Seneca. The Tuscarora joined in 1722, constituting the 'Six Nations.' Most of the Neutral tribe disappeared due to being destroyed or forced out by the Seneca and Mohawk tribes of the Six Nations around 168o-1685 as well as diseases and colonization while the remaining membersjoined the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Wilfrid Laurier University, 2020). 4.2 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township In 1784, General Haldimand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Mississaugas (Bloomfield, 19). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River were granted to the Six Nations Indians by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. In November 1796, the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 of the Haldimand Tract. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the Lake) and in February 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for this block (McLaughlin, 21). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 9316o acres of land along with his business partners, James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield, 20). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes, 3). At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting out farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes, 5). December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 17 Page 22 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario In order to raise the £io,000 needed to purchase their prospective land holdings, the Pennsylvanian farmers, led by Sam Bricker and Daniel Erb, established an association to acquire the approximately 60,00o acres, later known as the German Company Tract (GCT). The deed for the land was finally granted to the German Company and its shareholders on 24 July 1805 (Eby N-3, 1978). After the arrival of the GCT shareholders, settlement in the GCT slowed. Many immigrants were unable to leave Europe during the Napoleonic War, and the War of 1812 in North America also prevented many settlers from relocating tojoin their relatives. By 3.815 the conflicts had ended, and settlement to the GCT began to increase, with additional Pennsylvania Mennonite settlers, German - based settlers, and later English, Irish and Scottish settlers. A number of settlers from England, Scotland and Ireland came to Waterloo Township by assisted immigration and colonization schemes (Bloomfield, 55). In 1816, the GCT lands and Beasley's Lower Block were incorporated into Waterloo Township, and in 1853 became part of Waterloo County. The GCT was a unique survey that was done in equal sized farmsteads in contrast to the surrounding lots and concessions. This survey pattern had a lasting influence on the township that resulted in an irregular network of roads which followed the contours of the land and avoided high quality agricultural land. Figure 7: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Bloomfield, Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 18 Page 23 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.3 Historical Overview of the Hamlet of Williamsburg In 1849, the Township of Waterloo was established which included the hamlet of Williamsburg which was situated within both the Histand3 Tract and the Bechtel Tract. The Histand Trace was purchased in 1804 by David Histand, an immigrant from Pennsylvania and was comprised of 726 acres of land. The Bechtel's Tract, which is immediately east of the Histand's Tract (Bloomfield, 404-405), was approximatelY3,15o acres in the south-central part of Block 2 bounded bythe Grand River and Block Line and sold to George Bechtel in 1800. The Heistand's tract was not subdivided into numbered lots and remained unsettled until a few decades after its purchase (Bloomfield, 404-405). In 1833, William Moyer laid out the hamlet that would become Williamsburg when it was established in 1837 (Waterloo Historical Society). By1844, a saw mill was erected by Abram Clemens and another in 1845 by William Moyer, the founder of the settlement (Waterloo Historical Society, 193-3). In 1867, the County of Waterloo Gazetteer and Directory stated that Williamsburg contains a large steam and water saw mill" (166). Over time, several historic buildings along Bechtel and Histand's Tract were removed. In 1966, Williamsburg is described as "-a little hamlet on the cross-roads, a few houses in the early days, many of them torn down but still the name lives on" (Helena Feasby, Tweedsmuir Book 4, 1966). In 1989, a mid _191h century rubble stone blacksmith shop situated on the north-west corner of Bleams and Westmount road east owned by William Hacker that was notable building of the hamlet was demolished (MHBC, 2012). The last buildings within the former Williamsburg community include the former Williamsburg School S.S. 7 (designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and the dwelling on the subject property (see Figure 8). 3 Also known as the "Heistand's Tract" December 12, 2022 MHBC 19 Page 24 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 8- Identification of remaining buildings within the former hamlet of Williamsburg in 1966; red circles indicate locations of remaining buildings of Williamsburg (Source: Tweedsmuir Histories, Grace Schmidt Room, Kitchener Public Library). 4.4 Historical Overview of the Subject Lands The subject property was considered to be within an urban' area within the hamlet of Williamsburg (part oft he Bechtel Tract) in historical cartography from 1.861 and 1881.(see Figures 9 & 1.o). The size and layout of the subject property remained the same between 1.861. and 1.881., however, has since been altered. In 1.861., the George Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo identifies the subject property with the initials "C.H." Records associate this property with Conrad Hett and the adjacent property with his father Jost John Hett (Waterloo Generations). By1.851., Conrad emigrated from Darmstadt, Germanyto Wellesley Township, Waterloo Countywith his parents and sibling Henry. Conrad's father was identified in the 1.851. census as a farmer' born in Germany (Library and Archives Canada). In August of 1.855, Conrad married Maria Elizabeth Holz in Kitchener (then Berlin) and the following yeartheir daughter Catherine was identified as being born in Williamsburg, Ontario (Waterloo Generations). It is presumed that following their marriage, they settled in the hamlet of Williamsburg and constructed the existing dwelling on-site. There is an entry in the land registrythat Conrad Hett purchased the property in January of 1858 for 6 acres, however, records indicate he was residing in Williamsburg prior to this date (MHBC, 2012). Conrad continued to be identified as residing in Williamsburg in 1.858 (his daughter Anna Maria is identified as being born this year in Williamsburg). December 12, 2022 MHBC 120 Page 25 of 511 N h1. :,e c tce r � /iti.�cFerl l�,Har VV A _ PJ l+osner Figure 8- Identification of remaining buildings within the former hamlet of Williamsburg in 1966; red circles indicate locations of remaining buildings of Williamsburg (Source: Tweedsmuir Histories, Grace Schmidt Room, Kitchener Public Library). 4.4 Historical Overview of the Subject Lands The subject property was considered to be within an urban' area within the hamlet of Williamsburg (part oft he Bechtel Tract) in historical cartography from 1.861 and 1881.(see Figures 9 & 1.o). The size and layout of the subject property remained the same between 1.861. and 1.881., however, has since been altered. In 1.861., the George Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo identifies the subject property with the initials "C.H." Records associate this property with Conrad Hett and the adjacent property with his father Jost John Hett (Waterloo Generations). By1.851., Conrad emigrated from Darmstadt, Germanyto Wellesley Township, Waterloo Countywith his parents and sibling Henry. Conrad's father was identified in the 1.851. census as a farmer' born in Germany (Library and Archives Canada). In August of 1.855, Conrad married Maria Elizabeth Holz in Kitchener (then Berlin) and the following yeartheir daughter Catherine was identified as being born in Williamsburg, Ontario (Waterloo Generations). It is presumed that following their marriage, they settled in the hamlet of Williamsburg and constructed the existing dwelling on-site. There is an entry in the land registrythat Conrad Hett purchased the property in January of 1858 for 6 acres, however, records indicate he was residing in Williamsburg prior to this date (MHBC, 2012). Conrad continued to be identified as residing in Williamsburg in 1.858 (his daughter Anna Maria is identified as being born this year in Williamsburg). December 12, 2022 MHBC 120 Page 25 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario In the 1861 census, he was identified as a "spinning wheel maker" with a family of five living in a one and half storey plank house in Williamsburg. The agricultural census of Waterloo Township in the same year identifies that Conrad's spinning wheel business was worth $5oo.00 capital, zoo feet of lumber and it states that he "works bythe Haus" (MHBC, 2012). The Hett Family is not formally registered on title until 1862 when the land (2.4 acres) was purchased from William Moyer etux (LRO) (136 Folio 435, instrument number 2725). By 1867, however, the Hett Family moved to Bentinck, Grey South, Ontario and the property was owned by John Weber (although the purchase of the property was not registered until June of 1.866 for $400.00) (LRO). In the 1.867 tax assessment lists the property as including 7.5 acres of land valued at $375.00 and living on the property was John Weber and his family of 1o. The 1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo County demonstrates that there were buildings on the subject property. The property remained under the ownership of the Weber family until 1913. There were several owners following the Weber Family including; D. Detzler, J. Reist and J. Golbeck (Tweedsmuir Histories). In 1958, the property was granted to John Scherl who is identified in Voter's Lists as a 'labourer'and'maintenance'; according to Karen, his daughter, he was skilled at carpentry and had renovated the house (LRO, Library and Archives Canada, and Scherl, 2021). Throughout the years the property had included small-scale farming (a few hogs and sheep according to tax assessments) and an orchard. Historical aerial photography demonstrates that the dwelling was relocated to facilitate the widening of Fischer -Hallman Road in the latter half of the tot" century. Upon relocating the existing house, the foundation was removed and a new concrete foundation constructed as well as a rear addition. In 1999, John Scherl passed away and the property remained under ownership of his wife, Anna, and daughter, Karen, until its most recent purchase (Kitchener Waterloo Record). In 2o18, the barn associated with the property was removed and replaced with a contemporary outbuilding to the north of the existing house. A small outbuilding to the south of the existing house was also removed. Figures 9-16 review the evolution of the property within the context Williamsburg and the surrounding area. December 12, 2022 MHBC 121 Page 26 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 40'11"'ns. Abra1 1861 Tremaine Map LEGEND of Waterloo County j _I Subject Lands Building Footprints 1198 Fischer -Hallman Rd City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo k-7 4 Y* , A �t* f Z ,911 DATE: November2022 SCALE: 1:7,500 JV FILE: Y325Y DRAWN: LC K�vszsv-oeEariEio-e�EnMs aoaowcvoanies, raEMniue mna.owc Figure 9- Map figure identifying the location of the subject property within the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County (Source: MHBC and Ontario Historical County Maps Project, 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 122 Page 27 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario W %a1 I/1l: 1881 Illustrated LEGEND DATE: November2022 Historical Atlas of j_' _'I Subject Lands Waterloo & Building Footprints Wellington SCALE: 1:10,000 0 Counties, Ontario FILE: Y325Y DRAWN: LC 1198 Fischer -Hallman Rd City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo Figure 10- Map figure identifying the location of the subject property within the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County (Source: MHBC and Ontario Historical County Maps Project, 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 1 23 Page 28 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1946 Aerial Photo LEGEND j! _i Subject Lands 1198 FiseherAallman Rd City ofK dhener Regmof Watedco DATE: Nm*mberfil22 scaLE- IA,750 I I I FILE= Y325Y DRAYM, LC Figure 11- Map figure identifying the location of the subject property in a 1946 aerial photograph (Source: MHBC and university of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 124 Page 29 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario a cn E bj �. p �r✓en s � j3p{flcr � W --TT vhv, s er '^ `� H. tun Qzrt R„b.. ri f 1 < C-{.-dori.Er1wa n �{nC�rd�'rn 5 +rtk�e D br, It IA.11y , n na u.Idlayd de i 13 ,t6lo C�Pd CS«ky, j j�' fih,6,d.a rih ss=I � Yn S�t6i le wP=141e. $rtnss ler E�Y ra � (,JpVt<r E� w c�fLl Ner �cc iFer - i ,6e Frxhk 1a ci"n. Clt Hclt,. LL<r c C-,Q14Vrn� Crn n x i F, M Sc- R i,x Murl,n siavcr 1"I<rb,. k.�RskEr=;v<<A, �-"� G _ S�aP Ober j Isw t F W lliuv G- C l ray `3=.1 r EI.'43 i sex �r ssl<r jtlL<t f{bc+F I sna<r 1u k i d.leAl LAdol k- Her . lC {ski �y 3 s yWS` r.,an-t0.rencrr�; nv. �Ys.°y Vv Fl OC —A t VAIs S �¢Y �rT buy YYIrS R. Truss ler L3��kir- �� j3p`k:r I 1 I Oscar Y S�Ixrne G � Jon T r� :s 4er 5ylvar s I t? kr. ` Isar i P� 6- fYl*s [, l.are nce I.e Liman F1w er ? k..r-F rn.mv Brckzr J Skfiil.r AI fr.d .l� hn L4xr:.. r�..r E: 0.,�<r Cr✓n l Zr+n ��¢�'ilcr axckcr �.Y0.v,srn + i 4nrr, t{,11,n.4 A l$ $t'rnws bw rgyy+• tilS. vi n'a, i Viii iaxns�u�rg Figure 12- Map drawn by Agnes Reist for the Tweedsmuir Histories depicting land ownership in Plain's and Williamsburg area in 1955; red box identifies subject property (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library). December 12, 2022 MHBC 125 Page 30 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Da oa Mrz. S..tder sr«I, Bca.cic e.r �r+yh�nr d UVo 4�-Yn st lri�"'J' Mrs Gardon . s,;W� x nom. r �y N, m c._rtl cd- Mussel nn n yk J1 �6ts.r f Irvin Ankonf ra.,k tN.=ber 04ar..,�1� iirchmc cL w� 1 I x �{z�be.rr� [sa.-�S. ' Ea,wa.zt Er; n •si: �k6�:� --;� i1'an9 s-�e� !'.obt, .Nb lk�r s K �M. A Sant] �kl ytti�,Y�r,� Ra��rt T-rUss r, N� wr�i �I,f F�td I r� x A1hz.f V\ie�Ucr 31. ; R ,l • s,;W� x r �y N, m c._rtl cd- Mussel nn n yk J1 �6ts.r f Irvin Ankonf ra.,k tN.=ber 04ar..,�1� Jnhn— x �{z�be.rr� jt e�kke. . ArM ,i rn�ssel rnvn Hart --;� Ll t'C �,cr ITlfi - -6 �M. A a51_1Al —� r A! 1 -lo r t W' Ifz r. rD'e cqs � r A Clarence 1r v�r:L JI 16�.�xr j�D 2: r C�k3�r _kw /�' er uz � cd U er•a `C�. 5 Wa11Pr t .n all NA t (`. ICiter,� �t?,nc i3<x.kd• yp* S � 4h 4n $esker nJloy� I+ il2sr_i `KL�1, iruS5ltf 5 R [la enc CVCr y,. 13sk1Y ! rs 1 AL\L tr•na.r, LLrr� !=1 Me•P �tst6 A n a re vv �3 pr�.i'r (,ji' y �YLu'n �.1a rt nllmut Ili n n I�T�IC'[' Mnr.�an A. 1 _4p rr_i{.. �,. h.a,.q•. K �li-L1wn �� Al ��ei f f 1 )J / C� #t •• x Mat t f% 11 GC'+'Li c C C1� L,Ac u� tr or�jCA t1,111ma•t , Cay R WkVA r Figure 13- Map drawn by Agnes Reist for the Tweedsmuir Histories depicting land ownership in Plain's and Williamsburg area in 1965 (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, I(itchener Public Library). December 12, 2022 MHBC 126 Page 31 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario r. wo 4 1963 Aerial Photo LEGEND Subject Lands 1198 Fischer-3tlman Rd City of Kitchener Regicn of W.ateifco ime DATE_ NoymbeF SCALE: 1.1,7513 / FILE Y325Y DRAWN: LC Figure 14- Map figure identifying the location of the subject property in a 1963 aerial photograph (Source: MHBC and university of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 127 Page 32 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario our, O',IR R OF KirckCldkR C- U Wv111 'j•_ iar. 1�1^`elF- w 5�4iools -Y —� tJ D+Aan eTA C31 et�rr: 1951 slo�trin � o� I{nsl,c. �s F•arc Sfi � y y J GUS ! S. C ♦ I f � Y j r i nQfii�ry� rv, w e- _---- - >h4 r k 1 �r x eti`a�l J ,�, ]�gr►rl i n 9 �j��nde.SS J� Figure 15- Map drawn for the Tweedsmuir Histories depicting land ownership in Plain's and Williamsburg area in 1981 (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, I(itchener Public Library). December 12, 2022 MHBC 128 Page 33 of 511 `AY 1�1^`elF- nQfii�ry� rv, w e- _---- - >h4 r k 1 �r x eti`a�l J ,�, ]�gr►rl i n 9 �j��nde.SS J� Figure 15- Map drawn for the Tweedsmuir Histories depicting land ownership in Plain's and Williamsburg area in 1981 (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, I(itchener Public Library). December 12, 2022 MHBC 128 Page 33 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 16- Aerial showing context of Williamsburg and surrounding area in 2022 (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022). December 12, zozz MHBC 129 Page 34 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5 . 0 Description of Cultural Heritage Resources 5.1 Introduction A site visit was completed on Wednesday, March 24th, 2021 by MHBC to review the existing buildings, structures and landscape features on-site. An additional site visit was completed on July 21, 2022 by Nick Lawler of Tacoma Engineers to review the condition of the existing dwelling on- site. 0 4P Building 2 t F 1 Buildin 1 s g *'V- F � Figure IT View of subject lands identifying buildings and structures on-site. December 12, 2022 MHBC 130 Page 35 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.2 Description of Potential Built Heritage Building No.1- Dwelling The existing one and half storey dwelling on-site includes a medium -pitched gabled roof (clad in asphalt shingles) with returning eavesand a rear one storey addition (summer kitchen). The dwelling is approximately 13 metres by 8 metres in dimensions. The front fagade has two symmetrical windows on either side, however, it appears that the original centred doorway has been infilled. There is a chimney on the northwest side of the house. The entire building is clad in white stucco. Figures 18-20: (above left) View of the north elevation of the dwelling; (above right) View of the south elevation of the house including rear wing; (below left) Detailed view of front fagade; (below right) Detailed view of foundation (concrete) (MHBC, 2022). Building No. 2- Outbuilding There is a one and half storey outbuilding clad in metal siding with a low-pitched gabled roof. The outbuilding was constructed in 2oi8 in replacement of a barn. December 12, 2022 MHBC 13.1 Page 36 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 21: View of outbuilding on-site looking north-east (MHBC, 2022). 5.3 Existing Conditions A site visit was completed on July 21, 2022 by Nick Lawler of Tacoma Engineers (member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals) to complete a structural heritage assessment (see Appendix `C'). Please note, a Building Condition Assessment was not completed on Building No.2 (outbuilding) as it was recently constructed and in excellent condition. The following provides a review of the observations completed as part of the assessment particular to Building No.i (dwelling): • The dwelling is constructed as a typical mid-igth century home, constructed with wood framing, supported on exterior masonry walls. The exterior walls have been covered with a render, or parge, which has been painted white. The age of the render is unknown, but appears to be from the early loth century, as it does not contain drainage planes, which are typical of modern applications of this type of covering. • Framing in the living area was mostly covered with finishes and was not accessible for view. The framing wasvisible in some attic areas, which had been left unfinished. The framing was found to be conventional wood framed construction. The sheathing was found to be early gypsum wall board, indicating that the original lathe and plaster had been removed. • The home contains a rear addition, which was originally used as a summer kitchen. The rear addition also contains a covered porch, which was reported to have been constructed by the most recent occupant. December 12, 2022 MHBC 132 Page 37 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.4 Heritage Integrity Although the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/o6 does not consider the integrity of a resource or its physical condition, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism advises on Integrity (Page 26) and Physical Condition of properties (Page 27) in part of Section 4, Municipal Criteria of the Heritage Property Evaluation document of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. In the matter of integrity the Guide notes that: A cultural heritage property does not need to be in original condition. Few survive without alterations on the long journey between their date of origin and today. Integrity is a question of whether the surviving physical features (heritage attributes) continue to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. Cultural heritage value or interest may be intertwined with location or an association with another structure or environment. If these have been removed, the integrity of the property may be seriously diminished. Similarly, removal of historically significant materials, or extensive reworking of the original craftsmanship, would warrant an assessment of the integrity. The following provides a review of the integrity of the property based on observations on-site, historical documentation and a building condition assessment that was completed by a heritage engineer. A review of the integrity of the exterior form indicates that the original massing and scale of the existing building is similar to former dwellings of Williamsburg. The figures below provide a comparative analysis of architecture within Williamsburg (courtesy of the Grace Schmidt Room) and the existing dwelling on-site. An example of a building since removed is the former board and batten house of Jacob Frey torn down in the 2.970s "just south of the Williamsburg Corner" which had the same massing, scale and general form of the existing building on the subject property as well as a former Becker farmhouse (Hewitt, i99o, Tweedsmuir Family Farm Histories) (see Figures 22-24 on the following page). December 12, 2022 MHBC 133 Page 38 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario TI=E JACOB FREY HCKF < .'a CLOSE-rrp OF THE -C. :H THE HOUSE on FARM NMSER 2 Figures 22-24-: (above) Jacob Frey House in Williamsburg demolished 1970s formerly located at south-west corner of Fischer -Hallman Road and Bleams Road (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library); (below left) Becker Farmhouse in Williamsburg formerly located on the north-west corner of Fischer -Hallman and Bleams Road (Source: Helena Feasby Tweedsmuir Histories courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library); (below right) View of outbuilding on-site looking north-east (MHBC, 2022). A site visit was completed on Wednesday, March 24th, 2021 by MHBC to further examine the dwelling's heritage integrity. Observations made during the site visit both of the exterior and the interior of the dwelling determined the following as it relates to heritage integrity: • The dwelling lost its original foundation when it was relocated to allow for the widening of Fischer -Hallman Road in the latter part of the 20th century (confirmed by observations made in the basement of the house). • The original form and scale of the dwelling is present although alterations have been made to the original exterior. The house is clad in stucco potentially over wood frame building. There was also an addition made to the rear of the house upon relocation. December 12, 2022 MHBC 134 Page 39 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario The central door opening on the front elevation appears to have been infiIled and covered by the stucco render; and, There have been alterations to the interior of the house including reworking of window sills/ frames, replacement of flooring and addition to the rear of the house. There were some cut nails with wrought heads present in timber around the sill plate that appears to have been included in the relocation (this would indicate pre -1867 construction for original building). A site visit was completed on July 21, 2022 by Nick Lawler of Tacoma Engineers (member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals) to complete a structural heritage assessment (see Figure 22). The following provides a review of the building as it relates to heritage integrity: The interior of the home has been heavily modified from the date of original construction. The family of the previous occupant was present during our review. It was disclosed that the home was renovated back the original studs in the mid -loth century, likely to provide additional insulation value, and other modern improvements. As such, there is little to no historic fabric remaining on the interior of the home. • The home was found to be in fair condition, with no observed damage that would cause concern for building stability. However, no significant structural features were noted that would make the construction of the home historically significant. The Cultural Heritage Assessment Overview (2012) noted that `vertical plank construction may be found within the residence at 1198 Fischer -Hallman upon further investigation" (2-10). Based on this comment, the following was concluded by the heritage engineer: "The attic space the stud walls were partially exposed. The studs were conventional studs, and certainly not planks" (Lawler, 2022) (see Figure 25). Therefore, it has been determined that the house is not plank construction which appears in the 1861 census. Based on the massing, scale and roofline, the house is indicative of the mid 191h century, however, may have been wrongfully identified as'plank' (which only appears in the 1861 census). December 12, 2022 MHBC 135 Page 40 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 25: Photograph of interior composition of the house showing conventional studs (Tacoma Engineers Ltd., 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 136 Page 41 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario In summary, although the existing dwelling dates from the mid-i9t" century, several alterations have been made to the building that have seriously compromised the integrity of its original features and therein ability to inform the community of an earlier period of time. The relocation of the dwelling and loss of the original foundation in addition to the extensive renovations completed in the latter half of the tot" century, which have removed original building fabric, and more importantly do not appearto be reversible, have resulted in the significant loss of heritage integrity. December 12, 2022 MHBC 137 Page 42 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.5 Landscape Features Property includes mature vegetation including: Norway Spruce, Sugar Maple, Manitoba Maple, Blue Spruce and deciduous shrubs and some fence lines. There is the remains of a small orchard for Building no.z (outbuilding). The subject lands including open green space interspersed with sporadic vegetation and rolling hills typical of rural topography. Figures 26- 28-: (above) View of landscaping looking north-east; (middle) View of landscaping looking south- east at the intersection of Fischer -Hallman Road and Rockwood Road; (below) View of landscaping looking southwards from Rockwood Road Google Earth Pro, 2022). December 12, 2022 MHBC 138 Page 43 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6 . 0 Evaluation of Cultura Resources 6.1 Introduction Heritage The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of the cultural heritage value of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/66, which are the legislated criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). These criteria are related to design/physical, historical/associative and contextual values as follows: 1. The property has design or physical value because it: a. Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, b. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or c. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, a. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, b. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or c. 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, a. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, b. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or c. Is a landmark. December 12, 2022 MHBC 139 Page 44 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6.2 Evaluation of 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, "The Hett Farmstead" Based on the prescribed Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, it has been determined that the property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) for its physical/ design value, historical/ associative and contextual value as follows: Physical/Design Value: The property includes a dwelling constructed circa 1855 which is representative of the Ontario farmhouse (also known as the 'Loyalist Ontario Home') which includes the one and half storey massing, rectangularfloor plan (limited to approximately loosgft) symmetrical frontfagade and low- pitched gable roof with returning eaves. Historical Associative Value: After reviewing the chain of title of the property, it was determined that there are no associations with previous owners of the property that would be particularly significant to the community. The builder of the home likely would have been a member of the Hett Family, however, this cannot be confirmed. Contextual Value The development/ redevelopment of land surrounding the property and the removal of historic buildings on the property (i.e. barn, outbuildings) have significantly altered the context of the property. Furthermore, the dwelling was relocated and no longer in its original location. The property is, however, historically linked to its surrounding and is one of the remaining buildings within the former hamlet of Williamsburg from this era (the last buildings within the former Williamsburg community include: the former Williamsburg School S.S. 7 (designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and the dwelling on the subject property). Heritage Attributes: • Overall scale and massing of house; • Original low-pitched, gabled roofline with returning eaves; • Remaining original door and window openings; and, • Proximity to the intersection of Bleams and Fischer -Hallman Road which was the primary intersection of the Williamsburg community (formerly known locally as "Williamsburg Corner"). December 12, 2022 MHBC 140 Page 45 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table 1.0- Ontario Regulation 9/06 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, "The Hett Farmstead" i. Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, Yes. expression, material or construction method ii. Displays high degree of No. craftsmanship or artistic merit _ iii. Demonstrates high degree of No. technical or scientific achievement iv. Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, No. organization, institution that is significant V. Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an No. understanding of a community or culture vi. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, No. builder, designer, or theorist who is sienificant to the communitv. vii. Important in defining, maintaining No. or supporting the character of an area viii. Physically, functionally, visually, or Yes. historically linked to its surroundings ix. Is a landmark No. 6.3 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property includes a dwelling constructed circa 1.855 which is representative of the Ontario Farmhouse (or referred to as the Loyalist Ontario Home). The building is the last remaining dwelling from the former hamlet of Williamsburg and is significant to the community as little else survives to illustrate aspects of the Williamsburg history. The property is historically linked to its surrounding. December 12, 2022 MHBC 141 Page 46 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Although the property meets the prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/o6, it is not recommended that this property be a candidate for designation under the OHA due to the significant loss of heritage integrity which negates the efforts for long-term conservation. December 12, 2022 MHBC 142 Page 47 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 0 Description of Proposed Development e proposed redevelopment includes approximate lY42.2. multiple residential units consisting of two 2.4 -storey point towers on a 3 storey podium, along Fischer -Hallman Road; the podium includes commercial uses at grade along Fischer -Hallman Road with above -grade structured parking behind the commercial uses. Also, there are 96 stacked townhouse units proposed in 6 buildings; these stacked townhouses are centered on a central amenity area. Additionally, there are 52., 3 -storey cluster townhouse dwellings framing Rockwood Road and the eastern property boundary. Access to the site is off of Rockwood Road and Bleams Road. A total of 482. parking spaces are proposed with an overall parking ratio of 2..2.7 spaces per unit (see Figure 26 and Appendix `B'). ' R®sldenliol ROCKWOOD RD a, BLEAMS RID (Regional Road 56) Figure 29: Proposed site plan for proposed development (MHBC, November 10, 2022) December 12, 2022 MHBC 143 Page 48 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 80olmpacts Analysis 8.1 Classifications of Impacts The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long-term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post - construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. According to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, the following constitutes negative impacts which may result from a proposed development: • Demolition of any, or part of any, heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of a building; • Shadows created that obscure heritage attributes or change the viability of the associated cultural heritage landscape; • Isolation of a heritage resource or part thereof from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Obstruction of significant identified views or vistas of, within, or from individual cultural heritage resources, • A change in land use where the change affects the property's cultural heritage value; and • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. December 12, 2022 MHBC 144 Page 49 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 8.2 Impact Analysis for 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, The Hett Farmstead" The following Table s.o analyzes potential adverse impacts to the heritage attributes identified forth e subject lands in Section 5.o of this report as a result of the proposed development. Table 2.0 Impacts to Existing Dwelling at 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road Impact Level of Impact Analysis (Unknown, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or _ Major) Destruction or Alteration of Moderate. The proposed development will remove all Heritage Attributes Shadows Isolation I N/A Direct or Indirect Obstruction N/A of View A Change in Land Use N/A Land Disturbances N/A identify heritage attributes of the property, however, the building has lost a significant of its heritage integrity. See sub -section 8.3.1. 8. 3.1 Impact of Destruction The proposed development will remove all identified heritage attributes of the property, however, these attributes are limited as the dwelling has undergone several alterations that have seriously compromised the integrity of its original features. Decemberiz, 2022 MHBC 145 Page 50 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9 . 0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures 9.1 Alternative Development Approaches When an adverse impact is identified, it is required by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism4 that alternative development approaches be explored; this was also requested by the City of Kitchener Term's of Reference. The following provides an analysis of development options. i. Preservation- this option would require the least intervention by protecting and maintaining the existing dwelling on-site. Since there are few heritage attributes remaining, this option is not recommended for the preservation intervention. 2. Restoration- this option would result in the restoration of the dwelling to its earlier representation, however, the degree of non-reversible renovations and lack of documentation of the original building limits any potential for restoration and therefore, it not a strong candidate for restoration. 3. Rehabilitation- this option would result in the rehabilitation of the dwelling for a continued or new use by repairing and replacing minor features. New additions and/ or alterations would likely be necessary. The dwelling has been altered significantly as mentioned above, thatthere are limited minorfeaturesto be repaired and replacement would remove all value. Therefore, rehabilitation is not recommended. 4. Relocation- this option would result in the relocation of on-site or off-site, however, since the building has lost its integrity, it challenges the rationale for relocation. Relocation off-site would dissociate it from its historical context. In summary, although there is a moderate adverse impact associated with the removal of the remaining heritage attributes, re -development could be supported if the following mitigation measures in sub -section 9.2 were implemented. 4 Formerly the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries December 12, 2022 MHBC 146 Page 51 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9.2 Mitigation Measures If development proceeds as proposed the following mitigation measure is recommended: • Completion of an Interpretation Plan that acknowledges the historical/ associative and historical contextual value of the property. If any artifacts or records are identified during deconstruction, the heritage consultant acting on behalf of the owner, should contactthe necessary parties (i.e. Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum) to inquire if they meet the scope of the collection. As the proposal includes the removal of the dwelling, there are no applicable conservation measures. December 12, 2022 MHBC 147 Page 52 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture ("MHBC") was retained to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment for 1198 Fischer -Hallman Roads, Kitchener, Ontario based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City outlined in Appendix `D' of this report. In conclusion, the subject property has significant Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) for its physical/design value and contextual values. The following provides the Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: The property includes a dwelling constructed circa 1855 which is representative of the Ontario Farmhouse (orreferred to as the Loyalist Ontario Home) and is likely the last remaining dwelling from the former hamlet of Williamsburg. The property is historically linked to its surrounding. A moderate impact of destruction has been identified as the identified heritage attributes will all be removed. Alternative development options were explored, however, due to the extensive loss of heritage integrity, it is recommended that the existing dwelling be removed on the basis that the following will be completed: • Completion of an Interpretation Plan that acknowledges the historical contextual value of the property. If any artifacts or records are identified during demolition, the heritage consultant acting on behalf of the owner, should contact the necessary parties (i.e. Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum) to inquire if they meet the scope of the collection. 5 The property was formerly known as 1198 Westmount Road. December 12, 2022 MHBC 148 Page 53 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario 11.0 Bibliography Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through Two Centuries. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical Society, 1995 Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside,19go. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1874 to the Present. Fitz henry and Whiteside,19go. Gazetteer and Directory of the Countyof Waterloo. Toronto: Irwin & Burnham Publishers, 1867. Corporation of the City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). Corporation of the City of Kitchener. Cultural Heritage Landscapes. December 2014 (PDF). Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. Feasby, Helena. " Becker", "Heistrand's Tract", "John Sherl Barn", "Jacob Frey Home". Tweedsmuireook 2: Family and Farm Histories. Courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library. Feasby, Helena. "Williamsburg". Tweedsmuir Book 4: Schools, Churches Sports. Courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library. Johnston, Mary A. "The Life and Times of Jean Margaret Steckle, PhD, 1929-2003". Waterloo Historical Society. Volume 91, 2003, p 5-6. Glaeser, Adolph, Mayor George Gruestzner, John Klein, Ezra Kraft, Ludovika Isabella Lang, Jacob Mohr, Joseph Mueller, Revered Andrew Spetz, Albert Tuerk. Berlin Today 18o6-1go6 Official Souvenir. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library, S1420. Google Maps & Google Earth Pro, 2022. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County. An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, Zoog. December 12, 2022 MHBC 149 Page 54 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Kitchener Waterloo Record. Obituary of John Scherl. December 4, 3.999. (ancestry.com) Land Registry Office. LRO #58, Kitchener Plan 1483, pg -20-25 & Waterloo Book 3.B pg 229-233. Lawler, Nick. Interview conducted by Rachel Redshaw. November 24, 2022 (via email). Library and Archives Canada. Census of Canada, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 19o1, 1911, 1921. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Library and Archives Canada. Library and Archives Canada. Canada Voter's List 1935-1980. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Library and Archives Canada. McLaughlin, Kenneth & John English. Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 3.996. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. 1198 Fischer Hallman Road, Cultural Assessment Overview. 2012 (PDF). MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Site Plan, March, 2022. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2oo6. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2oo6. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener. Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 3.979 n/a. Busy Berlin, Jubilee Souvenir. 3.897. Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Act 2005, R.S.O. 3.99o, c. o.3.8 Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/c)ooi.8. Ontario Ministry of Affairs and Housing. Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 203.4. S.3 the Ontario Planning Act R.S.O 3.996. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Pa(ie23.S.aspx Ontario Tax Assessment Rolls, 3.834-3.899. Search Results - Conrad Hett • FamilySearch Region of Waterloo GIS Locator, 2o3.8. December 1z, 2022 MHBC I 5o Page 55 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Scherl, Karen. Interview conducted by Rachel Redshaw. 24 March, 2021 (in person). Tacoma Engineers Ltd. Structural Report: Heritage Assessment -1198 Fischer -Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario. September 29, 2022. (PDF). Waterloo Historical Society. Waterloo Historical5ocietyAnnual Report. Volume III, 1923-1927. Courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library. Waterloo Generations. "Family Surname Search." http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/searchform.php . Accessed February 14, 2022. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. Vandrop, Gerard Francis. A Survey of the Place Names of Waterloo County. Department of Geography, University College, University of Western Ontario, 3.962. Courtesy of the GSR, Kitchener Public Library. MAPS Aerial photograph of subject lands of 193o,1945, 3.955 and 1963. KMZ Files. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. C.M. Hopkins. "Map of the Town of Berlin, Waterloo County." 1879. Scale unknown. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. City of Kitchener. Map g of the Secondary Plan. City of Kitchener's Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). City of Kitchener. Aerial and zoning map forthe subject lands. City of Kitchener Interactive E -map, 2022. Government of Canada. "Waterloo County: Historical Canadian County Atlas." 1881. Scale not given. McGill University Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University (Digital). http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/CountyAtlas/searchmapframes.php Voght, G.H. "Berlin, Province of Ontario." 1875. Lithograph. Published in in 3.989 by the City of Kitchener L.A.C.A.C. with the Kitchener Public Library. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. December 12, 2022 MHBC 151 Page 56 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix A -Map of Subject Lands December 12, 2022 MHBC 152 Page 57 of 511 P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MHBC ARCHITDECTURE 900-540 RlNGFMAN:. I.F'lTPl n2O',. h2R 3X9 P: 519.576.3650 F. 5.9.57—D, �! LA N.COM -Z �� z_Q�==z —w j- zoow � zz�a z= QmavL_ Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix B -Site Plan December 12, 2022 MHBC 1.53 Page 60 of 511 (-Dzww= ��'_ z_a' vE EoE o<� Z�o� U a�dSQ^ 1�U m m 2 aE X o - lb 8 = n N b m l�vv v SI m_m 7 of 0 u) > - m -Y av- ~mooo �E wind ink _ a-BQ i. usl _ Ove a rl O o N a 3 a i LL i - __- - N rc J= a y o- y Krc`�yrc§- r� oma_"m rnrc�rcrc Fi ;�� a HALLMAN RC zZ - FISC (-Dzww= ��'_ z_a' - Ills Z�o� U a�dSQ^ 1�U 2 TAMVILLE CRES �I , o I� �I o II �I • I� �I • II Rim • I� ' � ��I ® o .ai i■ o000o mmmm nnmmn 000000 �� ' � � ■ ' Illi: ,", � : Ililii �I■ . 1 r. � ti IIII — 0 �o U) 0 QCcl::5: m II� O - s, 8 = n N b m l�vv v SI m_m 7 of 0 u) > - m -Y av- ~mooo wind ink _ a-BQ i. usl _ Ove a rl O y r� Fi HALLMAN RC - FISC Rei nal Road 58) ®® __ dLL> 0 m> W vi m m o E a oa>aa - Residential> Com ercial _ z� _ z z a - ° s LL W >-w Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix C -Tacoma Building Condition Report 2022) December 12, 2022 MHBC 154 Page 62 of 511 City of Kitchener PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM Project Address: 1198 Fischer Hallman Road Date of Meeting: July 7.2022 Application Type: Site Plan & ZBA/OPA Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: June 28, 2022 ❑X I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the following documents which have informed the comments below: • Pre -submission Consultation Application for 1198 Fischer Hallman Road dated April 1, 2022 • Concept Plans for the proposed development at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road • Cover Letter for the proposed development dated April 8, 2022 The proposed development includes the construction of: • Two (2) 14 -storey towers on a 3 storey podium along Fischer Hallman Road, or one (1) 12 -storey tower fronting on Fischer Hallman Road; • Ninety-six (96) stacked townhouse units in 6 buildings; • Fifty-one (51), 3 -storey cluster townhouse dwellings framing Rockwood Road and the eastern property boundary; and • A private Stormwater Management Pond along Bleams Road. There are two concepts proposed to achieve this redevelopment. This redevelopment proposal includes the demolition of the existing structures at 1198 Fischer Hallman Road. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 63 of 511 Heritage Status The subject property municipally addressed as 1198 Fischer Hallman Road is identified on the Heritage Kitchener Advisory Committee Inventory as a property of interest that is 'Under Review'. It is a 2 -storey residence with a gable roof, and also contains an addition on the rear elevation of the existing residence. The property also contains a barn towards the north-west side of the property. Heritage planning staff reached out the owner in 2008 to receive permission to access the property to complete a fulsome evaluation and take photographs of the exterior of the existing buildings. Permission to access the property were not granted at the time and therefore a fulsome assessment of the property could not be completed. A Cultural Heritage Assessment Overview was undertaken by MHBC Planning Ltd. in 2012 as part of the road widening of Fischer Hallman Road from Ottawa Street to Bleams Road, which was initiated by the Region of Waterloo. The Cultural Heritage Assessment assessed the subject property to determine if it has cultural heritage value according to the Ontario Regulation 9/06, and concluded that 1198 Fischer Hallman Road had both physical and associative values. However, further research and investigation was needed to fully determine its heritage significance. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decision of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS defines significant as resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people, and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. The City's Official Plan contains policies that require development to have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage resources into development. These policies also establish the requirement for the submission of studies, such as Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) and Conservation Plans (CP), as part of complete planning applications. The City's Official Plan Section 12.C.1.4 acknowledges that not all cultural heritage resources have been identified; a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required. The purpose of the HIA is twofold. First, the HIA will identify the heritage guidelines, principles and standards that will be used to guide the development of the site. Second, the HIA will be used to evaluate any impacts of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, and recommend mitigative measures to avoid or appropriately reduce impacts. These measures should be reflected in the design of the proposed development submitted to the City for consideration. As per Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' Heritage Toolkit publication Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, potential negative impacts to cultural heritage resources include, but are not limited to: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 64 of 511 • Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible with the historic fabric, appearance and context; • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; and • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to cultural heritage resources. Similarly, measures to mitigate potential impacts as referenced in Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry's Heritage Toolkit include: • Alternative development approaches; • Isolating development and site alteration from significant built heritage resources; • Design that harmonizes mass, setback, setting, and materials; • Limiting height and density; and • Allowing only compatible infill. The City of Kitchener's standard HIA terms of reference is attached to this record of pre -submission consultation. This terms of reference is guided by recognized federal and provincial documents, including: The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. In keeping with the Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of HIAs, the following key components will need to be addressed: • Historic research, site analysis and evaluation (e.g. integrity of the site, general condition of the building, etc.). • Identification of the significance of cultural heritage resources on the subject properties (design/physical value, historic/associative value, contextual value), including a listing of heritage attributes and if applicable the identification of significant views and vistas. Recommendations regarding which cultural heritage resources, heritage attributes and other features (such as maintenance of significant views) should be conserved in the context of development, and how such conservation should be approached. Recommendations are to be rationalized and based on established principles, standards and guidelines for heritage conservation. • Description of the planning applications, proposed interventions, and development. • Identification and measurement of impacts to cultural heritage resources located on the subject lands. Consideration should be given to potential impacts of any demolitions, alterations, new construction and site development. • Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods (to include preservation and/or integration of built heritage resources, adaptive re -use and other strategies). A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 65 of 511 • Identification of preferred and recommended conservation, mitigation or avoidance measures, together with appropriate implementation strategies (e.g. special policies, zoning regulations, site plan conditions, etc.). • Concluding value and summary statements. In addition, the following comments will need to be addressed:. • The general Standards and Guidelines recommend the conservation of heritage value. In particular, the standards say "do not remove, replace orsubstantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements." • At minimum, the negative impact in the Toolkit that will need to be evaluated, and then avoided or mitigated is destruction. • The HIA will need to evaluate alternatives to full demolition. • If the building(s) be listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In instances where relocation, removal, demolition or alteration to identified cultural heritage resources and attributes are recommended in the HIA, the heritage consultant must provide clear rationale and justification, and identify how the recommendations and conclusions confirm to recognized heritage standards, principles and practices. HIAs that are not completed to the satisfaction of the City may be subject to revision and resubmission, critique by peer review or a similar process to determine if the report meets recognized cultural heritage standards, principles and practices. In terms of process, a Heritage Impact Assessment that responds to the City's terms of reference and comments provided in the Record will be required with the submission of a complete Zoning By-law Amendment/Site Plan application. Where an HIA has identified a cultural heritage resource worthy of retention and conservation, a Conservation Plan (CP) will be required as part of a complete Site Plan application. A CP is a document that details how a cultural heritage resource will be conserved. The City has a standard CP terms of reference to guide the preparation of this document. In keeping with Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of CPs, at minimum the following key components will need to be addressed: • analysis of the cultural heritage resource, including documentation, identification of cultural heritage attributes, assessment of resource conditions and deficiencies; • short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures, interventions and implementation strategies including appropriate conservation principles and practices, methods and materials, and the qualifications of the contractors and trades involved in undertaking such work; • security and monitoring requirements, including measures to protect the resource/attributes during phases of construction or development; and, • subject to the phasing of the proposed development, cost estimates for maintenance and mitigation measures to address the conservation of identified heritage attributes A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 66 of 511 The submission and approval of a Conservation Plan may be waived by City staff in instances where a Heritage Impact Assessment recommending full demolition of a cultural heritage resource has been formally considered by the City and has been deemed acceptable (approved by the Director of Planning). In summary, the City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and potentially a Conservation Plan (CP) as part of complete planning applications. Heritage Planning staff look forward to working with you in the conservation of Kitchener's cultural heritage resources. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application —Zoning By-law Amendment: • Heritage Impact Assessment in accordance with the City's Terms of Reference and the City's Record of pre -submission consultation • Conservation Plan (if applicable) • Elevation Drawings 3. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application — Site Plan Application, including full Site Plan Approval: • Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 1198 Fischer Hallman Road • Conservation Plan (CP) for 1198 Fischer Hallman Road (if applicable) • Elevation Drawings • Any other special conditions of Site Plan Approval 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: City of Kitchener's HIA Terms of Reference (attached to this record) City of Kitchener's CP Terms of Reference (attached to this record) 5. Anticipated Fees: N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 67 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix D- Terms of Reference December 12, 2022 MHBC 155 Page 68 of 511 City of Kitchener Development Services Department - Planning Division Conservation Plan -Terms of Reference Introduction The following Terms of Reference shall be used to fulfill the condition regarding completion and approval of a Conservation Plan prior to the consideration of an application made under the Heritage or Planning Act. The Conservation Plan shall address how the cultural heritage resources and attributes as identified and described in an approved Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. A Conservation Plan is a document which identifies the conservation principles appropriate for the type of cultural heritage resource/attributes being conserved; provides detailed documentation of the resource and its heritage attributes; includes an assessment of current conditions and deficiencies; and recommends conservation measures and interventions in the short, medium and long term to ensure preservation of the property's cultural heritage significance. Policy Context Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement defines a built heritage resource as including resources listed by local jurisdictions. Significant is defined as resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Conserved is defined as meaning the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Conservation Plan Requirements • Present owner contact information for property proposed for development and/or alteration. • Identification of all cultural heritage resource(s) and a clear statement of their cultural heritage value and interest, including a bullet point list of their heritage attributes. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 69 of 511 • Identification of the conservation principles and guidelines to be applied for the type of heritage resource/attributes being conserved and the specific conservation work to be undertaken in order to repair, maintain and protect the heritage resources and attributes. These conservation principles and guidelines may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Building Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and, the Ontario Ministry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). • An assessment of the current condition of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. The Conservation Plan must identify the physical condition and integrity of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes, with a view toward making recommendations regarding appropriate repair and maintenance, in keeping with good conservation practice. • Identification of the short, medium and long term vision for the conservation of the heritage resources, and of the specific conservation measures to be undertaken in the short, medium, and long-term. Such measures shall describe the documentation, stabilization, repair, monitoring and maintenance strategies required to be undertaken for each phase, and shall reference the qualifications for anyone responsible for undertaking such work. This section may include, but is not be limited to, the following Short -Term Conservation Work Documentation (through detailed description and photographs) of heritage attributes proposed to be demolished, removed, salvaged or otherwise irreversibly damaged. Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to conserve heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further deterioration, damage and the potential loss of such attributes. monitoring strategy to protect the property from vandalism or fire (e.g. methodology for monitoring; frequency of monitoring; and process to address issues that arise through monitoring). Medium -Term Conservation Work • Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to heritage attributes as part of the proposed development and/or rehabilitation (to include demolition, removal and salvage of heritage attributes; the stabilization, repair and cleaning of heritage attributes; and the reconstruction or replacement of heritage attributes). Such work may be divided into phases. A City for Everyone Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community Page 70 of 511 Long -Term Conservation Work • Identification of a monitoring program addressing appropriate measures for the ongoing maintenance of the heritage resources and attributes, post developmentlrehabilitation. • Provide a recommended schedule for conservation work, inspections, monitoring, maintenances and phases (short, medium, and long-term). • The Conservation Plan must include a cost estimate of the conservation work to be undertaken in the short-term to heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further damage and deterioration. Such cost estimate must be prepared by a qualified individual or consultant. In order to ensure implementation of the Conservation Plan, the City may require the owner to post a Letter of Credit equal to the value of the short-term conservation work as a condition of the approval of the subject application. • The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Conservation Plan shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Approval Process Five hard copies of the Conservation Plan and one digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. The Conservation Plan will be reviewed by Heritage Planning staff and a recommendation will be made to the Director of Planning. Approval of the Conservation Plan by the Director of Planning is required prior to issuance of approval of the application. Approval of the Conservation Plan may result in the establishment of development related legal agreements or conditions of development approval. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 71 of 511 City of Kitchener Development Services Department - Planning Division Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 1.0 Backqround A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future repair, alteration or development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. 2.0 Heritaae Imnact Assessment Reauirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development, alteration or proposed repair. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -application meeting, followed by written notification. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development andlor site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 72 of 511 The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservationlconservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. 2.7 A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2.8 Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscapelneighbourhood context. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 73 of 511 any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended_ ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9106. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9106 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 5.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and digital copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one digital copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 74 of 511 the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 75 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 11_98 Fischer -Hallman Road, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix E- Curricula Vitae December 12, 2022 MHBC 156 Page 76 of 511 EDUCATION 2oo6 Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo 1.998 Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo 1.998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2oo9, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1.997. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans Stouffeville Heritage Conservation District Study Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study & Plan, Chatham Kent, Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka Lakes Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans Town of Aurora Municipal Heritage Register Update City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan Page 77 of 511 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Evaluations Morningstar Mill, St Catherines MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin Designation of St Johns Anglican Church, Norwich Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton Demolition of former farmhouse at 1.0536 McCowan Road, Markham Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 1.o Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge Badley Bridge EA, Elora Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge Conservation Plan for Log house, Beurgetz Ave, Kitchener Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener Page 78 of 511 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Tribunal Hearings: Redevelopment of 21.7 King Street, Waterloo (OLT) Redevelopment of 1.2 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St Catharines (CRB) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) Demolition 1.74 St Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) Designation of io8 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave, Cambridge (LPAT) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) Designation of St Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway) LAND USE PLANNING Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: • Secondary Plans • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan Page 79 of 511 EDUCATION 2011 Higher Education Diploma Cultural Development/ Gaelic Studies Sabhal M6r Ostaig, University of the Highlands and Islands 2012 Bachelor of Arts Joint Advanced Major in Celtic Studies and Anthropology Saint Francis Xavier University 2014 Master of Arts World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development The International Training Centre of the ILO in partnership with the University of Turin, Politecnico di Torino, University of Paris 1 Pantheon - Sorbonne, UNESCO, ICCROM, Macquarie University www.linkedin.com/in/rachelredshaw CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Rachel Redshaw, a Senior Heritage Planner with MHBC, joined the firm in 2018. Ms. Redshaw has a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Celtic Studies and a Master of Arts in World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development. Ms. Redshaw completed her Master's in Turin, Italy; the Master's program was established by UNESCO in conjunction with the University of Turin and the International Training Centre of the ILO. Rachel is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Ms. Redshaw provides a variety of heritage planning services for public and private sector clients. Ms. Redshaw has worked for years completing cultural heritage planning in a municipal setting. She has worked in municipal building and planning departments and for the private sector to gain a diverse knowledge of building and planning in respect to how they apply to cultural heritage. Rachel enjoys being involved in the local community and has been involved in the collection of oral history, in English and Gaelic, and local records for their protection and conservation and occasionally lecturers on related topics. Her passion for history and experience in archives, museums, municipal building and planning departments supports her ability to provide exceptional cultural heritage services. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 2022 - Present Senior Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018-2022 Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018 Building Permit Coordinator, (Contract) Township of Wellesley 2018 Building Permit Coordinator (Contract) 1 Page 80 of 511 CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP RSM Building Consultants 2017 Deputy Clerk, Township of North Dumfries 2015-2016 Building/ Planning Clerk Township of North Dumfries 2009-2014 Historical Researcher & Planner Township of North Dumfries 2012 Translator, Archives of Ontario 2012 Cultural Heritage Events Facilitator (Reminiscence Journey) and Executive Assistant, Waterloo Region Plowing Match and Rural Expo 2011 Curatorial Research Assistant Highland Village Museum/ Baile nan Gaidheal Page 81 of 511 PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS 2022 -Present Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals 2017-2020 Member, AMCTO 2018-2019 Member of Publications Committee, Waterloo Historical Society 2018 Member, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario- Cambridge 2018 -2019 Secretary, Toronto Gaelic Society 2012 -2017 Member (Former Co -Chair & Co -Founder), North Dumfries Historical Preservation Society 2011 -2014 Member, North Dumfries Municipal Heritage Committee 2013 Greenfield Heritage Conservation District, Sub -committee, Doors Open Waterloo Region CONTACT 2012 Volunteer Historical Interpreter, Doon Heritage Village, Ken 540BingemansCentre Drive, Seiling Waterloo Region Museum Suite 200 2008-2012 Member, Celtic Collections, Angus L. Macdonald Library Kitchener, 650x7511N N2B T 519 576 3650 x7 2012-2013 Member Public Relations), Mill Race Folk Society ( F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2 Page 81 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2011 Member, University of Waterloo Sub -steering Committee for HCD Study, Village of Ayr, North Dumfries 2010-2011 Member (volunteer archivist), Antigonish Heritage Museum AWARDS / PUBLICATIONS / RECOGNITION 2019 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Old Shaw: The Story of a Kindly Waterloo County Roamer 2014 Master's Dissertation, The Rise of the City: Social Business Incubation in the City of Hamilton 2014 Lecture, A Scot's Nirvana, Homer Watson House and Gallery 2013 Lecture, The Virtual Voice of the Pasta The Use of Online Oral Accounts for a Holistic Understanding of History, University of Guelph Spring Colloquium 2012-2013 Gaelic Events Facilitator, University of Guelph 2012-2015 Intermediate Gaelic Facilitator, St. Michael's College, University of Toronto 2012 Nach eil ann tuilleadh: An Nos Cr aig nan Gaidheal (BA Thesis) Thesis written in Scottish Gaelic evaluating disappearing Gaelic rites of passage in Nova Scotia. 2012 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Harvesting Bees and Feasting Tables: Fit for the Men, Women and Children of Dickie Settlement and Area, Township of North Dumfries 2007-2012 25 historical publications in the Ayr News (access to some articles http://ayrnews.ca/recent ) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES 2021 Certificate for Indigenous Relations Training Program with University of Calgary 2020 Condo Director Training Certificate (CAO) 2018 Building Officials and the Law (OBOA Course) 2017-2018 AMCTO Training (MAP 1) 2017 AODA Training 3 Page 82 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2010 Irish Archaeological Field School Certificate COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Word Office Bluebeam Revu 2017 ArcGIS Keystone (PRINSYS) Municipal Connect Adobe Photoshop Illustrator ABBYY Fine Reader 11 Book Drive SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE 2018-2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Promenade at Clifton Hill, Niagara Falls (Niagara Parks Commission) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (Former Economical Insurance Building) Peterborough Lift Lock and Trent -Severn Waterway (TSW), National Historic Sites, Development for 380 Armour Road, City of Peterborough Middlesex County Court House, National Historic Site, for development at 50 King Street McDougall Cottage and National Historic Site, for development at 93 Grand Avenue South, City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Former Post Office, Development for 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo, Phase II Consumers' Gas Station B, Development for 450 Eastern Avenue, City of Toronto 82 Weber Street and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 39 Wellington Street West, City of Brampton 4 Page 83 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 543 Ridout Street North, City of London 34 Manley Street, Village of Ayr, Township of North Dumfries Quinte's Isle Campark, 558 Welbanks Road, Prince Edward County (OLT) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (OLT) 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 383-385 Pearl Street, City of Burlington St. Patrick's Catholic Elementary School, (SPCES), 20 East Avenue South, City of Hamilton 250 Allendale Road, City of Cambridge 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan Specific for Relocation of Heritage Buildings 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Kelso Conservation Area, Halton County 5" Side Road, County Road 53, Simcoe County Waterdown Trunk Watermain Twinning Project, City of Hamilton CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS 52 King Street North, City of Kitchener Sarnia Collegiate Institute and Technical School (SCITS), 275 Wellington, City of Sarnia (Municipal contingency study) 10536 McCowan Road, City of Markham Former Burns Presbyterian Church, 155 Main Street, Town of Erin (Designation Report) Former St. Paul's Anglican Church, 23 Dover Street, Town of Otterville, Norwich Township (OLT) 6170 Fallsview Boulevard, City of Niagara Falls CONSERVATION PLANS City of Waterloo Former Post Office, 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo 82 Weber Street East, City of Kitchener 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener Page 84 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plans (Temporary protection for heritage building during construction) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (included Stabilization, Demolition and Risk Management Plan) 12 & 54 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 82 Weber Street West and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 660 Sunningdale Road, London DOCUMENTATION AND SALVAGE REPORTS 16-20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener 57 Lakeport Road City of St. Catharines Gaslight District, 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 721 Franklin Boulevard, City of Cambridge HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener 50 King Street, London 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo (Old Post Office), Phase II (alteration to building with a municipal heritage easement, Section 37, OHA) 50-56 Weber Street West & 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener (demolition and new construction within HCD) 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener (new construction within HCD) 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan (alteration within HCD) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (demolition within HCD) HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS/ MASTER PLANS/ HERITAGE CHARACTER STUDY Elgin, Central and Memorial Neighbourhoods, Municipality of Clarington Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (Project Lead 2021-2022) Town of Aurora Heritage Register Update Page 85 of 511 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM III MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 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: January 10, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-048 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 149-151 Ontario Street North and 21 Weber Street West RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 6, 2022, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology regarding a proposal to redevelop the subject properties municipally addressed as 149-151 Ontario Street North and 21 Weber Street West (Attachment A) with a new 27 -storey mixed use development. The existing building at 21 Weber Street North has no heritage status and is proposed to be demolished. The subject property municipally addressed as 149-151 Ontario Street North is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The applicant is proposing to retain and integrate the front and side fagade (south elevation) of the existing building into the proposed development. The subject properties are also located adjacent to following cultural heritage resources: • The Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD); • The Civic Centre Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; and • 30-32 Duke Street West/141 Ontario Street North, which is also listed as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The draft HIA was initially submitted in support of a Site Plan Application in January 2022. Staff have been with the applicant to address some heritage planning concerns associated with the original submission. The proposed development assessed within the HIA includes the most current design proposal. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 87 of 511 Since 21 Weber Street West does not have any heritage status, only the existing building at 149-151 Ontario Street North was included in the HIA. The draft HIA concludes that the existing building at 149-151 Ontario Street North does meet designation criteria and would be eligible for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant's heritage consultant and architect will attend the February 7, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions the Committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments which will be taken into consideration as part of staff review of the HIA and processing of related Planning Act Applications. A motion or recommendation to Council is not required for the February meeting. 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, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 149-151 Ontario Street North Page 88 of 511 Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario 6 December 2022 Project # LHCO281 Page 89 of 511 EA This page has been left blank deliberately Project # LHCO281 Page 90 of 511 Report prepared for: Report prepared by: Reviewed by: 149-151 Ontario Street, Kitchener LMC Limited Partnership c/o Masri O Inc. Architects 609 Kumpf Drive, Suite 101 Waterloo, Ontario N2V 1 K8 Colin Yu, MA CAHP Jordan Greene, BA Amy Barnes, MA CAHP (no longer wi Zach Hamm, MA (no longer with LHC Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Project # LHCO281 Page 91 of 511 Project # LHCO281 RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of LMC Limited Partnership (the "Owner"). Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies as well as any appeal bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A: Project Personnel. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the Property or the condition of any heritage attributes. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA iv Page 92 of 511 Project # LHCO281 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results as well as limitations. LHC was retained in November 2021 by Reema Masri of Masri O Inc. Architects on behalf of LMC Limited Partnership (the "Property Owner") to undertake an updated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the development of the properties comprising 21 Weber Street North and 149-151 Ontario Street North in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). An HIA was previously prepared by LHC in 2019. The HIA included an evaluation of the cultural heritage value or interest of both properties and determined that, while the property at 21 Weber Street North does not satisfy the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest, the property at 149-151 Ontario Street North meets criteria 1.i. and 2. ii. of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical value, and historical and associative value. The development proposal evaluated in the 2019 HIA sought to remove portions of the c. 1876 semi-detached brick residence (including the rear addition, east elevation, the east side of the roof and upper portions of the chimney). Subsequent to the HIA, the earlier proposal was determined to not be feasible within the context of the project and a new proposed design will result in further removals, with the retention of the fagade and partial side elevations. The proponent is proposing to build a 27 -storey mixed use apartment with four commercial units and 206 residential units. This updated HIA is being prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the properties and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's (MCM) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. This updated HIA resulted in the following findings and recommendations: • Potential project -related adverse impacts were identified for the Property and its heritage attributes. • Given that full retention of the c. 1876 semi-detached brick residence has been determined not to be feasible, partial demolition/selective deconstruction and integration is the preferred option. This alternative sees the retention of the fagade, south elevation and partial north elevation. The following mitigative measures are recommended to lessen adverse impacts: • To the extent possible, existing wooden window and door cases should be retained and repaired. In order to support the efficiency of the windows, new inserts and/or storm windows could be installed. • The front doors and their transoms should be repaired and retained Page 93 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Design of the new concrete porch/bench seating should be compatible with and subordinate to the existing fagade. Choice of material and design of any attachments should be informed by a qualified heritage professional. To the extent possible portions of the building that are removed should be salvaged for reuse in the other areas of the new development or elsewhere. It is understood that some of the buff brick will be retained — on site — for reuse within the lobby. Per OP Policy 12.C.1.32, the City of Kitchener (the City) may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. • It is recommended that a documentation package be prepared for the Property prior to any deconstruction activities including measured elevations and a record set of photographs to compare pre- and post -construction conditions. Photographs generally depicting the removals, should also be included in the documentation. An updated Conservation Plan — prepared by a qualified heritage professional - may be required by the City of Kitchener. In order to inform a more detailed Conservation Plan, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The Conservation Plan should include guidance for any immediate interventions required prior to removals and construction, guidance for stabilization during removals and construction, and guidance for repairs and long-term maintenance following construction of the new development. All removals/demolition of the existing structure should be carried out under the direction of a professional engineer with demonstrated experience working with heritage buildings. vi Page 94 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Table of Contents REPORT LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................IV 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY..........................................................................1 1.1 Property Owner....................................................................................................1 1.2 Property Description.............................................................................................1 1.3 Properties Heritage Status...................................................................................2 2.0 STUDY APPROACH......................................................................................................6 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018) .........6 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review.....................................................................................9 2.3 Historic Research.................................................................................................9 2.4 Site Visit.............................................................................................................10 2.5 Impact Assessment............................................................................................10 3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK...............................................................................................11 3.1 Provincial Planning Context................................................................................11 3.1.1 The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13........................................................ 11 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020)................................................................ 11 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18....................................................12 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005............................................................13 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) ..... 14 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25............................................................14 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary.......................................................... 15 3.2 Regional Planning Context.................................................................................15 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) .................................. 15 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) .............. 18 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary............................................................ 19 3.3 Local Planning Context......................................................................................20 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014)............................................................. 20 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) ........................... 24 3.3.3 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District ......................... 26 3.3.4 Local Planning Context Summary................................................................. 28 4.0 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................31 4.1 Early Indigenous History....................................................................................31 vii Page 95 of 511 Project # LHCO281 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE)..................................................................... 31 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE).................................................................. 31 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE — CE 1650) ...................................................... 31 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context......................................32 4.3 Region of Waterloo............................................................................................35 4.4 City of Kitchener.................................................................................................35 4.5 Property History.................................................................................................36 4.5.1 149-151 Ontario Street North........................................................................40 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................45 5.1 Exterior..............................................................................................................45 5.2 1 nterior................................................................................................................49 5.3 Structural Report................................................................................................71 5.4 Fire Damage......................................................................................................71 5.5 Surrounding Context..........................................................................................74 5.6 Adjacent Heritage Properties..............................................................................76 6.0 EVALUATION ..............................................................................................................77 6.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation............................................................... 77 6.1.2 Additional Considerations..............................................................................79 6.1.3 Summary of Evaluation................................................................................. 81 6.1.4 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 82 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..............................................83 8.0 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES.....................................94 8.1 Potential Impacts to 149-151 Ontario Street North.............................................94 8.2 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Impacts .................97 8.3 Summary of Potential Impacts..........................................................................103 9.0 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ........................104 9.1 Considered Options.........................................................................................104 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use ................................................. 104 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use ............................................... 104 9.1.3 Option 3: Relocation Within the Parcel........................................................ 104 9.1.4 Option 4: Retention of entire structure and Integration into Proposed Development............................................................................................... 104 viii Page 96 of 511 Project # LHCO281 9.2 Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development.......................................................................................................................104 9.2.1 Option 6: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop ................................ 105 9.3 Preferred Option...............................................................................................105 Location of Property.........................................................................................................4 9.4 Conservation Strategy......................................................................................105 Figure 2: 10.00ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................108 SIGNATURES...................................................................................................................110 CCNHCD Boundaries....................................................................................................29 11.0REFERENCES...........................................................................................................111 Figure 4: 11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources.....................................................................111 11.2 Mapping Resources.........................................................................................112 Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ....................... 11.3 Archival Resources..........................................................................................113 Figure6: 11.4 Additional Resources.......................................................................................115 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL..........................................................................118 Photo of the Carnegie Library located on the corner of Queen Street North and Weber APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY...............................................................................................120 Street West. The building was demolished c. 1962 (KPL, P010257) ............................................. APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY FOR 149-151 ONTARIO STREET NORTH.................125 Figure 8: APPENDIX D: COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES....................................................................126 List of Figures 38 Figure 1: Location of Property.........................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Current Conditions of Property.........................................................................................5 Figure 3: CCNHCD Boundaries....................................................................................................29 Figure 4: CCNHCD Boundaries in relation to Property..................................................................30 Figure 5: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ....................... 33 Figure6: Haldimand Tract.............................................................................................................34 Figure 7: Photo of the Carnegie Library located on the corner of Queen Street North and Weber Street West. The building was demolished c. 1962 (KPL, P010257) ............................................. 38 Figure 8: Hartman Krug residence located at 117 Ontario Street North. The property was demolished c.1964 (The Record, 2010)........................................................................................ 38 Figure 9: 10 Duke Street found at the corner of Duke Street and Queen Street, built 1949 (Davis, 2017)............................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 10: 1969 photo of construction crew clearing the site to build the Corporation Square. Note 149-151 Ontario Street North in the background (The Record, 2010) ...........................................39 Figure 11: Historic maps showing the Property.............................................................................42 Figure 12: Fire Insurance Plans showing the Property..................................................................43 Figure 13: Aerial maps showing the Property................................................................................44 Figure 14: Front (west) fagade of building.....................................................................................46 Figure 15: View of front and side elevations, looking south...........................................................47 Figure 16: View of rear elevation, looking west.............................................................................47 ix Page 97 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 17: Rear elevation, looking northwest................................................................................48 Figure 18: View of side elevation, looking north............................................................................48 Figure 19: Image showing, bay window and voussoirs, brick voussoirs with drip molds, quoining andbrackets.................................................................................................................................49 Figure 20: Layout of units (not to scale). Unit 1 is outlined in blue. Unit 2 is outlined in red. Unit three is outlined in green and occupied the entire upper level of the building ................................ 50 Figure 21: Floor layout of Unit 1 (not to scale)............................................................................... 51 Figure 22: View of floor layout (left), kitchen from front entrance (right) ......................................... 51 Figure23: View of kitchen.............................................................................................................52 Figure 24: View of living room.......................................................................................................52 Figure 25: View of main bedroom.................................................................................................53 Figure 26: View of bathroom.........................................................................................................53 Figure 27: Floor layout of Unit 2 (not to scale). This unit occupies the entire upper level of 149-151 OntarioStreet North......................................................................................................................55 Figure 28: View of Unit 2 Front door with transom from interior (left).............................................56 Figure 29: View of stairs and hallways.......................................................................................... 56 Figure 30: View of transition ways, showing the living room and kitchen and main transition from one half of the apartment to the other........................................................................................... 57 Figure 31: View of Bedroom 1.......................................................................................................57 Figure 32: View of living Room...................................................................................................... 58 Figure 33: View south of kitchen in Unit 2..................................................................................... 58 Figure 34: View west of Kitchen.................................................................................................... 59 Figure 35: View of southwest corner of Bedroom 5....................................................................... 59 Figure 36: View of hallway located on the north half of the apartment which provides access to Bedroom2 and 3..........................................................................................................................60 Figure 37: View of Bedroom 2 and closet......................................................................................60 Figure 38: View of Bedroom 3.......................................................................................................61 Figure 39: View of transition way to rear portion (south) side of building ....................................... 61 Figure 40: View of staircase leading from Unit 2, leading down to laundry room ........................... 62 Figure 41: View of bathroom in Unit 2...........................................................................................62 Figure 42: View of Bedroom 4.......................................................................................................63 Figure 43: Floor layout of Unit 3 (not to scale). Note the grey area is associated with Unit 2......... 64 Figure 44: View of entrance to Unit 3...........................................................................................64 Figure 45: View of entrance to Unit 3............................................................................................65 Figure 46: View of kitchen area.....................................................................................................65 Figure 47: View of kitchen looking towards hallway.......................................................................66 Figure 48: View of bedroom in Unit 3............................................................................................66 Figure 49: View of living room looking north towards bay window (left) and toward northeast corner (right)............................................................................................................................................67 Figure50: View of laundry............................................................................................................68 Figure 51: Floor layout of the basement (not to scale)................................................................... 68 Figure 52: View of rear portion of the basement. Note the brick covered with whitewash and parg i n g.......................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 53: View of foundation wall showing mix of brick and stone walls with brick flooring .......... 69 Figure 54: View of the brick flooring, HVAC equipment................................................................. 70 Figure 55: View of basement crawl space..................................................................................... 70 x Page 98 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 56: Fire Damage, second floor interior wall (provided by Masri O Architects) ..................... 72 Figure 57: Fire Damage, roof from interior, second floor (provided by Masri O Architects)............ 72 Figure 58: Fire Damage, exterior, side (south) elevation (provided by Masri O Architects) ............ 73 Figure 59: Fire Damage, exterior, front elevation (provided by Masri O Architects) ....................... 73 Figure 60: Large-scale buildings in the surrounding area..............................................................75 94 Figure 61: Two examples of buildings with Italianate features located within CCNHCD. Note the 97 overhanging eaves with wood brackets, segmentally arched windows openings .......................... 80 Figure 62: Example of buff brick buildings found within the CCNHCD...........................................80 Figure 63: Examples of architectural elements found with the CCNHCD including overhanging eaves, wood brackets, buff brick, quoins, bay windows, voussoirs with drip molds and brick chimneys......................................................................................................................................81 Figure 64: Proposed site plan.......................................................................................................84 Figure65: Elevations.................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 66: Basement floor plan of proposed development............................................................ 86 Figure 67: Ground floor plan of proposed development................................................................ 87 Figure 68: Second to eight floors, floor plan of proposed development ......................................... 88 Figure 69: Full rendering of proposed development...................................................................... 89 Figure 70: Rendering of integration of west elevation of 149-151 Ontario Street North into proposed development................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 71: View of retained facade and south elevation from street level......................................91 Figure 72: View of retained facade from street level...................................................................... 92 Figure 73: View of retained south elevation (option to use existing opening for mail room door)... 93 Figure 75: Fagade retention tower (Tacoma Engineers 2021) .....................................................107 List of Tables Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements ........ 6 Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies....................................15 Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies.............................................................. 20 Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 D-4 Permitted Uses.......................................................................... 25 Table 5: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 149-151 Ontario Street South ............................. 77 Table 6: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 149-151 Ontario Street North ................ 94 Table 7: Assessment of CCNHCD Guidelines against proposed development ............................. 97 Xi Page 99 of 511 EA This page has been left blank deliberately xii Project # LHCO281 Page 100 of 511 Project # LHCO281 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC was retained in November 2021 by Reema Masri of Masri O Inc. Architects on behalf of LMC Limited Partnership (the "Property Owner") to undertake an updated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the development of the properties comprising 21 Weber Street North and 149-151 Ontario Street North in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). The proponent is proposing to build a 27 -storey mixed -used apartment building with four commercial units and 206 residential units. An HIA was previously completed for the Property in 2019 by LHC and at the time the property at 149-151 Ontario Street North (the "Property") was determined to demonstrate Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) and list of heritage attributes is provided in Section 6.1.4 This updated HIA is being prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's (MCM) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. 1.1 Property Owner The Property is owned by LMC Limited Partnership (melissac@lmcproperties.ca). 1.2 Property Description The Property, known municipally as 149-151 Ontario Street North, is located in Ward 10, in the City of Kitchener, in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. The legal description is Part Lot 11, Plan 401. The Property is located on the east side of Ontario Street North, south of Weber Street West, west of Queen Street North, north of Duke Street West, and west of Young Street (Figure 1). This section of Ontario Street North is a two-way street which runs generally in a north -south direction. The Property is in the Urban Growth Centre of the City of Kitchener. Within the Urban Growth Centre, the Property has a specific land use designation in the City Centre District (Figure 2). 149-151 Ontario Street North generally follows a square plan and is approximately 597.7m2 (0.06ha /0.15 acres) in size.' There is a two-storey, semi-detached brick building which fronts Ontario Street North. The building has a one -storey rear wing and a one -and -a -half -storey rear wing. Overall, the building follows an L-shaped plan and is narrowly set back from Ontario Street North. There are two very small patches of landscaping along the fagade and the remaining property is covered with paved gravel. The property is zoned D-4 Office District Zone. See Table 4 for the definition and permitted uses associated with D-4 Zoning. ' Information taken from City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017 Page 101 of 511 Project # LHCO281 1.3 Properties Heritage Status 149-151 Ontario Street is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; the property was added 27 April 2009.2A Statement of Significance (SOS) was created for 149-151 Ontario Street North at the time. The SOS notes that the building was built c. 1876 and originally used as a residential property. The document titled Statement of Significance 149-151 Ontario Street North includes a description of the Property, a statement of heritage value or interest, heritage attributes, photographs, and the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form. The statement of heritage value or interest and heritage attributes states, verbatim: Heritage Value or Interest 149-151 Ontario Street North is recognized for its design, physical, and historical value. The building is a hybrid architectural styles with influences from Georgian and Italianate architecture. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements including: buff brick; a symmetrical plan with two bay windows; side gable roof; brackets; brick quoining; 1/1 and 2/2 windows with dripstones; window sills; front doors with transoms; and two end chimneys. Although the building is presently used for commercial uses its original use was residential in the form of a semi-detached building. The building is the last remaining example of a residential building on Ontario Street and is a unique example of a working class residence. LO Heritage Attributes: The heritage value of 149-151 Ontario Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction architectural style, including • Buff brick construction; • Symmetrical plan with two bay windows; • Roof and roofline; • Side gable roof; • Wood brackets • Brick quoining; • Window and window openings; • 1/1 and 2/2 windows with dripstones; • Door and door openings; • Front doors with transoms; and • Brick chimney 2 The City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register was last updated 24 October 2017. 11 Page 102 of 511 Project # LHCO281 LHC previously completed an HIA for the Property in 2019 and generally agrees with the SOS. An evaluation of the Property against O. Reg. 9/06 determined the Property meets two criteria and a SCHVI was prepared (see Section 6.1.4). Page 103 of 511 Barrie L,IKe Srry. KIM _---csoa N KEY MAP 0 �, ,, Ur Peterborough q` park East ,Course 10,vkhim 4511,1'63 Gr dBlllfs voden[h Vaughan v 0 ° Bloomingdale 13ramplan0 Toronto Kitchener Oakvilleo missltsauga • Hamilton Sl t a 0 Catharine, o o+ h b C� London OBrantford Niagara' • I Kington 0 Falls"-, Brill I iyg rol 11 �, %P Ebyerest.Ro' Universih +.sham SCALE 1:4,000,000 Dotc�is leadows c4rrq,',.6 Bridgeport �Colutnbia _ 8 : s 4titi �clge � . 4 6 � 34i flow dale 58 1 ez Ll lilt'l'I Sl4' �r i er11147t1t 4. ,'t. }• ` ff f. "", 55 o! —V' elt v 1,/L4'ilttid - e port -ft L lll`rier Wings alesidg. P Be her woold- Unitaslh' _ 65 tri dlegate Cenh al Vppei Cr.li Yeitll t y�H 5d B eerlltt vod g Bee .Jl�tr vod Park Allen r s sy ten} R 57 uptown Lel Vest s`S �F 4@ 4 "!� ( ase 4 II ; Beel#ltk'OOd Ch pp end ale kn `: 1S Ftoutllounf Heritarepal k West 'tet.,, 9 S, yy yv� .. 11'estmoun! o �v 5 r X4 0c 1 fills asp a°4 s` ptta'la ` IZnlllnlelll.v dt 9 c a Vi.t(it�iGlls C.lasgott' lleifjlts f `.�. gy C , 1.E i t Sl,tnitn' p, Westi-Me pec hQif Park ..� ,�• dJ Sr 7 West ,L'�{�4, IL4S�Ctt'St'� Hill JetJ$ss'ty A ohp` 4E yr all. V3 tl 50� 75 gr 55or Chic yts veep / ceen`trrevi 11 r' 6 Forest I Its {l ( 8 Alpine ne s Waldau. y, + Fol est 4 Llii S3 _F a+ v Aj�Ileigtsts -f--.�_ 1 Lallrenti.ut Kitchener mills N.�. P,lrkw.n }1 vT —yLr y p ed�sIvM1 Count tsr ��.Ltn c Elills 28 69 4 � 1 tin a Deer Ridge u ,ell •,"nurst� F d _ -- rF4llllalllSb llr� 0 1 2 Kilometers htahilholn1 Legend • Property sir asbsll g TITLE Location Plan CLIENT Masri O Inc. Architects PROJECT Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. PREPARED REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), DESIGNED (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. 1HC FIGURE # Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. PROJECT NO.LHCO281 2022-01-06 UHC JG D4 of 511 1 ,! ••; f OIL Oka- ti 1 ` -t r Y \ r I° �WS, 0 15 30 Mete rs f; Legend TITLE g Current Conditions 151 Ontario Street CLIENT Masri O Inc. Architects PROJECT PROJECT NO.LHCO281 Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-06 NOTE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) DESIGNED JG 1. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. 1HC FIGURE # Page, 105 of 5 112 Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Project # LHCO281 2.0 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada's Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and MCM's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.3 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation, and evaluation—when necessary. Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. The impact assessment is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Information Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resource.4 The HIA includes recommendations for design and heritage conservation to guide interventions to the Properties. 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2018) The City's HIA ToR require an assessment to determine potential impacts to cultural heritage resources by proposed development. An HIA prepared for the City: ...shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. Requirements of an HIA submitted to the City include the following: Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements Requirement Location Present owner contact information for properties proposed Found in Section 1.1 of this HIA. for development and/or site alteration. A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from Found in Section 4.0 of this HIA. the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). A written description of the buildings, structures and Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and 3 Canada's Historic Places, "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", 2010, 3; MHSTCI, "Heritage Property Evaluation" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. 4 MHSTCI, "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006 Page 106 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Requirement Location landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. Documentation of the subject properties to include: current Found in Section 5.0 of this HIA. photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. An outline of the proposed development, its context, and Found in Section 7.0 and 8.0 of how it will impact the properties (subject property and if this HIA. applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. Options shall be provided that explain how the significant Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. and how they will be used must be included. Conservation Page 107 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Requirement Location principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, Found in Section 9.0 of this HIA. describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. The qualifications and background of the person(s) Found in Appendix A of this HIA. completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature Found in Section 11.0 of this cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and HIA referenced in the report. The summary statement should provide a full description Found in Section 10.0 of this of: HIA. • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. • The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. The consultant must write a recommendation as to Found in Section 6.0 of this HIA. whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be Page 108 of 511 Project # LHCO281 clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review The HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property. The impact assessment considers the proposed project against this framework. 2.3 Historic Research Historical research was undertaken to outline the history and development of the Property and its broader community context. Primary historic material, including air photos and mapping, were obtained from: • Library and Archives Canada; • Department of National Defence; • Ancestry; • Waterloo Open Data; • University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection; and, • Kitchener Public Library. Secondary research was compiled from sources such as: historical atlases, local histories, architectural reference texts, available online sources, and previous assessments. All sources and persons contacted in the preparation of this report are listed as footnotes and in the report's reference list. Page 109 of 511 Project # LHCO281 2.4 Site Visit As part of the 2019 HIA, site visits were undertaken by LHC staff on 7 November 2018 and 11 July 2019. In order to update existing conditions, a site visit was undertaken on 11 November 2021 by Christienne Uchiyama. The primary objective of the site visits was to document and gain an understanding of the Property and their surrounding context. The site visits included a documentation of the surrounding area, and exterior views of the structures. Interiors were accessed during the 2018 and 2019 site visits, however, not during the November 2021 site visit. A fire occurred on the second floor of the building on 7 April 2022. Although the fire does not appear to have resulted in significant structural damage, portions of the second floor — including part of the roof—were damaged. The property has not been visited by LHC since the floor and our understanding of existing conditions are based on photographs provided by the proponent. 2.5 Impact Assessment The MCM's Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation PlanS5 outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or property alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to: 1) Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2) Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3) Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4) Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5) Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7) Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The HIA includes a consideration of direct and indirect adverse impacts on adjacent properties with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in Section 8.0. 5 MCM "Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Info Sheet #5" in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006) 10 Page 110 of 511 Project # LHCO281 3.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK 3.1 Provincial Planning Context In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, the OHA, and the PPS. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is an analysis of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage. 3.1.1 The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as ... the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.6 Under Section 1 of The Planning Act: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter ... shall be consistent with [the PPS].' Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS which makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations concerning planning and development within the province. 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The Province deems cultural heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1 e and Section 2.6. Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 6 Province of Ontario, "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13," December 8, 2020, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/9Opl3, Part 1 (2, d). Province of Ontario, "Planning Act," Part I S.5. 11 Page 111 of 511 Project # LHCO281 1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. Subsection's state: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.$ The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.9 The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied in each situation. A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.18 The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. 10 Part 1 (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. The OHA and associated 8 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 29. 9 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 51. 10 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 12 Page 112 of 511 Project # LHCO281 regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest." O. Reg. 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06) outline criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance. Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41, Part V of the OHA. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. Sections 33 and 34 Part IV and Section 42 Part V of the OHA require owners of designated heritage properties to obtain a permit or approval in writing from a municipality/municipal council to alter, demolish or remove a structure from a designated heritage property. These sections also enable a municipality to require an applicant to provide information or material that council considers it may need to decide which may include a HIA. Under Section 27(3), a property owner must not demolish or remove a building or structure unless they give council at least 60 days notice in writing. Under Section 27(5) council may require plans and other information to be submitted with this notice which may include a HIA. 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005 The Places to Grow Act guides growth in the province and was consolidated 1 June 2021. It is intended: a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation; b) to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes efficient use of infrastructure; c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government. 12 This act is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure and enables decision making across municipal and regional boundaries for more efficient governance in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. 11 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act," 2021 12 Province of Ontario, "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl3, 1. 13 Page 113 of 511 Project # LHCO281 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Properties are located within the area regulated by A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was consolidated on 28 August 2020. In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Metis communities.93 Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing: ...a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas, a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources. 14 It describes cultural heritage resources as: The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities unique and attractive places to Iive.15 Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows: Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas; 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Metis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and, 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making.16 Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with PPS 2020. 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 The Municipal Act was consolidated on 19 April 2021 and enables municipalities to be responsible and accountable governments with their jurisdiction. 17 The Municipal Act authorizes 13 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," last modified 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf, 6. 14 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 39. 15 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 39. 16 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 47. 17 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. 14 Page 114 of 511 Project # LHCO281 powers and duties for providing good government and is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Amongst the many powers enabled by the Municipal Act is the power to create By-laws within the municipalities sphere of jurisdiction.$ Under Section 11 (3) lower and upper tier municipalities are given the power to pass by-laws on matters including culture and heritage.19 Enabling municipalities to adopt a by-law or a resolution by Council to protect heritage, which may include requirements for an HIA. 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require an HIA for alterations, demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property. These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following provincial policy direction. 3.2 Regional Planning Context 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP) was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board on 18 June 2015 and is currently under review. 20 The ROP sets out policies to guide growth and land use within the Region in keeping with provincial policy. Chapter 3 addresses cultural heritage policies, writing that: These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community .21 Policies related to the Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Archaeology, Heritage Planning Advisory Committees, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation, Promotion and Research, and Scenic Roads are outlined by the ROP. Policies most relevant to the Properties and proposed development have been included below in Table 2. Table 2: Regional Municipality of Waterloo Relevant Official Plan Policies 18 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act," 2021, 11. 19 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act," 2021, 11(3). 20 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," last modified June 18, 2015, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-use-planning.aspx cover. 21 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 15 Page 115 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Policy Policy Identification of .•- Resources The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are 3.G.1 conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. HeritageCultural Landscapes 3.G.5 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. This guideline will outline the framework for identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes, including Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest, and for documenting each individual landscape through a Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plan that includes: (a) a statement of significance; (b) a listing of the cultural heritage resources and attributes being conserved within the Cultural Heritage Landscape through the use of existing planning tools, such as Heritage Act designations, listings on the Municipal Register, official plan policies, secondary plans and zoning bylaws; and 'Aj (c) recommendations for additional conservation measures. 3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. 3.G.7 The Region will assist Area Municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plans for Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest. Archaeology 3.G.8 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Archaeological Master Plan, an associated Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline, and maps identifying 16 Page 116 of 511 Project # LHCO281 17 Page 117 of 511 archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential. The Master Plan will provide detailed information on the variables used to determine areas of archaeological potential and define the archaeological review process. 3.G.9 During the review of development applications and/or site plans, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will require the owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline following the Ministry of Tourism and Culture's Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Archaeological Master Plan. 3.G.10 Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the Region or Area Municipality will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the Area Municipality; or b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. HeritageCultural Impact Assessment 3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: 17 Page 117 of 511 Project # LHCO281 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created as: Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well- being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and enhance the community's unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources; 18 Page 118 of 511 a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created as: Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well- being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and enhance the community's unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources; 18 Page 118 of 511 Project # LHCO281 implement strategies to support existing and additional arts, culture, and heritage initiatives; and ensure their long-term prosperity and sustainability .22 The goals of the Master Plan are to achieve the following: 23 1. Community Identity and Character Develop a stronger cultural heritage identity for the region, one that celebrates its diversity, the character of its multiple towns and cities and the differing traditions of their founders; its natural features; and the richness of its arts, culture and heritage assets. 2. Education and Awareness Build a stronger foundation for arts, culture, and heritage within the community. 3. Coordination and Partnership Formation Encourage a greater degree of collaboration across all sectors and disciplines. 4. Resources Support opportunities for the development and sustainability of existing arts, culture, and heritage organizations. 5. Accessibility Maximize accessibility to arts, culture, and heritage opportunities and information. The Master Plan provides guidance and direction for the region for protecting, identifying, and enhancing cultural heritage aspects for communities, and in serving as a primary document to help develop new policies and implementation strategies. 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources is an important element of the land use planning process. Cultural heritage resources are viewed as important drivers for the Region's cultural and economic growth. The Region requires the completion of an HIA for proposed work on a listed property and assessment of archaeological potential. If the property is of Regional interest, a copy of the HIA must be submitted to the Region for review. 22 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/artsmasterplan.pdf, I. 23 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, IV. 19 Page 119 of 511 Project # LHCO281 3.3 Local Planning Context 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) was approved with modifications by the Region on 19 November 2014 and was consolidated to 2019.24 The OP guides growth, land use, and environmental protection for the City to 2031.25 Section 12 addresses cultural heritage policies which are of historical, cultural, social, economic, environmental, and educational value to the City.26 Policies relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 3. Table 3: City of Kitchener Relevant Official Plan Policies Policy Policy Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources which will include the following: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, 24 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," last modified October 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of Kitchener_Official_Plan_ 2014.pdf, cover. 25 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 1-1. 26 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 12-1. 20 Page 120 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Policy Policy d) heritage corridors. The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal, Provincial and Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. 12.C.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.C.1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.7. Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or interest associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on the regulation in the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Archaeology 12.C.1.17. During the review of development applications or applications for site alteration, The City and/or the Region will require an owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with any applicable Regional or Provincial Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Regional Archaeological Master Plan. 12.C.1.18. Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the City and/or the Region and the Province will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource in accordance with Ministry approvals by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the City, or, b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Conservation Measures 12.C.1.19. In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection, maintenance and conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources including 21 Page 121 of 511 Project # LHCO281 22 Page 122 of 511 built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes and implement Cultural Heritage Resource Conservation Measures Policies in this Plan. These may include, but are not limited to covenants and easements pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act; by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By- law, demolition control, site plan control, community improvement provisions, provisions in a subdivision agreement); and by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Municipal Act (Property Standards By-law, tree by-law, sign by-law). 12.C.1.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.22. The City may require financial securities from the owner/applicant of an application submitted under the Planning Act, including applications for consent, site plan, draft plan of vacant land condominium and draft plan of subdivision, to ensure the conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources both during and after the development process. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 22 Page 122 of 511 Project # LHCO281 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 12.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: 23 Page 123 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Policy Policy a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 12.C.1.48. Signage on protected heritage properties will be compatible and complementary to the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property and in accordance with and consistent with good conservation practice. 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) The City currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to all properties in the City.27 Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April 2019 and is currently under appeal.28 It is stage 1 of the City's zoning review and includes the 27 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 29, 2004, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201 %20- %20General%2OScope.pdf, 1. 28 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051," last modified April 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Consolidated_Zoning_ Bylaw_Council_Approved. pdf. 24 Page 124 of 511 Project # LHCO281 ...framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and urban growth centre (downtown ).29 The Property is not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and are currently subject to Zoning By-law 85-1. The Property is zoned D-4 Office District Zone, which supports the following uses and regulation as shown in Table 4. This zoning does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations. Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 D-4 Permitted Uses3o Permitted Use Permitted Use Permitted Use Commercial Parking Facility Commercial Recreation Conference or Convention Facility Convenience Retail Day Care Facility Dwelling Unit Educational Establishment Health Clinic Health Office Home Business (By-law 94-1, S.8) Hotel Laboratory Lodging House Multiple Dwelling Office Personal Services Printing Establishment Private Club or Lodge and Union Hall Private Home Day Care Religious Institution Residential Care Facility Restaurant Sale, Rental or Service of Business Machines and Office Supplies Security or Janitorial Services Studio Tourist Home 29 City of Kitchener, "Zoning bylaw," Development and construction, last modified 2021, accessed May 4, 2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.aspx. 30 City of Kitchener, "Section 16," Zoning By-law 85-1, last modified October 7, 2013, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of%2OContents.pdf 25 Page 125 of 511 Project # LHCO281 3.3.3 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District The CCNHCD Plan identifies and outlines the cultural heritage value or interest assign to the landscape within the HCD boundary (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The CCNHCD Heritage Character Statement has been considered as part of this HIA. Applicable policies found with the Plan have also been considered as part of this HIA and are identified in Section 8.2 of this HIA. Discussion on the general architectural design guidelines outlined with the CCNHCD Plan were reviewed in detail and considered as part of the impact assessment (Section 8.2 of this HIA). The CCNHCD Heritage Character Statement follows: HERITAGE CHARACTER STATEMENT The Heritage Character Statement identifies and outlines the cultural heritage value or interest associated with the District as a whole. The statement identifies the significant historical, architectural and contextual value recognized within the district. The Heritage Character 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 city's 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 19th 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 26 Page 126 of 511 Project # LHCO281 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 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 19th and early 20th 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. 27 Page 127 of 511 Project # LHCO281 KEY HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES In summary,31 the Civic Centre Neighbourhood's heritage attributes are found within its architecture, streetscape and historical associations as outlined in the heritage character statement and more fully described and illustrated in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study. Key heritage attributes include the following: • 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 1900s 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; • 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. • These attributes are important to the District and the City as a whole and deserve appropriate preservation and management. 3.3.4 Local Planning Context Summary The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them in the land use planning process. Through its OP policies, the City has committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. An HIA is required when a proposed development is on or adjacent to a recognized heritage property. The City has adopted Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and will reference them when assessing proposed developments. 31 The Key Heritage Attributes exhibited by the CCNHCD are described in greater detail in Section 2.4 of the HCD Plan. 28 Page 128 of 511 1 - T r a r • w+ s " 1 10 ►- 0 • r r "'J* v k, IV 0 �k or � , � ��, � it '��► �..' � �,� *r, s .rr'P�' e! P�. �F • 1. +% .r !!� r � 0 50 100 Meters TITLE Legend Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Boundary Adjacent to the Properties CLIENT 151 Ontario Street North Masri O Inc. Architects PROJECT PROJECT NO.LHCO281 City of Kitchener Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario NOTE(S) CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-06 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence - The Corporation of the City of Kitchener. 2. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, DESIGNED JG USGS, AerOGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. FIGURE # 3 Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. e< �l JP ' SDP . f00 Legend a— 151 Ontario Street North LDW fts 1 rk"anthd proeser k- y.+�� y., {ID QV RV.� V 1— 16 w_�w a rY' i/3 9 CIF La ; �a ss � e>dWap 9dd ah 6 -10 /wrerr�ret7nel fpRi>ma.�ef7e G TITLE CCNHCD Plan Figures Showing the Recommended Official Plan Designations and Noted Major Gateways (red stars) and Minor Gateways blue stars Associated with the CCNHCD CLIENT Masri O Inc. Architects PROJECT PROJECT NO.LHCO281 Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario .. CIVIC CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR LAND USE MAP 9 SECONDARY PLAN 1. All locations are approximate. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-06 REFERENCE(S) )amend 1. Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence - The Corporation of the City of L Rr ReftnLa1 Preeervaecn r L A- WftW r—de ..1 Lcw �'�!'M.itlGw fteaidaifel 2. City of Kitchener, "Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District", W&— QCneM1y AWS Rea IeMIW �` � High ppreey MiltlP9 RatifenWl �� _ amre RefyReeel Cortversrm j � UA— DeY�++Se',1BfpBl a'bdf.e I I�i' H�yh Oenall' Cmn�em21 kdKK+�lli� of FIGURE # Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. '� f4eM eMn CgnIBW _ Neyh!yiuXeai Palk L..,: ua.�caym sewnd�n nan ' Rtimgry Arteia�Roae 1 Snc9ntlery WTeeie Rcad �. Maw C.4e Rye u�ncoyeaa Rau 0 25 19V Z'o yo 4 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-06 REFERENCE(S) 1. Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence - The Corporation of the City of PREPARED LHC Kitchener. 2. City of Kitchener, "Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District", 1HC (hftps://www.kitchener.caten/resourcesGeneraVDocuments/DSD PLAN_HeritagePlanCivicCentre. Pdf), DESIGNED JG Figure 4 & 7, 2007. Page 130 5114 Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esh and its licensors and are used under license. of FIGURE # Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Project # LHCO281 4.0 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Early Indigenous History 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier. 32 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500- 8000 BCE), the climate was like the present-day sub -arctic and vegetation was dominated by spruce and pine forests.33 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big -game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year. 34 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE), the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a preference for smaller territories of land — possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.35 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE—CE 1650) The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE — CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub -divided into the Early Woodland (1000-400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE — CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).36 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.37 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village -based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early (CE 1000-1300); Middle (CE 1300-1400); and Late (CE 1400— 1650).38 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities 32 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, "Paleo-Indians," in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990), 37. 33 EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. 34 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 35 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 36 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 37 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 38 EMCWFT, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). 31 Page 131 of 511 Project # LHCO281 in southern Ontario — and more widely across northeastern North America —organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. Communities south of Lake Ontario at this time included the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Senecas, Onondagas, and Tuscarora, and groups including the Anishinaabe and Neutral (Attiwandaron).39 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged military warfare on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.ao As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Anishinaabe. The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in military conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontari0.41 Most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy allied with the British during the American Revolution (1765 — 1783) with the promise that their land would be protected.42 This promise was not kept, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory was ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Paris in 1783.43 In compensation, Captain General Fedrick Haldimand granted the Haudenosaunee Confederacy 950,000 acres through the Haldimand Proclamation dated 25 October 1784 (Figure 5 and Figure 6).44 The land grant has been in debate ever since and has been steadily reduced to 46,000 acres today.as 39 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013, accessed May 7, 2021, http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm; University of Waterloo, "Land acknowledgment," Faculty Association, accessed May 7, 2021, https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty- association/about/land-acknowledgement; Six Nations Tourism, "History," accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/. 40 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation," Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, last modified 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN-FI NAL.pdf. 41 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "History", 3-4. 42 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. 43 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2021. 44 Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, "History of Six Nations," accessed May 7, 2021, https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. 45 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013. 32 Page 132 of 511 Project # LHCO281 e4ci Figure 5: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 182146 46 Library and Archives Canada, "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]," 1821, Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 33 Page 133 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Ls i Wreia I ,4' 5 Lary 4' YY9Ywr w.f[ I GwrllimOwl &sal udb,. [a 3a 7bF�IVW I,H' - - 1P Lands gra mvl bV L�q' ,. u•rrrrt Sim. AJ.nwns Rlkryp Q,f4lyyr Haldim,nrl prpcfasw lnaf&rn AHG°vrrmaWy Apw, malady 454,[100 acres grsAud rNs *SW airQ5 o1 4.44b Oc4obPr 75,1 T81. rmu4Mny A% of A:pal 2001 Figure 6: Haldimand Tract47 47 Six Nations, "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784," Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, accessed May 7, 2021, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. 34 Page 134 of 511 Project # LHCO281 4.3 Region of Waterloo The Haldimand Proclamation was divided into six blocks by the Government of Upper Canada and sold to fund an annuity to the Six Nations people .48 Block Two was sold to land speculator Colonel Richard Beasley in 1796 covering an area of 94,012 acres .49 Beasley began to subdivide the land and sell plots to Pennsylvania Mennonites fleeing after the American Revolution, this portion numbering 63,000 acres and called the German Company Tract.50 The German Company Tract was surveyed by government surveyor Augustus Jones in 1805.51 The survey resulted in a closed Pennsylvania Mennonite community that did not include clergy, Crown, or Loyalist reserves and which was divided into equal 448 -acre lots without lot and concession numbers.sz The German Company Tract was incorporated into Wellington District in 1816 and renamed Waterloo Township. 53 The Township grew quickly as it began a centre of German settlement in Upper Canada. 14 Boundaries were redrawn following the Baldwin Municipal Act of 1849 and the Hinks Act of 1852 creating the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey in 1849.55 Waterloo County became independent in 1853 with Berlin as its seat.56 The Region of Waterloo was established in 1973.57 4.4 City of Kitchener A community began to form in the German Company Tract at what would become Kitchener, then known as Berlin, beginning with the settlement of a group of Pennsylvania Mennonites in 1807 including early families like the Schneiders and Ebys.58 The Village of Berlin was established in the 1850s with most of its population of 700 working in agriculture.59 A station on the Grand Trunk Railway was established at Berlin in 1856, linking the village to the rest of North America.60 This coupled with access to inexpensive power from Niagara Falls lead to Berlin's industrial growth and nickname of "Busy Berlin" with a population of nearly 4,000 by 1890.61 Berlin received city status in 1912 and operated as a multi-lingual city, mixing German and English.62 48 Kenneth McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017, accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. 49 Waterloo Region Museum, "History of Waterloo Township," accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-township.aspx#notel . 50 Ezra Elby, A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county, Volume 1, (Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895), 1 and 26. 51 John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: An Illustrated History, (Toronto: Robin Bross Studio,1996), 19-20. 52 English and McLaughlin, 19. 53 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 54 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 55 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 56 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 57 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 58 Bill Moyer, Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History, (Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979), 1. 59 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Rych Mills, Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 7. 60 Mills, 7. 61 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 62 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 35 Page 135 of 511 Project # LHCO281 World War One brought change to Berlin with the city facing prejudice as Canada fought Germany.63 Berlin voted to change its name to Kitchener in 1916 in response. 64 Despite slowed growth during the war years, Kitchener grew from 20,000 in 1920 to 30,000 in 1930 leading to a housing and industry boom following the Great Depression.65 The city continued to grow through the 1900s, becoming Canada's fastest growing city in 1965.66 Kitchener experienced economic turmoil in the 1990s as the recession closed many long standing industries and lead to a restricting of the city's economy and workforce. 67 Into the 2000s, the City has pushed for the reconstruction of Kitchener with increased post -secondary education and reuse of heritage properties.68 4.5 Property History 1850-1900 1853-1854 Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo shows the downtown being laid out (Figure 11). The map shows the beginning of commercial and civic institutions lining present day King Street. Additionally, the presence of a hotel, factory, post office, courthouse and jail and Town Hall and noted on this map. The Map of parts of the Town of Berlin in the County of Waterloo (Plan 401) was created in May 1859 (Figure 11). The map shows the division of blocks into small lots and specially outline Lot 11 in which the Property is located. At this time the lot is associated with "Jantz." The 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township does not provide further detail about the Property or surrounding area specifically; however, it does provide an understanding of the surrounding streets and roadways (Figure 11). The Property is located within the large black area which is the main Town centre with a concentration of built structures. The 1875 Birds Eye View provides an artist rendering of the Property and the surrounding area (Figure 11). Although the map is an interpretation of the area, it does suggest that there was a concentration of buildings around the Property. The 1894, Revised 1904, Fire Insurance Plan highlights the extent of development on this block (Figure 12). The block showcases two large buildings (labelled Public Library and St. Matthews Lutheran Church) along Queen Street, while the rest of the block appears to be residential dwellings of various sizes, configurations, and placements along the streetscape. At this time, present-day 149-151 Ontario Street North (listed as 164-166 Foundry Street) is noted in detail. The two units are separate but share a centralized interior wall. The one -storey rear wing associated with 151 Ontario Street North and the one -and -a -half -storey rear wing associated with 149 Ontario Street North are present. 63 Mills, 7. 64 Moyer, 56. 65 Mills, 8. 66 Moyer, 83. 67 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, (Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012), 97. 68 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, 108-109 36 Page 136 of 511 Project # LHCO281 1900-1950 The 1908, revised 1925, Fire Insurance Plan shows minimal change to the block (Figure 12). The Public Library and St. Matthews Lutheran Church remains along Queen Street, as well as the residential dwellings. 149-151 Ontario Street North is noted in detail (the Property appears to have been known as 83-85 Ontario Street at one point). The coloured image confirms the structure was built using brick. The 1908, revised 1946, Fire Insurance Plan shows minimal changes to the block (Figure 12). The dwelling located on the corner of Duke Street and Queen Street has been converted into commercial use and is now labelled as an Electrical Workshop Supermotor and Lighting. 149- 151 Ontario Street North remained unchanged. 1950-2000 Through the second half of the 20th century the surrounding landscape underwent dramatic changes. This significantly altered the use, massing, scale and height of the block. Two prominent changes were the demolition of the Carnegie Public Library69 (built 1904) (Figure 7) located on the corner of Queen Street North and Weber Street West and the demolition of the large Hartman Krug70 residence (built 1896) at 117 Ontario Street North (Figure 8). The 1908 (rev 1925) Fire Insurance Plan shows the First English Lutheran Church, which was located adjacent to the Library on Queen Street North (Figure 12). " The church was used from 1914 until 1939 when the congregation moved to a new church located a King Street and Green Street. During the Second World War this building was used by the Red Cross, and eventually sold to the Kitchener Public library; the building was demolished in 1958.72 Subsequently all the buildings in this figure were demolished to make way for `Commerce House'. Figure 9 is a street view photo of 10 Duke Street which is located at the corner of Duke Street and Queen Street North. This building was built in 1949 and based on 1947 Fire Insurance Plans replaced a commercial structure which was noted as Electrical Workshop: Super Motor & Plumbing Co. In 1969, most of the block was rebuilt for the Corporation Square. You can see that the majority of the block, except for the upper corner of the image, has been demolish, flattened, and cleared. 149-151 Ontario Street North is visible in the background (Figure 10). Figure 13 shows the development of the lot from an aerial perspective. All the structures were present until 1969 when they were demolished and rebuilt with the current extant structures including the RBC building and a smaller mid -rise commercial structure on at southeast corner. 69 The library was replaced in 1962 by the existing library located at 85 Queen Street North. 70 H. Krug was a prominent business man and founder H. Krug Furniture Co. Ltd. (aka Krug Inc.) and owner of Doon Twines Ltd. (later called Canada Cordage). The grand 30 room house was demolished c. 1964, along with the adjacent residence which was once owned by William (Daddy) Simpson, who was another kingpin of the 19th century furniture industry. The properties are now the site of a six storey and ten story building known as Corporation Square (30 Duke Street West and 141 Ontario Street North). " Fear, Jon. Flash from the Past: St. Mark's Lutheran Church marks 100 years. The Record. August 23, 2013. Retrieved from, htti)s://www.therecord.com/living-story/4047236-flash-from-the-past-st-mark-s- lutheran-church-marks-100-years/ 72 Ibid. 37 Page 137 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 7: Photo of the Carnegie Library located on the corner of Queen Street North and Weber Street West. The building was demolished c. 1962 (KPL, P010257). Figure 8: Hartman Krug residence located at 117 Ontario Street North. The property was demolished c.1964 (The Record, 2010) 38 Page 138 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 9: 10 Duke Street found at the corner of Duke Street and Queen Street, built 1949 (Davis, 2017) Figure 10: 1969 photo of construction crew clearing the site to build the Corporation Square. Note 149-151 Ontario Street North in the background (The Record, 2010) 39 Page 139 of 511 Project # LHCO281 4.5.1 149-151 Ontario Street North The 1859 Weber Survey Map (Plan 401 )73 shows the Property— at the time is associated with the Jantz family. No historical information was found which connected the Property with the family name Jantz at this time. The City of Kitchener municipal heritage inventory sheet and Statement of Significance for 149-151 Ontario Street North note that the structure was built c. 1876 and the original owner is listed as Wilhelmina Louisa Bauman.74 Land title abstracts confirm that Wilhelmina Louisa Bauman owned Lot 11 in 1881. Wilhelmina Louisa Bauman (nee Stumpf) was born c. 1842 to parents William Stumpf (b. 1810, Kitchener) and Nancy (nee Gaukel) (b. 1810 Pennsylvania, USA). 71 She married Daniel Lewis Bauman on 22 October 1867 in Berlin 76 and together they had nine children including: Ira, Fredrick, Walter, Ivan, Charles, Jeremiah, Alfred, Byren, and Clara." Wilhelmina Bauman sold the entire Lot (noted as 0.27 -acres in size) to Jacob Merner Staebler on 18 July 1881 .78 J.M. Staebler (b. Aug 16, 1846, d. 7 May 1906) was a self-taught man who could read and write in German and English despite not attending school .79 During his ownership of 149-151 Ontario Street North, his residence was on Queen Street South.80 J.M. Staebler was married three time and had five children. He was mayor of Berlin in 1891.81 According to the 1893 City Directory, J.M. Staebler lived at 95 Queen Street South 82 and worked at 35 King Street. Presumably, the lots and the extant structures on the Property was occupied by tenants at this time. Upon Staebler's death in 1906 his widow and third wife, Anne May, divided and sold Lot 11.83 At this time of the sale, 149-151 Ontario Street North was known as 83-85 Foundry Street. On 9 August 1906, the Trusts and Guarantee Company Ltd., administrator of Staebler Estate, sold the Property (0.147 acres) to George Harrison for $3000.00.84 George Harrison sold the Property to Alfred C. Bender on 30 June 1925 for $8,500.00.85 The deed for this transaction has a stamp on it which says `A.C. Bender, Real Estate and Conveyancing, 11 Queen Street South'. A.C. Bender sold the Property to Melvina Wildfong on 4 January 1929 for $8,800.0086, who on 73 LRO Waterloo #58. Plan 401. Map of parts of the Town of Berlin in the County of Waterloo. 74 Some historical textual materials sign the name as Bowman; this is how the name is spelled on the Land Title abstracts. 75 Waterloo Generations. Wilhelmine Louisa Bowman. Person ID 18119. Retrieved from, http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personlD=18119&tree=generations 76 Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; County Marriage Registers, 1858 -June 1869; Reel: 17 77 Year: 1881; Census Place: Waterloo, Waterloo North, Ontario; Roll: C13265; Page: 14; Family No: 60 78 LRO#58. Deed of Land. Instrument Number 4809 & Land title Abstracts for Lot 11, Plan 401, Town of Berlin. 79 Waterloo Generations. Mayor Jacob Merner Staebler. Person 137544. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Built 1878. 83 It appears the lot, or parts of it, were divided into what today is known as 21 Weber Street West, 17 Weber Street West, and 149-151 Ontario Street North. 84 LRO# 58. Deed of Land. Land title Abstracts for Lot 11, Plan 401, Town of Berlin. Instrument No. 20505. 85 Ibid. Instrument No. 54885. 86 Ibid. Instrument No. 61902. 40 Page 140 of 511 Project # LHCO281 28 March 1947 sold an undivided half interest to Eli and Alice Weber.$' When Melvina died on 3 November 1951, the Property was bequeathed to Alice Weber." On 7 November 1960, Majorie Hoerle, Audrey Thibideau, and Muriel (Pearl) Cormier, acting as executors for Alice Weber, granted the Property to Morgan H Allcraft.89 What happened next is unclear; however, there appears to have been a dispute over ownership of the Property which was settled at the Supreme Court of Ontario. The finding shows that by way of a Certificate of final order for Foreclosure Majorie Hoerle, Audrey Thibideau, Muriel Cormier, (plaintiffs) granted the Property to Morgan H. Allcraft and Bernhardt Insurance Services Limited, Edward Sirkel; Trelco Ltd.; and the Shirlite MFG. Co. Ltd. on 9 March 1966.90 The following year, Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. granted the Property to William Archibald Bernhardt.99 William Albert Archibald Bernhardt was born 26 December 1904 to parents William George Bernhardt (b. 1869, d. 1924) and Maude May MacDonald (b. 1882, d, 1938).92 The Property appears to have stayed in the Bernhardt family until 30 June 1990 when it was transferred to 816601 Ontario Ltd. 93 It appears a small portion of the Property was sold to Frederick J. Shue Inc. William Cline, and Carole Grossman. The remainder of the Property was sold to Guy Property Inc. on 21 August 2015, who in turn sold it to Kiah Group Inc. on 3 October 2018.94 Currently, the present owner is LMC Limited Partnership. Despite the record of ownership listed above, it does not appear that any of these owners occupied the residence at any time. 151 Ontario Street was owned by Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. from 1966 until at least 2014 and used as an office for the company. City Directories from 1893 until 2014 indicate that 149 Ontario Street was used as a short-term rental by dozens of occupants. A snapshot of entries over the years shows us that residents resided there for only a few years at a time. Some of the occupants' professions included: teamster [1907], high school teacher [1911], machinist [1919], clerk [1919], stock keeper for Bell Telephone [1923], tailor [1923], stock keeper [1923], care taker [1928], shipper [1935] global furniture worker [1939], taxi driver [1947], carpenter [1955], clerk [1963], assembler at Electrohome [1973], and waiter [1974].95 The City Directories also highlight that around 1983 there are upwards of nine apartments associated with 149 Ontario Street North. It is possible that at this time the interior was adapted into its current configuration to accommodate this many dwelling units. Currently, the building unoccupied. Early in the morning on 7 April 2022 a fire broke out on the second floor of the building, resulting in damage to the roof, interior walls and floors. 87 Ibid. Instrument No. 93372. 88 Ibid. Instrument No. 211956. 89 Ibid. Instrument No. 211956. 90 Ibid. Instrument No. 211956. 91 Ibid. Instrument No. 339924. 92 Waterloo Generations. William Albert Archibald `Archie' Bernhardt. Person ID 1351637. Retrieved from, http://generations.re.gionofwaterloo.ca/-qetperson.php?personlD=1351637&tree=,generations 93 LRO# 58. Deed of Land. Land title Abstracts for Lot 11, Plan 401, Town of Berlin Instrument No. 1175440. 94 LRO#58. Service Ontario. Parcel Register for Property Identifier. Pin: 22316-0061 (LT) Reg. Number WR901932. 95 Vernon's City Directories from 1983-2014. 41 Page 141 of 511 M 17 i Anus � � �....�_ TM 4 i �1 g-x&S 4 IC •$'.hid � i " 0 25 50 Meters l 50 Meters *02,5 _rye \ R •J •` 1a °�+1,. •. vii, ` k i V $ t. wry- ' � s• 0 25 50 Meters 0 25 50 Meters Legend 151 Ontario Street North TITLE Historic Maps Showing the Property CLIENT Masri O Inc. Architects NOTE(S) l''-'>�"='-- PROJECT NO. LHCO281 Heritage Impact Assessment Update 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Schofield, M.C., "Map of part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo C.W" (https://uwaterloo.ca/I ibrary/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-reg ion -historical -maps: 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-10 accessed January 7, 2022) Kmz file, scale 1:6,336, University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, 1853. 2. LRO#58, "Map of parts of the Town of Berlin in the County of Waterloo', Plan 401, n.d 3. Tremaine, Geo. R. & G.M. "Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo Canada West" (https://maps. library.utoronto.ca/hgis/countymaps/waterloo/Waterloo_merge.jpg; accessed January 7, 2022) digitized map, scale 1:39,600, Toronto, 1861. 4. Brosius, H. "Berlin" (https://uwaterloo.ca/I ibrary/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-reg ion -historical -maps: JHC PREPARED LHC DESIGNED JG accessed January 7, 2022), KMZ file, University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, 1875. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. and its licensors and are used under license. FIGURE # 11 r w' CO � I i �1 w i 07 e-agl 6 =7 114 a 01 s I I � F *r i�j U k a a 0 y a 3 zn I I d P w d� r x ra 3N 7,.kfn OF l I J �y 0 20 40 Meters 0 20 40 Meters l a •�; •,. tri a Legend —- -- — �t 151 Ontario Street North n l S"=Af d-7ff--M S I 06 i I I + I TITLE — _ 0-4 Fire Insurance Plans Showing the Property CLIENT r I Masri O Inc. Architects j y -- PROJECT LHCO281 • Heritage Impact Assessment Update 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario 4 � NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Kitchener Public Library, "1894 Revised 1904 Fire Insurance Plan", Plate 5, Microfiche, accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room, 1904. 2. Kitchener Public Library, "1908 Revised 1925 Fire Insurance Plan", Plate 5, Microfiche, accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room, 1925. ° 3. Kitchener Public Libra 1908 Revised 1946 Fire Insurance Plan", Plate 5, Microfiche, accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room, 1946. +� aPortions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. 0— i Copyright o ri ht c Esn and its licensors. All rights reserved. CONSULTANT I7 rf -� ----- YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-06 V, u P PREPARED LHC ,ta.s 6'd l �. s a,r ��1. $� DESIGNED JG 0 20 40 Meters u 4 1 HCPage, 143 of 511 w _ FIGURE # 12 ? i I0 50 100 Meters = i, A .0 #ok +� i 1 50 100 MetersJ _ . _ : riT4;1! 1963 •.r fp" primp 0 50 100 Meters i 4 i ,fir ,a TITLE 0 50 100 Meters i 0 50 100 Meters Legend TITLE Historic Air Photos Showing the Property 151 Ontario Street North CLIENT Masri O Inc. Architects NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. PROJECT LHCO281 REFERENCE(S) "1930 Heritage Impact Assessment Update 1. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, Photo' 149-151 Ontario Street North, Kitchener, Ontario (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed January 10, 2022) Digitial Histoircal Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, 1930. 2. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, "1945 Photo' (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed January 10, 2022) Digitial Histoircal Air CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-01-10 Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, 1945. 3. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, "1955 Photo' (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed January 10, 2022) Digitial Histoircal Air PREPARED LHC Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, 1955. 4.University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, "1963 Photo' I HCPage, (https://lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed January 10, 2022) Digitial Histoircal Air DESIGNED JG Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, 1963. 144 5 Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. FIGURE # r of 13 Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. . Project # LHCO281 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 Exterior The structure located at 149-151 Ontario Street North is a two-storey, semi-detached building which contains three separate residential units (Figure 14 and Figure 15). According to Fire Insurance Plans, the building was historically separated into two units and divided down the center. As early as 1894, there was a one -storey rear addition on the north half of the building and a one -and -a -half storey addition on the southern half of the building (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The building follows an L-shaped plan with long fagade fronting onto Ontario Street North. The entire building is clad in buff brick in a stretcher bond. The brick appears to be fairly uniform in colour on the main section of the building while the rear wings have subtle variations of colours (red and yellow hues). There is more intricate brickwork on the main section of the building which includes, brick quoining, brick voussoirs with drip molds on the window openings and entranceways, brick voussoirs on the bay windows, and angled or bevelled brick forming a dripline which extends outwards above the foundation. The main portion of the building is built on a stone foundation which has been covered with parging. This appears to be consistent for the rear wing as well. There are four entrances to the building. Two are located on the fagade and were originally used as the main entrances to each of the respective units (Unit 1 and Unit 2). They have single wooden doors with segmentally arched openings and brick voussoirs with drip molds. Each door has one large pane of glass, a slot for letters, and newer hardware. Each door has a segmentally arched transom. One transom is made with clear class (151 Ontario Street North) and the other has red decorative print which appears to be a decal (149 Ontario Street North). The entrances are accessed by wooden stairs There is a single door entrance located at the rear of the building (east elevation) which is accessed by a wooden ramp (Figure 16 and Figure 17). The last entrance is located along the south-east corner of the building and provides access to Unit 3. It is accessed by wooden stairs (Figure 18). Both doors located on the rear wing are new. The main section of the building has a medium pitched gable roof with overhanging eaves on the fagade and rear elevation only. The roofline is flush on the north and south elevations. The eaves have vinyl covered soffits and the fagade has five paired moulded wooden brackets rhythmically placed along the roofline (Figure 19). The roof is clad in asphalt shingles and there are two single stacked brick exterior chimneys located centrally on the side elevations. The southeast corner of the rear wing has an asphalt gable roof with a single gable style dormer. The northeast portion of the rear wing is attached to the main building by a shed style roofline. The roof of the rear wing has narrow overhanging eaves with a plain frieze. The fagade is symmetrical in design with two large bay windows located on the lower level with narrow paired windows directly above. Each bay window has a hipped shingled roof and includes three segmentally arched windows opening with brick voussoirs and lug sills. All the other window openings located on the main building are segmentally arched with brick voussoirs with drip molds and lug sills (Figure 19). All the glazing associated with the main building are new vinyl windows. All the window openings located on the rear wing have 45 Page 145 of 511 Project # LHCO281 rectangular window openings and lug sills. The basement windows are square with brick voussoirs.96 The building is most influenced by the Italianate architectural style which was popular in Ontario between 1860-1890.97 Features which represent the Italianate architectural style include: paired eave brackets; tall segmentally arched paired windows; quoins; brick voussoirs with drip molds; and wide overhanging eaves. Some modest Georgian architectural style influence includes: the paired chimneys; side gable roof and overall symmetrical design. Aside from new windows, there do not appear to have been major alterations or additions to the building. Figure 14: Front (west) fagade of building 96 The basement window on the south-east corner of the rear wing does not have brick voussoirs. It is unclear why this is the only window which does not follow the design pattern. 97 Mike], Robert. 2004. p. 65. 46 Page 146 of 511 Figure 16: View of rear elevation, looking west 47 Project # LHCO281 Page 147 of 511 w 1 - Cm a, war Figure 16: View of rear elevation, looking west 47 Project # LHCO281 Page 147 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 17: Rear elevation, looking northwest Figure 18: View of side elevation, looking north 48 Page 148 of 511 W 4 � - Figure 18: View of side elevation, looking north 48 Page 148 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 19: Image showing, bay window and voussoirs, brick voussoirs with drip molds, quoining and brackets 5.2 Interior The interior floor plan has been modified from its original configuration in order to create three separate units (Figure 20). Unit 1 is a one -bedroom unit which occupies the north half of the main level and can be accessed through the north fagade doorway, and through the a secondary door located in the laundy room at the rear. Unit 2 occupies the entire upper level of both the main building and the rear wing. This is a five -bedroom unit which is accessed through the main entrance on the fagade or through the a secondary door located in the laundy room at the rear. Unit 3 is located on the south side of the main level and is accessed throught stairway on the south elevation. 49 Page 149 of 511 Shared Laundr Project # LHCO281 UNIT � Figure 20: Layout of units (not to scale). Unit 1 is outlined in blue. Unit 2 is outlined in red. Unit three is outlined in green and occupied the entire upper level of the building Unit 1- One Bedroom It Unit 1 is a one -bedroom apartment with the main entrance is located on the west elevation (Figure 21). The single wooden door has a segmentally arched transom with a single clear pane of glass. The unit has 3.6m ceilings. Moving through the front entrance towards the rear is a large area which contains the kitchen and living room (Figure 22). The kitchen has drop tiled ceiling with a laminate floor (Figure 23). The living room has a drop titled ceiling and carpet flooring (Figure 24). The main bedroom is located in the north-west section of the unit (Figure 25). Along the west elevation is a bay window with three window openings and an additional window is located on the north elevation. All the windows have moulded wooden trim and a wooden sill. The bedroom has a carpeted floor, wooden baseboards, and a drop tile ceiling. A closet has been created out of drywall in the north-east corner of the bedroom. In the north-east corner of the unit are two small rooms used as a bathroom; one room has the shower and the other room has a toilet and sink (Figure 26). The bathroom has tiled floors, wooden baseboards and a window on the north elevation which as moulded wooden trim and a wooden sill. All the hardware appears to be new. 50 Page 150 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 21: Floor layout of Unit 1 (not to scale) Figure 22: View of floor layout (left), kitchen from front entrance (right) 51 Page 151 of 511 Figure 23: View of kitchen Figure 24: View of living room 52 M Project # LHCO281 Page 152 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 25: View of main bedroom Figure 26: View of bathroom 53 Page 153 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Unit 2- Five Bedroom Unit 2 is a five -bedroom apartment. The main entrance is located on the west elevation (Figure 27). The single wooden door has a segmentally arched transom with red floral pattern design; the transom design is a decal (Figure 28). Upon entering the unit there is a doorway on south side which has been filled in as part of the interior alterations. The entrance has 3.6m high ceilings and wooden baseboards. The floor is covered with laminate flooring. The wooden staircase leads straight to the upper level. The handrail, baluster, stringers, rise and newel are made of wood. The newel has a decorative top and the balustrade has a modest moulded shaft (Figure 29). The tread of the stair is covered in carpet. At the top of the stairs a section of the original division wall has been removed creating a large opening and connecting the two halves (Figure 30). At some point the second staircase was removed and filled in. Bedroom 1 has three windows (two on west elevation and one south elevation), a carpeted floor and a drop ceiling (Figure 31). Wooden baseboard present and there is a small closet, with one window, located in the north-west corner of the bedroom. The window openings are surrounded by moulded wood trim and sills and the door opening is surrounding with moulded wood trim. The living room follows a similar form with wooden baseboards, carpet flooring, a single window on the south elevation, which is surrounded with wooden trim and a wooden sill. The living room has 3.6m high ceilings with a stucco ceiling finish (Figure 32). Towards the rear of Unit 2, on the south side, is a thick transition and two steps down into the kitchen. The kitchen is part of the rear wing. The kitchen has sloped ceilings, wooden baseboards, laminate flooring and a single small rectangular window surrounded by wooden trim (Figure 33 and Figure 34). Further towards the rear (east) there is a bathroom with laminate flooring. At the very rear is Bedroom 5 (Figure 35). This bedroom has carpet flooring, a stucco ceiling, and two windows on the east elevation. The window opening and the door opening appear to be surrounded by a plain wood trim. On the north side of the upper level are three bedrooms and a bathroom. The hallway appears wider than the other side as the original staircase has been removed (Figure 36). A wall has been added to the hallways. Bedroom 2 is located on the northwest corner of the main building. Bedroom 2 has 3.6m ceilings, carpet flooring, a stucco finish ceiling and wooden baseboards (Figure 37). There are four windows associated with the room: three on the west elevation and one on the north elevation. All the window openings are surrounded by moulded wood trim and wooden sills. Bedroom 3 follows a similar pattern to the others with stucco ceilings, carpeted flooring, wooden baseboards, and a small closet found in the north-west corner of the room (Figure 38).98 The room has one window located on the north elevation. The window opening is surrounded by moulded wood trim and wooden sills. Heading to the rear of the building one passes through a thick transition way and step down into a small hallway (Figure 39). To the south is a staircase which leads down a level to the laundry room (Figure 40). To the north is a small bathroom, with laminate flooring and a slanted celling. This is followed by Bedroom 4 located on the northeast corner (Figure 42). Bedroom 4 has 98 Pictures are limited due to the tenant being in the room at the time 54 Page 154 of 511 Project # LHCO281 carpet floors, no closet, slanted roof line, and plain wood trim, and one window located on the north elevation. The window is surrounded by moulded wood trim with a wooden sill. In general, all the hardware in this unit is newer. There are also variations of metal grates found throughout the Unit. Bedroom 4 Bedroom 3 Bedroom S Bedroarr ��05Et ��pSE[ living Room Bedroom 1 Figure 27: Floor layout of Unit 2 (not to scale). This unit occupies the entire upper level of 149- 151 Ontario Street North 55 Page 155 of 511 Figure 28: View of Unit 2 Front door with transom from interior (left) Figure 29: View of stairs and hallways 56 Project # LHCO281 Page 156 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 30: View of transition ways, showing the living room and kitchen and main transition from one half of the apartment to the other Figure 31: View of Bedroom 1 57 Page 157 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 32: View of living Room Figure 33: View south of kitchen in Unit 2 58 Page 158 of 511 Figure 34: View west of Kitchen Figure 35: View of southwest corner of Bedroom 5 59 Project # LHCO281 Page 159 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 36: View of hallway located on the north half of the apartment which provides access to Bedroom 2 and 3 Figure 37: View of Bedroom 2 and closet 60 Page 160 of 511 Figure 38: View of Bedroom 3 Project # LHCO281 I ME Figure 39: View of transition way to rear portion (south) side of building 61 Page 161 of 511 Figure 40: View of staircase leading from Unit 2, leading down to laundry room Figure 41: View of bathroom in Unit 2 62 Project # LHCO281 Page 162 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 42: View of Bedroom 4 Unit 3- One bedroom The main entrance is located in the south-east elevation and accessed by exterior stairs. Upon entering the unit the entrance is being used for storage and laundry (Figure 44 and Figure 45). This room has two newer narrow windows along the east elevation. The window openings are surrouded by moulded wooden trim with a wooden sill. There are large wooden baseboards and laminate flooring, similar to the rest of the units. The kitchen has laminate flooring, simple wood plank baseboards and a single large rectangluar window on the south elevation. This window is surrouded by wood trim. To the south-east of the kitchen is a bathroom which has tile flooring (Figure 46 and Figure 47). The hallways leads to is a large square bedroom with a single window located on the south elevation (Figure 48). The window openings are surrouded by moulded wooden trim with a wooden sill. There are four windows assocaied with the living room, three in the bay window, and one on the west elevation (Figure 49). There are newer simple wooden baseboards and carpet, similar to the rest of the units. An opening on the northern eleveation has been closed in (Figure 49). 63 Page 163 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Entranee Kitchen Bedrgpm Figure 43: Floor layout of Unit 3 (not to scale). Note the grey area is associated with Unit 2 Figure 44: View of entrance to Unit 3 64 Page 164 of 511 Figure 46: View of kitchen area 65 Project # LHCO281 Page 165 of 511 Am Figure 47: View of kitchen looking towards hallway Figure 48: View of bedroom in Unit 3 66 Project # LHCO281 Page 166 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 49: View of living room looking north towards bay window (left) and toward northeast corner (right) Laundry Room and Basement At the rear of the Property is a shared laundry room (Figure 50). In addition the exterior entrance, the room can be access from the interior of Unit 1 and Unit 2. The room has a drop ceiling and laminate flooring. The walls are covered with a vertical wood plank. The basement is accessed through the laundry room (Figure 51). The basement is divide into two rooms. The most easterly room has concrete flooring and the walls are made with brick. There are many areas which have been covered with parging and areas that were whitewashed at one time (Figure 52). The other room has brick laid on the floor and the walls are both field stone and heavy mortor and brick (Figure 53). The HVAC equipement is located in basement and there are metal and wooden support beams located throughout (Figure 54). There is a small opening in the westerly brick wall which provides visual access to a small crawl space located under the main poriton of the house (Figure 55). 67 Page 167 of 511 Figure 50: View of laundry Figure 51: Floor layout of the basement (not to scale). 68 Project # LHCO281 Page 168 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 52: View of rear portion of the basement. Note the brick covered with whitewash and parging Figure 53: View of foundation wall showing mix of brick and stone walls with brick flooring 69 Page 169 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 54: View of the brick flooring, HVAC equipment Figure 55: View of basement crawl space 70 Now Page 170 of 511 Project # LHCO281 5.3 Structural Report Tacoma Engineers completed a structural report on 17 December 2021. The report provides the following description of the structure. The existing building is constructed with a combination of built-up masonry and wood framing. It would be typical for the exterior walls of the building to be constructed with multi-wythe masonry, although the lack of visible lock coursing at regular vertical spacing may indicate a masonry veneer over wood -framed walls. It is expected that the roof is framed with regularly spaced wood rafters and ceiling joists, and that the floors are framed with regularly spaced wood joists supported on intermediate bearing walls. Foundations are exposed on the interior and were found to be constructed with a combination of clay brick and fieldstone. Interior foundation walls are constructed with multi-wythe masonry, which supports the assumption that the exterior walls previously described in this section are built as multi-wythe assemblies. Finishes are installed throughout the building and preclude a direct visual review of the primary building structure, with the exception of the basement foundation walls. All areas of the building appear to be in good condition, with no signs of significant structural deterioration or movement.99 Further recommendations were provided by Tacoma Engineers and include: • The roof of each canted bay window appears to be constructed with asphalt shingles. These shingles are often inappropriate for a roof with such a flat slope. The roofing should be replaced with a low slope roofing product. • Many mortar joints on the Ontario Street elevation have been repaired with a modern sealant. This is not compatible with the historic materials and should be replaced with a compatible lime base mortar. It is recommended that 100% of the mortar joints be repointed, to give the fagade a consistent visual appearance. • The exposed stone foundation walls have been parged with cement. The composition of this cement is unknown, but it is suspected that repairs of the underlying mortar joints will be required. • The wood steps and deck are deteriorated and will likely need to be replaced during the proposed redevelopment. • The construction activities surrounded with retaining the fagade and constructing the proposed high-rise tower are anticipated to cause some cracking to the mass masonry fagade. While efforts will be made to limit these as much as possible, repairs will be necessary to completely restore the fagade once the construction is complete. 5.4 Fire Damage Early in the morning on 7 April 2022 a fire broke out on the second floor of the building, resulting in damage to the roof, interior walls and floors (see Figure 56 to Figure 59). 99 Tacoma Engineers, Structural Report Conservation Plan, 17 December 2021 71 Page 171 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 56: Fire Damage, second floor interior wall (provided by Masri O Architects) Figure 57: Fire Damage, roof from interior, second floor (provided by Masri O Architects) 72 Page 172 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Figure 58: Fire Damage, exterior, side (south) elevation (provided by Masri O Architects) �III�OG�III�IN1111I�11�i�.� i;1111N�F, Figure 59: Fire Damage, exterior, front elevation (provided by Masri O Architects) 73 Page 173 of 511 Project # LHCO281 5.5 Surrounding Context 149-151 Ontario Street North is located in the City Centre District. The City Centre District is the commercial core centred around King Street. King Street is located two blocks south. According to the OP, the "area has historically developed as a pedestrian—oriented environment characterized by ground floor commercial uses in narrow store fronts, providing frequent entrances for pedestrians". The Property occupies a corner lot. To the west is the rear of a large four -storey building. On the north side of this section of Weber Street West, the streetscape is inconsistent in height, massing, rhythm, and use. Within an approximately 500 -meter radius of the Property are over a dozen large-scale buildings which range in height from six to 19 storeys. These buildings are used in a residential, public, and/or commercial capacity (Figure 56). Including:100 • 50 Queen Street North: 11 storey Commercial Centre (Commerce House). • 57 Queen Street North: 18 storey Building: Residential Condos (The Regency). • 141 Ontario Street North: 6 storeys, appears all Commercial (Ontario Tower). • 30 Duke Street West: 10 storey Commercial Centre (Duke Tower). • 11 Margaret Avenue: 18 storey residential apartments (Queen -Margaret Apartments) • 100 Queen Street North: 18 Storey residential apartments (Queen -Margaret Apartments). • 101 Fredrick St: 11 storeys commercial building. • 40 Weber Street East: 9 storey commercial building. • 85 Fredrick Street: 8 storeys, public institution (Waterloo Regional Court House). • 53 Water Street North: 16 storey residential apartments (Alexandrian Rental Suites). • 22 Fredrick Street: 11 storey commercial building (Financial Horizons Group). • 85 Duke Street West- 19 Storey residential condos • 220 King Street West- Mixed use commercial and public building. (Kitchener City Hall) • 55 King Street West- tiered 12 storey commercial building. • 30 Queen Street North- 6 storey parking garage. goo Bolded entries are located on the same block as the Property. 74 Page 174 of 511 % • s r r r� x G Project # LHCO281 5.6 Adjacent Heritage Properties The City defines adjacent as: ...lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. Using this definition, the Property is adjacent to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). All properties within the CCNHCD are designated Part V Section 41 of the OHA, additionally, some properties, in addition to Part V designations, are designated Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. 76 Page 176 of 511 Project # LHCO281 6.0 EVALUATION 6.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The Property was previously evaluated by LHC in 2019 against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4.0 and 5.0. During the 2021 site visit, it was determined no significant changes have been made to the Property since the previous site visits, performed in 2018 and 2019, therefore this updated HIA agrees with the 2019 evaluation. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 5 Table 5: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for 149-151 Ontario Street South Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. - property has designor physical - becausei. is a rare, unique, representative, Yes The semi-detached buff brick building was or early example of a style, type, built c. 1876 and is an early example of a expression, material, or vernacular building showing Italianate and construction method, Georgian influences. Many of the original Italianate-influenced features remain intact including paired eave brackets, tall segmentally arched paired window openings, quoins, brick voussoirs with drip molds, and wide overhanging eaves. The limited Georgian architectural influences are found in the paired chimneys ends, gable roof and overall symmetrical plan. ii. displays a high degree of No The building does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftsmanship or artistic merit. It was built using common methods and techniques for that time period. iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The building does not display a high degree technical or scientific of technical or scientific achievement. It was achievement. built using common building techniques for its time period and location. 2. - property associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a Yes The Property does not have a direct theme, event, belief, person, connection with a specific event, person, activity, organization, or activity, organization or institution that is institution that is significant to a significant to a community. community, The Property is associated with the theme of industrialization in Kitchener throughout the 77 Page 177 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Criteria Criteria Met Justification late 19th and 20th century and the presence of multi -tenant dwellings. Many of the tenants associated with the Property worked in nearby industries which were important to the development of Kitchener and the downtown commercial core. ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not appear to yield, or yield, information that have the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or community. The Property has been covered with asphalt. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The builder is unknown. work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. - property becausei. is important in defining, No The Property is not important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining or supporting the character of character of an area,` the area. The surrounding context and its legibility as a residential house and/or as a small-scale commercial space has been lost. This section of Ontario Street North, and the majority of the surrounding block, are dominated by medium and large-scale commercial buildings. As a result of these changes the Property is more associated with the commercial core, in both zoning and location, than with residential use. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, No The Property is not physically, functionally or or historically linked to its historically linked to its surroundings. The surroundings, or adjacent and surrounding residential dwellings which once lined the east side of Ontario Street North were all lost in the mid 20th century. iii. is a landmark. No The property is not a landmark. 78 Page 178 of 511 Project # LHCO281 6.1.2 Additional Considerations In order to understand the uniqueness and representative value of the physical features of 149- 151 Ontario Street North as well as thematic associations outlined in the existing SOS, a comparative analysis of buildings of similar, style, materials, age of construction and massing within the CCNHCD was explored. Information was extracted from observations from the site visits and information outlined in the CCNHCD Plan and CCNHCD Study Inventory Summary. The comparative analysis demonstrates that there are at least a dozen buildings categorized as illustrating Italianate influences (Figure 57 through Figure 59) and at least eighteen categorized as Georgian architectural styles. Furthermore, the CCNHCD Plan identifies that Italianate and Georgian architectural styles are amongst the more represented styles in the Districts. Within the CCNHCD there are more than 50 building noted as being built between c. 1870- 1890. The CCNHCD Plan notes that "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",101 Dozens of buff brick buildings were observed throughout the district and many buildings have variations of brick voussoirs with drip molds, bay windows, overhanging eaves, segmentally arched windows, doors with transoms and quoins. The CCNHCD notes that 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. 102 Lastly, there are at least eight semi-detached buildings which range from modest working-class residences to more ornate and decorative residences; three of semi-detached residences were built c. 1885 in the Italianate architectural style. Appendix D provides photographic documentation of some example buildings of similar age and style. The comparative analysis is not intended to diminish the cultural heritage value or interest identified in the O. Reg 9/06 evaluation (Section 6.1.1.), but rather, to understand the degree to which the building and its physical features may be considered `unique' as written in the SOS [SCHVI]. The comparative analysis shows that the Property's heritage attributes can be observed on numerous buildings throughout the nearby district. It also highlights that although there are multiple semi-detached buildings in the district, the scale and design of 149-151 Ontario Street North is not represented. An updated draft SOS [SCHVI] has been included below. 101 CCNHCD Plan. P. 2.4. 102 CCNHCD Plan. P. 2.4. 79 Page 179 of 511 G r — El, � P i L � ' -'- ,f — - " Project # LHCO281 Figure 63: Examples of architectural elements found with the CCNHCD including overhanging eaves, wood brackets, buff brick, quoins, bay windows, voussoirs with drip molds and brick chimneys 6.1.3 Summary of Evaluation The Property needs to meet one criterion to be considered for designation under section 29 of the OHA. The Property meets criteria 1.i., and 2.i. identified in O. Reg. 9/06 of the OHA and would be eligible for designation. The authors findings generally align with those outlined in the existing SOS [SCHVI] (Section 1.3). The SOS [SCHVI] and heritage attributes have been modified to reflect the authors findings and augmented with additional details as needed. Heritage attributes which are no longer present have been removed. 81 Page 181 of 511 Project # LHCO281 6.1.4 Statement of Significance The cultural heritage value or interest of the Property resides in the c. 1876 semi-detached brick building and its use a residential dwelling for working-class tenant throughout the late 19th and 20th century. 6.1.4.1 Description of Property 149-151 Ontario Street North is a two-storey 19th century brick building. The building is an early example of a vernacular building with influences from Georgian and Italianate architecture. The building is situated on a 0.15 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Ontario Street North between Duke Street West and Weber Street West in the City Commercial Core planning area of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building. The legal description is Plan 401 Part Lot 11. 6.1.4.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 149-151 Ontario Street North is recognized for its design/physical, and historical/associative value. The Property at 149-151 Ontario Street North demonstrates design or physical value as an early example of a late 19th century, semi-detached, vernacular brick building with both Italianate and modest Georgian influences. The building has many intact original elements including buff brick, a symmetrical plan with two bay windows, side gable roof, brackets, brick quoining, brick voussoirs with drip molds, window sills, front doors with transoms, and two end chimneys. The Property has historical and associative value because it is the last remaining example of a residential building in this section of Ontario Street North and is an example of a working-class residence. 6.1.4.3 Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes supporting the cultural heritage value of the Property are represented in the c. 1876 two-storey, semi-detached brick building. They include: • Buff brick construction • Symmetrical plan with two bay windows • Side gable roof and overhanging eaves • Wood brackets • Brick quoining • Segmentally arched window openings • Brick voussoirs with drip mold • Front doors with transoms, and • Two brick chimneys. 82 Page 182 of 511 Project # LHCO281 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed new building comprises a 27 -storey mixed use apartment building (Figure 64 to Figure 69). The apartment building will occupy 849.91 m2 of the lot with a gross floor area of 15,914m2 The height of the structure will be 93.2m and it will front Weber Street; however, there will be other points of entry along Ontario Street (Figure 64 and Figure 65). The apartment complex will accommodate four commercial units and 206 residential units. The basement will have a theatre, electrical, mechanical and maintenance rooms, lockers, and bike storage (Figure 66). The ground and second floors will incorporate the existing exterior walls (west and south) into the podium (Figure 67). Along the front of the existing building will be an open two -floor lobby space. The accessible entrance to the new building will be via a glass vestibule at the north end of the existing fagade. Previous iterations of the design saw the retention of a portion of the north fagade; however, the entirety of the wall is required to be removed to accommodate sufficient space for the accessible vestibule and staircases. The tower will be supported, above the retained portion of the building, on large columns along Ontario Street and along the laneway south of the building The ground floor will have large floor to ceiling windows, except for the integrated portion of the west elevation of the current brick structure. The third floor is proposed to have amenities, a commercial/office space and an outdoor terrace. Along Weber Street, the third floor will have an amenity space, enclosed in glass. Current renderings show residential units will generally have large windows and glass balconies (Figure 69 and Figure 70). The front fagade and south elevation of the two-storey buff brick building will be retained and integrated into the 27 -storey apartment (Figure 71 to Figure 74). The south elevation — including the chimney — will be visible from along Ontario Street. The existing roof (badly damaged in the April 2022 fire) will be removed and replaced with a glazed roof with the same slope as the existing (Figure 71). The mail room door is proposed to make use of an existing window, in order to take advantage of the existing structural opening, thus avoiding the need for a new structural opening and maintaining the symmetry of openings on the south elevation (Figure 73). In order to improve the energy efficiency of the extant windows, the wooden window cases along the remaining walls will be retained (to the extent possible) and will be reinforced through repairs and either replacement of the current modern vinyl inserts or through the addition of storm windows on the interior walls. The two entrance doors openings located on the west elevation will be retained, but will no longer provide regular access to the building. The roof of each bay window will be replaced with a metal roof; however, the slope and pitch will be retained. The existing wooden steps leading to the main entrances (west elevation) will be removed and replaced with new concrete steps that will also function as seating. 83 Page 183 of 511 23m 2mi2as» 77, LLIa )2 ED 7: 'x o w ,els #z !.:! LLI NIS 13 LU \� ƒ \- \--- _= ywa® ,[ � § ± co LO 0 'IT m ¢ 2 n � - -- _ ( 23m 2mi2as» 77, LLIa )2 ED 7: 'x o w ,els #z !.:! LLI NIS 13 LU \� ƒ \- \--- _= ywa® ,[ � § ± co LO 0 'IT m ¢ 2 n � t - 72 ::l:=:::: Iia � L a i r a ■—,�1 I �f, �I ae ■ � Ia1 ISI.. '. ". ■ a I' x 1=_ �' IG Ila z 0 ¢ IN U) 0 M LU Lb CO LL to co LO 4- 0 LO co r N C6 m ►i LL to co LO 0 m co r (D O) m 0- Z a J a O O J LL W Z Z a N N W 2 LL n co LO O ti co r (D 0) m 0- m SII wE Z� I UES J LL LO 4- 0 co co r N Z g Z J a 0 O i O On Jg U. 0- LLuj aow M m a y J LL LO 4- 0 co co r N Ab C E 0- 0 O O O (D N O 0- 0 O L Q O L O Z L ll+^+ VJ O L M c 0 r LO r 0 C 0 (B > 0 0 y-+ N 0 0 O cu 0) 0 ry 0 ti L D .2 LL CD m r r LO 4- 0 0 rn r N L .V` AWA, .AWAL .VL AWA, MA . mm 1:� i ■r ws ■ IR �mm� it e I I I I i saaw.sarri+w --- FD a) a) a) L U) E 0 L O cu ^W W D 0 cn cu W cu U (B m 0 (D ti 2) LL LO 4- 0 rn r a) A I Emmill yr E 2 cu 0 cu 4-- cu 4- 0 A) D 0) LL 4- 0 N CY) z O F— a LU J o W LO N r F— W D J O < C/) r M Ch a LO 4- 0 (Y) rn r N Project # LHCO281 8.0 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES The MHSTCI's Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include: 1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. In general, obstruction of views was considered as it relates to the support columns and general views of the fagade from Ontario and Weber Streets. Although the columns will be visible along the front and south elevation, they are required to support the tower above. Earlier iterations of the design contemplated cantilevering the tower above the building and these were determined not to be feasible as design progressed. As demonstrated in Figure 71, the fagade will remain visible from Weber Street when approaching from the east and the new building will not obstruct any significant attributes. 8.1 Potential Impacts to 149-151 Ontario Street North Table 6: Impact assessment of the heritage attributes of 149-151 Ontario Street North Attributes Potential ImpactHeritage Type of .. Discussion Buff brick Portions Destruction The development proposal seeks to construction retain the front (west) fagade and south elevation. The rear addition, and the east and north elevations will be removed. The front fagade will be retained and integrated into the basement, ground and second floor of the 27 -storey apartment. Symmetrical plan No N/A The development proposal seeks to with two bay retain and integrate the west and windows south elevation of the building. With appropriate miti ation measures in 94 Page 194 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Attributes Potential ImpactHeritage Type of •. Discussion place to ensure conservation of the fagade, the symmetrical plan and two bay windows are not expected to be adversely affected by the development (see Figure 71 and Figure 72). The replacement of the existing wooden porch with a new concrete porch is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact as the porch -itself — is not a heritage attribute; however, it is recommended that the selection of concrete and design of any attachments be informed by a qualified heritage professional. The design of the steps and any railings should be informed by the existing fagade and its materials. The new porch should be compatible with and subordinate to the existing fagade. Replacement of the roof of each bay window with a metal roof is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact, if carefully planned, given that '; the slope and pitch will be retained. Selection of the roofing colour should be complimentary to the windows and doors on the fagade. Side gable roof and Yes Destruction The development proposal seeks to overhanging eaves remove the roof. The proposed new glazed roof will retain the same pitch and slope of the current roof. The overhang of the new roof will exceed the existing overhang; however, with the use of glazing is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact with respect to shadows or obstruction of views of related heritage attributes. Furthermore, the April 2022 fire resulted in significant damage to the 95 Page 195 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Attributes Potential Type of Discussion ImpactHeritage •. roof likely requiring replacement of significant portions. Wood brackets No N/A Through careful design of the new glazed roof and appropriate mitigation measures during construction, the existing wooden brackets can be retained and will be visible (Figure 68). Brick quoining Portions Destruction The development proposal seeks to retain and integrate the west elevation of the building. The proposed development will retain the west and south elevation and the quoins located at the northwest and southwest corners of the structure and be integrated into the 27 -storey apartment building. The remaining quoins will be removed resulting in the partial loss of this attribute. Segmentally arched Portions Destruction The development proposal seeks to window openings retain and integrate the west and south elevations of the building. Window openings on the north and rear elevations will be removed. Alteration of one of the south elevation windows to accommodate the mail room door, will alter the base of this opening, but will not affect the segmental arch or the header. Adverse impacts of this alteration can be minimized if carefully implemented with appropriate conservation measures. Brick voussoirs with Portions Destruction The development proposal seeks to drip mould and alteration retain and integrate the west and south elevations of the building. Voussoirs on the north and rear elevations will be removed. 96 Page 196 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion Impact Impact Alteration of one of the south elevation windows to accommodate the mail room door, will alter the base of this opening, but will not affect the segmental arch or the header. Adverse impacts of this alteration can be minimized if carefully implemented with appropriate conservation measures. Front doors with Potential Alteration The development proposal seeks to transoms retain and integrate the west elevation of the building. The two door openings on the west elevation be retained, but are not anticipated to function as regular entrances. Brick chimney Portions Destruction The development proposal seeks to retain the south elevation, including the brick chimney. The chimney on the north elevation will be removed. Through careful detailed design and with the implementation of appropriate conservation/stabilization measures, this heritage attribute will be conserved on the south elevation. 8.2 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Impacts The CCNHCD Plan has numerous design guidelines which have been created to ensure that new development with the district is respectful of the overall character of the neighbourhood. While the proposed development does not fall within the CCNHCD boundary and, as such, the guidelines do not apply. The Property is adjacent to the CCNHCD and the policies and guideline have nonetheless been considered as they relate to potential impacts on those adjacent properties and the Weber Street West streetscape. A discussion is outlined in Table 7. Table 7: Assessment of CCNHCD Guidelines against proposed development Weber Street contains nearly half of the oldest buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, making it one of the most important streets in the District from 97 I IIC IUIIUVVII IIy. f.JUIIUt=Z> CIUUI CJJ II It, Weber Street West area. It is understood that this section of Page 197 of 511 an architectural and historic perspective. The size and scale of heritage buildings on Weber Street is generally larger than the rest of the District, and includes two churches, small scale apartments (3 - 4 storeys) and a number of other larger residences that have been converted to multiple residential units or office/commercial uses. The Municipal Plan designates most of the street as High Density Commercial Residential, with the designation extending slightly in some areas. The following policies are to apply to the whole of Weber Street within the District as well as to those sections of the High Density Commercial Residential designation that extend into the District on College and Young Streets. Policies: (a) The protection and retention of existing heritage buildings and their architectural features is strongly encouraged (b) Maintain residential streetscape character through the use of appropriate built form, materials, roof pitches, architectural design and details particularly at the interface between Weber Street and the interior of the neighbourhood; (c) Adaptive reuse of existing buildings , should be given priority over redevelopment. Flexibility in Municipal Plan policies and zoning regulations is encouraged where necessary to accommodate appropriate adaptive reuse options. (d) Where redevelopment is proposed on vacant or underutilized sites, new development shall be sensitive to and compatible with adjacent heritage resources on the street with respect to height, massing, built form and materials. (e) Any buildings proposed over 5 storeys in height may be required to undertake shadow studies where they abut existing residential uses, to demonstrate that they will not unreasonably impact on access to sunliaht in rear vard amenitv areas. 98 Project # LHCO281 Weber Street contains buildings which are generally larger (3-4 storeys), and it is designated high Density Commercial Residential. The proposed development is outside of the CCNHCD and therefore the following policies do not apply, however, they have been reviewed and considered. The proposed development will retain the west and south elevations of the two-storey structure. The proposed development retains the west and south elevations and partial north elevation, retaining character of the Property along the streetscape. The proposed development is outside of the HCD, but is in keeping with the general height of nearby structures outside of the district, many of which are greater than 10 - storeys in height. N/A Page 198 of 511 Project # LHCO281 (f) Design guidelines provided in Section The policies outline in 6.9.4 pertain 6.9.2 of this Plan will be used to review and to Weber Street and have been evaluate proposals for major alterations, additions or new buildings to ensure that new development is compatible with the adiacent context. 6.6 NEW BUILDINGS - RESIDENTIAL In addition to the large vacant tract of land on Margaret Avenue, there are a few locations in the residential core area of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District where new buildings are likely to be constructed. New or replacement buildings may be constructed in some cases as a result of fire or structural instability. In such situations, new buildings must be designed to be compatible with the heritage characteristics of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood to help retain the overall visual context of the area Recommended Practices and Design Guidelines considered below. The following guidelines have been considered against the proposed development. Match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of The setback is in keeping with the the neighbourhood, particularly to the immediately adjacent buildings. The size, adjacent neighbors. massing and footprint are similar to other adjacent and nearby larger structures that front onto Weber _Street West, opposite the CCNHCD. Setbacks of new development should be consistent The setback is consistent with the with adjacent buildings. Where setbacks are not adjacent buildings located along generally uniform, the new building should be aligned Weber Street, outside of the HCD. with the building that is most similar to the predominant setback on the street. New buildings and entrances must be oriented to the street and are encouraged to have architectural interest to contribute to the visual appeal of the neighbourhood. Respond to unique conditions or location, such as corner properties, by providing architectural interest and details on both street facing facades. Renderings of the proposed There are several entrances to the new apartment and are located along Ontario Street North and Weber Street West. The Property is located at the southeast corner of Ontario Street North and Weber Street West. 99 Page 199 of 511 Use roof shapes and major design elements that are complementary to surrounding buildings and heritage patterns. Project # LHCO281 development include large floor to ceiling windows, amenity space on the 2nd and 3rd floors with glazed walls, and the integration of 149-151 Ontario Street North fagade into the apartment building. The proposed development will have a flat roof, which is in keeping with the flat rooves of the nearby buildings. The roof over 149-151 Ontario Street North will retain its pitch and slope, which are complementary to residential properties nearby. The use of angled canopy above the second floor along Weber Street, provides a visual break between the base and tower and creates a more pedestrian scale along Weber Street and Ontario Street. Size, shape, proportion, number and placement of The window size, shape, and windows and doors should reflect common building placement are similar to other patterns and styles of other buildings in the immediate comparable towers outside of the area. HCD in the vicinity. Use materials and colours that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Where appropriate, incorporate in a contemporary wav some of the traditional details that are standard 100 The large floor to ceiling glass windows on the first to second floors use of angled glazing above the second floor along Weber Street, provides a visual break between the base and tower and creates a more pedestrian scale along Weber Street and Ontario Street. Current renderings show the colours tend to be grey and light buff. This colour is consistent with the buff and red brick commonly found within the CCNHCD. The glazing on lower floors is also complementary with the materials of buildings within the HCD. The fagade of 149-151 Ontario Street North will be integrated into Page 200 of 511 elements in the principal facades of properties in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Such details as transoms and sidelights at doors and windows, covered porches, divided light windows and decorative details to articulate plain and flat surfaces, add character that complements the original appearance of the neighbourhood and add value to the individual property. Project # LHCO281 the building. The blend of traditional and contemporary styles seeks to complement the character of the CCNHCD, while not trying to replicate a historic building design. The careful removal and salvage of portions of the extant building to be removed may provide an opportunity for the reuse of materials and design elements in other areas of the lower floors. Front drive garages are strongly discouraged. N/A Garages should be located in the rear yard whenever possible and will be subject to the design guidelines of the HCD Plan. 6.9.4 Weber Street Any infill development on Weber Street should maintain a strong relationship to the street at the lower levels (2 to 4 storeys) with respect to built form and use. Setbacks of new development should be consistent with adjacent buildings. Where significantly different setbacks exist on either side, the new building should be aligned with the building that is most similar to the predominant setback on the street. Building facades at the street level should incorporate architectural detail, similar materials and colours, and consistency with the vertical and horizontal 101 The lower floors of the 27 -storey apartment will integrate the west elevation of 149-151 Ontario Street North into the final design. The buff brick exterior, windows and doors, and other heritage attributes will be mostly retained and form a strong relationship to the street and neighbourhood. The use of angled canopy above the second floor along Weber Street, provides a visual break between the base and tower and creates a more pedestrian scale along Weber Street and Ontario Street. All the buildings along this section of Weber Street have narrow setbacks from the street. The proposed set back is in keeping with the adjacent properties. It also responds to the existing area reserved for road widening. Current renderings show the colours tend to be muted with grey and light buff. This colouring is consistent with Page 201 of 511 proportions or rhythm of adjacent / nearby buildings on the street to establish a cohesive streetscape. Project # LHCO281 the buff and red brick commonly found within the CCNHCD. The use of glazing on lower floors is complementary with the materials of buildings within the HCD, creating a more cohesive streetscape. New development shall have entrances oriented to the There are several entrances to the street. new building and are located along Size, placement and proportion of window and door openings for new buildings or additions should be generally consistent with those on other buildings along the street. Any new buildings taller than 3 to 4 storeys should incorporate some form of height transition or stepbacks to minimize the perception of height and shadow impacts to pedestrians on the street and provide more visual continuity. Stepbacks should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces for the upper levels. Any buildings taller than 5 storeys abutting a residential property to the rear should be constructed within a 45 -degree angular plane where feasible, starting from the rear property line, to minimize visual impacts on adjacent property owners To minimize impacts on properties to the rear of or flanking Weber Street, a rear yard setback of 15 metres should be maintained for new buildings as well as additions where feasible. Locate loading, garbage and other service elements (HVAC, metres, etc.) away from the front fagade so they do not have a negative visual impact on the street or new buildina / addition. 102 Ontario Street North and Weber Street West. The window size, shape, and placement are similar to the symmetrical placement of those found on historic structures. The large floor to ceiling glass windows on the first to second floors are not reflective of the historic nature of nearby structures. The facade of 149-151 Ontario Street North will be retained and the use of angled glazing above the second floor along Weber Street, provides a visual break between the base and tower helps create a sense of visual continuity along the streetscape along Weber Street and Ontario Street. FUM, Services are not proposed to be located along the fagade and are setback and obscured from the street. Page 202 of 511 Project # LHCO281 8.3 Summary of Potential Impacts Potential impacts related to the proposed development were explored in Table 6. Potential adverse impacts were identified for several heritage attributes for 149-151 Ontario Street North. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts are outlined in the following section. The Property is not located within the CCNHCD. Although, as outlined in Table 7, the development proposal is not compliant with the CCNHCD guidelines, the proposal mitigates visual impacts on the HCD through use of materials and design of the transition between the lower floors and the tower. 103 Page 203 of 511 Project # LHCO281 9.0 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 9.1 Considered Options The following range of possible development alternatives was explored. All options have been considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3.0. The options have considered existing conditions. The preferred option is identified. 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use This option would leave the Property as is and the existing buildings would remain in situ. The Property is currently vacant; however, it was most recently used as a residential building. The `do nothing' option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the Property. The structure would still require continual maintenance. In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use This option would leave the existing buildings in situ; however, the structure would be used in a different way. Based on the observed existing conditions, the condition of the structure would support a variety of uses. This option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or adjacent heritage properties as there would be no changes to the Properties. An alternate use could result in direct impacts to the Property as renovations are undertaken to allow for the reuse. The Property has already undergone interior renovations related to a change in use from residential to commercial. In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.3 Option 3: Relocation Within the Parcel This option would see the relocation of the existing structure, in its entirety, within the parcel. However, in the context of the proposed development which will comprise the entirety of the parcel, relocation is not a viable option 9.1.4 Option 4: Retention of entire structure and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the integration of the building at 149-151 Ontario Street North into the proposed new 27 -storey apartment. A previous development proposal for this property pursued this option and it was determined to not be feasible within the context of development of a residential tower on this site. 9.2 Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the partial removal of the structure on the Property, retaining the fagade (west elevation) south elevation and partial north elevation to be integrated into the newly developed 27 -storey mixed use apartment. Given that the feasibility of full retention has been pursued and found not to be viable, this is the preferred alternative, as it allows for the development of the property and the partial conservation of its heritage attributes. Visually, this 104 Page 204 of 511 Project # LHCO281 alternative will have a similar effect on the streetscape to the previous iteration that considered the retention of the building. This alternative will result in adverse impacts to all or portions of several of the Property's heritage attributes including: its brick construction, quoins, window and door openings, and roof. A conservation strategy to lessen these adverse impacts is provided in Section 9.3. 9.2.1 Option 6: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop This option would seek to demolish the existing buildings while being designed to avoid impacts on the adjacent heritage properties. Based on the foregoing research and analysis, 149-151 Ontario Street meets O. Reg. 9/06 criteria. Its removal would result in an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest or heritage attributes of the Property Removal of the structure is not the preferred option as it will result in the total loss of all heritage attributes of the Property. 9.3 Preferred Option Given that Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not viable within the context of redevelopment, Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development is the preferred option because it partially conserves the Property's heritage attributes and avoids the potential for negative impacts on the Property and adjacent heritage properties. Some heritage attributes will require selective deconstruction while the fagade will be retained. 9.4 Conservation Strategy As described above, Option 5: Partial Demolition/Selective Deconstruction and Integration into Proposed Development will result in adverse impacts on several of the Property's heritage attributes (see Table 6). Although the proposed design retains the front (west) fagade, south elevation and partial returns on the north, the proposal will result in the following impacts: • partial loss of buff brick construction (rear addition, east, and partial north elevation) and brick quoins (with the exception of the fagade) • loss of the segmentally arched window openings and voussoirs on the north and rear elevations; • loss of the brick chimney on the north elevation; and, • full loss of the side gable roof and overhanging eaves. Design of the new concrete porch should be compatible with and subordinate to the existing fagade. Choice of specific material and design of attachments should be informed by a qualified heritage professional. Per OP Policy 12.C.1.33 and 12.C.1.34, it is recommended that a documentation package be prepared for the Property prior to any deconstruction activities. Although this HIA contains much of the required content outlined in Policy 12.C.1.34 (i.e., a land use history, photographs, maps, and current floor plans, and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context), it is recommended that measured elevations be prepared as well as a record set of photographs to compare pre- and post -construction conditions. Photographs 105 Page 205 of 511 Project # LHCO281 generally depicting the removals, should also be included in the documentation, as they may provide additional information on the construction of this and similar buildings. Salvage is recommended for the portions of the building being demolished. It is understood that some of the buff bricks may be retained for use in the lobby. There is also a potential for the salvage of materials for repairs to the elevations being retained. Per OP Policy 12.C.1.32, the City of Kitchener (the City) may also require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. Further, a Conservation Plan — prepared by a qualified heritage professional - may be required by the City of Kitchener. In order to inform a more detailed Conservation Plan, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The Conservation Plan should include guidance for any immediate interventions required prior to removals and construction, guidance for stabilization during removals and construction, and guidance for repairs and long- term maintenance following construction of the new development. All removals/demolition of the existing structure should be carried out under the direction of a professional engineer with demonstrated experience working with heritage buildings. In order to inform the conservation strategy, Tacoma Engineers provided the following recommendations in their 17 December 2021 Structural Report: 1. Identify all significant window and door openings. Openings should be provided with removable wood -framed and plywood coverings to provide protection against potential damage due to construction work. Coverings should not be fastened to historic finishes. 2. Carry out a detailed soils investigation of the site. This information should be used to ensure that the proposed foundation system for the new building does not impact the existing building. 3. Foundation systems that include driven piles, excavation of rock, or other high -impact activities should be avoided wherever possible. 4. The existing foundations appear to extend to between 4'-0" and 6'-0" below existing grade. It is expected that the foundations for the new building will extend to below this elevation. Detailing of possible underpinning should form part of the new construction drawings and should account for potential instability of the masonry foundation walls during this process. 5. Construction projects carried out in urban centres often require tiebacks and other shoring methods to support excavation limits. In the event that the excavations require this support, care should be taken to ensure that any tiebacks that extend towards Ontario Street, and therefore below the existing building, do not undermine or otherwise negatively impact the foundations of the existing building. 6. Dewatering activities that may be required during the construction of the new foundations should be undertaken with care. Alterations to pore water pressure can result in unintended settlement of surrounding buildings. Analysis of this issue can be addressed in the geotechnical investigation. 7. It is anticipated that only the Ontario Street fagade will be retained as part of the proposed development. Demolition of the existing building should be carried out 106 Page 206 of 511 Project # LHCO281 carefully, and under the direction of a professional engineer. It is important to understand the connection between the facade and the original building in order to ensure that the building is properly isolated prior to removals. 8. As previously indicated, it is intended that the retained fagade will be incorporated into the new development. This will result in connections between the new structural system (steel, concrete, or other standard modern building system) and the existing mass masonry structure. All connections should be detailed such that differential movements between structures is accommodated without negative impacts that could result from unintended loading. The magnitude of the anticipated differential movement can be estimated using the findings of the geotechnical report in coordination with the overall construction detailing. 9. It should be noted that connections to historic masonry structures should consider the recommendations of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, wherein consideration should be given to types of anchors, material compatibility for both metals and masonry materials, and an overall preference for minimum intervention. 4R14E]1+r/AJ1'MR1CRy 't, b51 Ov or 1140 W AMI MCAL OF A MNa ao r, 'r E" 1L � LR^a AT FAC{'31 4111 51F &L QC~ ANY CC 4d� At "kAV1 lUPKRT S 6 or MAW 1f� r lw'r �P Si.Ft RAscraArr c:v 1.ar° u1L Awrrca�. Awa a• ruRweAlrRt �;��.Ovbe S441J A$ REOUOtO t0�FYF V full r 1Klfl 41 Yi TO 6AHE WT +VRI TOW [.4 WALL $RACE (TYP.OF S) Auma+sH+Aew .. � _ ftlRCEB AgEfAGdOREG F igLlre 7-Schernatie Facade Retention Tower Figure 74: Fagade retention tower (Tacoma Engineers 2021) 107 Page 207 of 511 Project # LHCO281 10.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS LHC was retained in September 2021 by Masri O Inc. Architects on behalf of LMC Limited Partnership to undertake an updated HIA for the redevelopment of 21 Weber Street North and 149-151 Ontario Street North, in the City of Kitchener. The proponent is proposing to build a 27 -storey mixed -used apartment building with four commercial units and 206 residential units. An HIA was previously completed for the Property in 2019 by LHC and at the time 149-151 Ontario Street North was determined to demonstrate cultural heritage value or interest. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes for the Property is provided in Section 6.1.4. The purpose of this updated HIA was to perform an updated review of heritage planning constraints, to assess potential adverse impacts of the new proposal on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and surrounding area, and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. Given that retention of the building has been explored and found not to be viable, partial demolition/selective deconstruction and integration was identified as the preferred alternative. This alternative sees the fagade (west elevation) and partial north and south returns retained and integrated into the new development. Although this will conserve a number of heritage attributes, including the Property's symmetrical fagade and bay windows, it will also result in the following impacts: • partial loss of buff brick construction (rear addition, east, partial north elevation) and brick quoins (with the exception of the fagade) • loss of the segmentally arched window openings and voussoirs on the north and rear elevations; • loss of the brick chimney on the north elevation; and, • full loss of the side gable roof and overhanging eaves. The following mitigative measures are recommended to lessen adverse impacts: • To the extent possible, existing wooden window and door cases should be retained and repaired. In order to support the efficiency of the windows, new inserts and/or storm windows could be installed. • The front doors and their transoms should be repaired and retained to the extent possible. • Design of the new concrete porch should be compatible with and subordinate to the existing fagade. Choice of material and design of any attachments should be informed by a qualified heritage professional. • To the extent possible portions of the building that are removed should be salvaged for reuse in the other areas of the new development or elsewhere. It is understood that some of the buff brick will be retained — on site — for reuse within the lobby. Per OP Policy 12.C.1.32, the City of Kitchener (the City) may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 108 Page 208 of 511 Project # LHCO281 • It is recommended that a documentation package be prepared for the Property prior to any deconstruction activities including measured elevations and a record set of photographs to compare pre- and post -construction conditions. Photographs generally depicting the removals, should also be included in the documentation. An updated Conservation Plan — prepared by a qualified heritage professional - may be required by the City of Kitchener. In order to inform a more detailed Conservation Plan, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The Conservation Plan should include guidance for any immediate interventions required prior to removals and construction, guidance for stabilization during removals and construction, and guidance for repairs and long-term maintenance following construction of the new development. All removals/demolition of the existing structure should be carried out under the direction of a professional engineer with demonstrated experience working with heritage buildings. 109 Page 209 of 511 Project # LHCO281 SIGNATURES Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services LHC 110 Page 210 of 511 Project # LHCO281 11.0 REFERENCES 11.1 Policy and Legislation Resources City of Kitchener Council. "City of Kitchener Council Minutes February 1, 2010." Laserfiche Web Link. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/5u4na5nyecp0ospgkl4gljlm/14/Council%20- %202010-02-01.pdf. ---. "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051." Last modified April 29, 2019. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CROZBY_Cons olidated_Zoning_Bylaw_Council_Approved.pdf. ---. "Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest." Last modified 2017. ---. "City of Kitchener Official Plan." Last modified November 19, 2014. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of Kitchen er_Official_Plan_2014.pdf. ---. "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1." Last modified March 29, 2004. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section% 201 %20-%20General%20Scope.pdf. ---, "Section 16," Zoning By-law 85-1, Last modified October 7, 2013, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of%20Co ntents.pdf ---. "Zoning bylaw." Development and construction. Last modified 2021. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning- bylaw.aspx. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries. "Heritage Conservation Principles for Landuse Planning." Last modified 2007. Accessed March 11, 2021, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Planning.pdf "Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf. ---. "PPS Info Sheet: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed January 11, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/ Heritage_Tool_Kit Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.pdf ---. "Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties." Last modified April 28, 2010. Accessed February 3, 2021.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf. ---. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS Heritage IE Process.pdf. Parks Canada. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 111 Page 211 of 511 Project # LHCO281 2010. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g- eng-web2.pdf. Province of Ontario. "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25." April 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. ---. "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified July 1, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol8 ---. "0. Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance - Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified January 25, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010. ---. "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13." April 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl 3. ---. "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe." Last modified August 2020. Accessed February 5, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place- to- grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf. ---. "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13." Last modified December 8, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl3. ---. "Provincial Policy Statement 2020 — Under the Planning Act." Last modified May 1, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement- 2020-accessi ble-fi nal -en -2020-02-14. pdf. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan." Last modified June 18, 2015. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land- use-planning.aspx. Region of Waterloo. "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan." Last modified October 2002. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/ artsmasterplan.pdf. 11.2 Mapping Resources Author Unknown. Map of Waterloo Township. Scale 1:63,360. In: H. Parsell and Co. Illustrated Atlas of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: H. Parsell and Co., 1881. Author Unknown. Map of the Township of Waterloo and Woolwich. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West. Scale 1:39,600.Toronto: Geo. R. and G. M. Tremaine, 1861. Herman Brosius. Berlin, Province, Ontario, Canada. University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection. Accessed May 10, 2021. Kitchener Public Library. (189?). Hartman Krug Residence. From the Waterloo Historical Society Collection. Local Identifier: P007080. ---. 1894 Revised 1904 Fire Insurance Plan. Plate 5. Microfiche accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room. 112 Page 212 of 511 Project # LHCO281 ---. 1908 Revised 1925 Fire Insurance Plan. Plate 5. Microfiche accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room. ---. 1908 Revised 1946 Fire Insurance Plan. Plate 5. Microfiche accessed through the Grace Schmidt Room Library and Archives Canada. "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]" 1821. Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa. Region of Waterloo. (1980). 1980 Aerial Photograph. Photo Number 11 N. Northway-Gestalt Corporation Job Number c-8823. Retrieved from the Kitchener Public Library. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. (n.d.) Digital Historic Air Photos of Kitchener Waterloo: 1930-1963. Retrieved from https://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html ---. (n.d.). Waterloo Region Historic Maps, 1853-1923. Retrieved from https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps ---. (1853-54). Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Township and County of Waterloo, C.W. Surveyed for George John Grange, Esq. ---. (1979-1989). Berlin, 1875, province of Ontario, Canada. Published in Celebration of the 10th Anniversary for the City of Kitchener. Waterloo Open Data. Aerial Imagery (2003). Accessed May 13, 2021. https://data.waterloo.ca/search?g=2003. 11.3 Archival Resources Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library. 1826-1936. Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1936 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; County Marriage Registers, 1858 -June 1869; Reel: 17 ---.1881 Canada Census Index provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Copyright 1999 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. All use is subject to the limited use license and other terms and conditions applicable to this site. Original data: Canada. "Census of Canada, 1881." Statistics Canada Fonds, Record Group 31-C-1. LAC microfilm C-13162 to C-13286. Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/1881 /Pages/about-census. asp x 113 Page 213 of 511 Project # LHCO281 ---. 1935-1980 Canada, Voters Lists, [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. Original data: Voters Lists, Federal Elections, 1935-1980. R1003- 6-3-E (RG113-B). Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ---. Canada, Military Honours and Awards Citation Cards, 1900-1961 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012. Original data: Honours and Awards Citation Cards. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Library and Archives Canada. ---. Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1936[database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Reel: 379 Find A Grave database and images. Memorial page for Jacob Merner Staebler (16 Aug 1846-7 May 1906). Find A Grave Memorial no. 161406725, citing Mount Hope Cemetery (Kitchener -Waterloo), Kitchener, Waterloo Regional Municipality, Ontario, Canada; Maintained by Patrick Murphy (contributor 47037730). New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA, 2010. Ontario, Canada, Marriages, 1826-1938 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA, 2010. Ancestry.com and Genealogical Research Library (Brampton, Ontario, Canada). Ontario Land Registry. "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 143." Historical Books. https://www.on land.ca/u i/58/books/82987/viewer/445262592?page=1. Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Microfilm: 734. Archives of Ontario: Toronto. UK and Ireland, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890-1960 [database on-line]. Board of Trade: Commercial and Statistical Department and successors: Outwards Passenger Lists. BT27. Records of the Commercial, Companies, Labour, Railways and Statistics Departments. Records of the Board of Trade and of successor and related bodies. The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, England. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.: Provo, UT, USA. 2012. Vernon Limited Directories, Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo, and Bridgeport Street and Alphabetical Business and Miscellaneous Directory, Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd.: Hamilton, 1893- 1918 ---. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street and Alphabetical Business and Miscellaneous, Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd.: Hamilton, 1919-2014. Waterloo Generations. (n.d.) Mayor Jacob Merner Staebler. Person 137544. Accessed from http://qenerations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personl D=137544&tree=generatio ns ---. (n.d). Wilhelmine Louisa Bowman. Person ID 18119. Retrieved from http://generations. regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person 1 D=18119&tree=generation 114 Page 214 of 511 Project # LHCO281 ---. (n.d). Dr. Mayor Henry George Lackner, Mayor. Person ID 128157. Retrieved from, http://generations. regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person I D=128157&tree=generatio ns ---. (n.d.). William Albert Archibald `Archie' Bernhardt. Person ID 1351637. Retrieved from, http://generations. regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?person I D=1351637&tree=generati ons 11.4 Additional Resources Bassler, Gerard P. German Canadians. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/german-canadians, 2013 CORE Architects Inc. "130-142 Victoria St. S." Last modified May 21, 2021. City of Kitchener. Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012. ---. City of Kitchener Civic Centre Neighbourhood, Heritage Conservation District Plan, accessed January 7, 2022 https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_Heritage_Plan_ Civic_Centre.pdf, August 2007 Clermont, Norman. "The Archaic Occupation of the Ottawa Valley." In La prehistoire de 1'Outaouais/Ottawa Valley Prehistory. Editor Pilon. Outaouais Historical Society, 1999. Crispino, M. and M. D'Apuzzo. "Measurement and Prediction of Traffic -induced Vibrations in a Heritage Building." Journal of Sound and Vibration 246, no. 2 (2001): 319-335. D'Amato, L. "An owner bids farewell to his business: `All my life has been here'." Waterloo Region Record. March 20, 2015. https://www.toronto.com/opinion-story/5516487-d- amato-an-owner-bids-farewell-to-his-business-all-my-life-has-been-here-/. Elby, Ezra. A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county. Volume 1. Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895. Ellis, Chris, Ian Kenyon, and Michael Spence. "The Archaic," In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 65-124. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Ellis, Chris, and D. Brian Deller. "Paleo-Indians." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 37-63. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Ellis, Patricia. "Effects of Traffic Vibration on Historic Buildings." The Science of the Total Environment 59 (1987): 37-45. English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener: An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Bross Studio, 1996. Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force. "Chapter 3: The First Nations." In Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. 115 Page 215 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Toronto: Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, 2002, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf Fram, Mark. Well -Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation's Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation, 3' Edition. Erin ON: Boston Mills Press, 2003. Accessed March 18, 2021, https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/pages/publications/well- preserved Fox, William. "The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 171-188. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Google. "130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada." Google Maps. Last modified June 2016. Accessed May 12, 2021. Groat, Cody. "Six Nations of the Grand River." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 18, 20202. Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. Kalman, Harold. A History of Canadian Architecture. Volume 2. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1994. McCallumSather. "Heritage Impact Assessment: 17069 1114-120 Victoria Street S." Last updated October 2017. Accessed 20 October 2021 from https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=1555748&page=24&cr=1. McLaughlin, Kenneth. "Kitchener -Waterloo." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 24, 2017. Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation." Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Last modified 2018. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-M NCFN-FI NAL.pdf. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History. Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979. Ontario Architecture. "Art Deco." Accessed May 12, 2021, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/artdeco.htm. Parks, Sarah. "From Arches to Turrets: Architectural Styles in Kitchener." ACO North Waterloo Region. Presented June 6, 2018. https://www.aconwr.ca/blog/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/From-Arches-to-Turrets-J un-6-18-2.pdf Pender, Terry. "Former dry cleaning building in Kitchener has high-tech future." The Record. March 29, 2016. https://www.therecord.com/business/2016/03/29/former-dry-cleaning- building-in-kitchener-has-high-tech-future.htm1. Rainer, J.H. "Effect of Vibrations on Historic Buildings." The Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin. XIV, no. 1 (1982): 2-10. 116 Page 216 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Randl, Chad. "Temporary Protection Number 3: Protecting a Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction." Preservation Tech Notes. US Department of the Interior National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Last modified July 2001. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech-Notes- Six Nations. "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784." Lands and Resources. Last modified 2008, Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. Six Nations Elected Council. "Community Profile." Six Nations of the Grand River. Last modified 2013. Accessed May 7, 2021. http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm. Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. "History of Six Nations." Accessed May 7, 2021. https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. Six Nations Tourism. "History." Accessed May 7, 2021, https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/ Spence, Michael, Robert Pihl, and Carl Murphy. "Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 125-169. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. Protection03.pdf Tacoma Engineers, Structural Report Conservation Plan, 17 December 2021. Report provided by Tacoma Engineers. Toronto Region Conservation Authority. "Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA." News. Last modified 2018. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/. University of Waterloo. "Land acknowledgment." Faculty Association. Accessed May 7, 2021. https:Huwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/Iand-acknowledgement. Waterloo Region Museum. "History of Waterloo Township." Accessed May 7, 2021. https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo- township.aspx#note1. Waterloo Region Museum. "John Bramm 1817-1893." List of Hall of Fame Inductees. https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/exhibits/past-and-present-inductees.aspx#. Wiss, J.F. "Construction Vibrations; State -of -the -Art." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 107 (1981): 167-181. 117 Page 217 of 511 Project # LHCO281 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP — Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support, and expertise as a member of numerous multi -disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 100 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Colin Yu, MA — Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist Colin Yu is a Cultural Heritage Specialist and Archaeologist with LHC. He holds a BSc with a specialist in Anthropology from the University of Toronto and a M.A. in Heritage and Archaeology from the University of Leicester. He has a special interest in identifying socioeconomic factors of 19th century Euro -Canadian settlers through quantitative and qualitative ceramic analysis. Colin has worked in the heritage industry for over eight years, starting out as an archaeological field technician in 2013. He currently holds an active research license (R1104) with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). He is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a member of the Board of Directors of its Ontario Chapter, the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals (OAHP). At LHC Colin has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario's cultural heritage. He has completed over thirty cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals and include Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Archaeological Assessments. Colin has worked on a wide range of cultural heritage resources including; cultural landscapes, institutions, commercial and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as bridges, dams, and highways. He specializes in built heritage, historic research, and identifying cultural heritage value and/or interest though O. Reg. 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act. Jordan Greene, BA — Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies 118 Page 218 of 511 Project # LHCO281 from Queen's University. The experience gained through the completion of the Certificate in Geographic Information Science allowed Jordan to volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Prior to her work at LHC, Jordan spent the final two years of her undergraduate degree working in managerial positions at the student -run Printing and Copy Centre as an Assistant and Head Manager. Jordan has had an interest in heritage throughout her life and is excited to build on her existing professional and GIS experience as a part of the LHC team. The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the 2019 HIA and are no longer with LHC. Amy Barnes, M.A. CAHP, Project Manager and Senior Cultural Heritage Specialist — no longer with LHC Amy Barnes, M.A. CAHP, has been working in the heritage field since 2009. She holds a M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario and is a full member with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. Ms. Barnes has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation and the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation courses. Ms. Barnes has worked in the Heritage Planning Departments at the City of Kingston and the Municipality of North Grenville where her duties involved public consultation, records management and work on a variety of heritage -related planning issues. Ms. Barnes has worked on numerous Heritage Impact Assessments and dozens of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports throughout Ontario and has completed large scale heritage inventories for built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes. Ms. Barnes has been an active member of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee since 2009. Ms. Barnes has presented at numerous conferences and speaking engagements on heritage related topics. Ms. Barnes has a great deal of experience researching and presenting historical information to a variety of audiences including both professionals and engaged citizens. Ms. Barnes has worked both independently and as part of a large multidisciplinary team. Ms. Barnes has worked in both the private and public sector on heritage projects that vary in size and scale. Zack Hamm, MA - Junior Cultural Heritage Specialist — no longer with LHC Mr. Hamm is a Junior Cultural Heritage Specialist with LHC. He began his academic background studying ancient civilizations and working in Mediterranean and Ontario Cultural Resource management. He graduated from the University of Windsor's Master of Arts in History with a focus on Canadian modernity in 2015. Zack has become deeply interested in local, regional, and national Canadian and First Nations histories, and has more recently turned his passions and interests into a career in heritage. Since joining LHC in 2017, Zack has been involved in a number of projects including archaeological assessments and heritage impact assessments. 119 Page 219 of 511 Project # LHCO281 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY Definitions are based on the Ontario Heritage Act, (OHA), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP), and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP). Adjacent Lands means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS). Adjacent means lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. (OP). Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb and "alteration" has a corresponding meaning ("transformer", "transformation") (OHA). Archaeological assessment means the combined background research and field study of a property evaluated as moderate to high on Archaeological Potential Maps approved by the Province that identify the presence of and interpretation of the archaeological resources on the property and make recommendations for the mitigation of the impacts on the resources. Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a Provincially—licensed archaeologist, in accordance with reporting guidelines established by the Provincial Government and must address the entire area of the development application. (ROP). Archaeological potential means the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological resources include artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (OP). Built heritage resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions. (ROP). Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by included on local, Regional, Provincial and/or Federal registers. (OP). 120 Page 220 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Community Character refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image, identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community character is intended to foster community pride. (OP). Conserve/conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. (ROP). Conserve/Conserved/Conservation means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a heritage conservation plan, archeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. (OP). Compatibility/Compatible means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly interpreted to mean "the same as" or even as "being similar to". (OP). Contiguous means lands that are situated in sufficiently close proximity such that development or site alteration could reasonably be expected to produce one or more of the following impacts: alterations to existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes; clearing of existing vegetation; erosion and sedimentation; or producing a substantial disruption of existing natural linkages or the habitat of a significant species. (ROP). Culture/Cultural is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. (OP). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment means a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended. (ROP). Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. (ROP). Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a 121 Page 221 of 511 Project # LHCO281 community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities. (OP). Cultural heritage resources are the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: • buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); • cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); • structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); • monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); • archaeological resources; • cemeteries; • scenic roads; • vistas/viewsheds; • culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); • movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and • cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts). (ROP). Cultural Heritage Resources means includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. (OP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act. (ROP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, the construction of buildings and structures or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that substantially increases the size or usability of the site, requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; and, b) works subject to the Drainage Act. (OP) Heritage Attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). (PPS). 122 Page 222 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Heritage Corridors means streets or multi -use pathways which because of their unique structural, topographic and visual characteristics, as well as abutting vegetation, built environment and cultural landscape, historical significance or location within a Heritage Conservation District are recognized as a cultural heritage resource and are intended to be conserved. (OP). Heritage Attributes means the principle features or elements that contribute to a cultural heritage resource's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a cultural heritage resource. (OP). Heritage Conservation District means a geographic area primarily made up of a group of buildings, streets and open spaces which collectively contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the area. (OP). Heritage Conservation District Plan means a document that provides policies and guidelines to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage values of the district. The document includes a statement of objectives, a statement of the district's cultural heritage value or interest, a description of the district's heritage attributes, policies, guidelines and procedures for achieving stated objectives and managing future change, and a description of external alterations or classes of external alterations that are of minor nature that an owner can carry out without obtaining a permit. (OP). Heritage Conservation Plan means a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment, but is typically a separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include descriptions of repairs, stabilization and preservation activities as well as long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures. (OP). Heritage Impact Assessment means a document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate. (OP). Identify/Identified (in regard to cultural heritage landscapes) means designate for the purposes of the Regional Official Plan. (OP). Municipal Heritage Register means a register maintained by the City of Kitchener, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, which includes protected heritage properties and properties listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. (OP). Property means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon. (OHA). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;. property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (OP). 123 Page 223 of 511 Project # LHCO281 Qualified Person for the purposes of cultural heritage resources, means an individual including a professional engineer, architect, archaeologist, etc., having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (OP). Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS). 124 Page 224 of 511 Project # LHCO281 APPENDIX C: CITY DIRECTORY FOR 149-151 ONTARIO STREET NORTH 125 Page 225 of 511 Appendix C City Directory Listings for 149-151 Ontario Street East Page 226 of 511 Appendix C: City Directory Listings for 149-151 Ontario Street Sources: 1893-1918: Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo, and Bridgeport Street and Alphabetical Business and Miscellaneous Directory. Henry Vernon and Sons, Publisher. Hamilton. 1919-2014: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street and Alphabetical Business and Miscellaneous. Vernon and Sons Publishing. Hamilton. 1901-1903 No street numbers are provided. Those identified on the street include: Rev W.A. Bradley H. Kruff 27 G.H. Whiting a 29 Mrs. John S. Shantz 31 A. Von Neubronn 1 33 W.J. Arnott M.D. 1907-1908 (149) 83 Foundry Street N: Albert Kaufman wks tmstr [Works Teamster] (151) 85 Foundry Street N: B.U. Clemens wks rubber factory 1908-1909 (149) 83 Foundry Street N: Albert Kaufman wkrs deliverer (151) 85 Foundry Street N: B.U. Clemens 1911-1912 1 (149) 83 Foundry Street N: Waltr [Walter] W Williams. Works as a Teacher: high school (151) 85 Foundry Street N: B.U. Clemens 1912-1913 (149) 83 Foundry Street N: Walter W Williams (151) 85 Foundry Street N: B.U. Clemens 1919 (149) 83 Foundry Street N — Conrad Biehl, works as mach [Machinist]/ Melissa Biehl, works as Clk W G & R [Clerk] (151) 85 Foundry Street N: Gus Wendt (163 Ontario Street N: Ontario Street N) 87 Foundry Street N Dr. H.M. Lackner 1921-1924 149 Ontario Street N: George Filsinger, works as a tailor 151 Ontario Street N: John Hoflinch, works as a stock keeper for Bell telephone 163 Ontario Street N: Ontario Street N Dr. H.M. Lackner 1925 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 151 Ontario Street N: John Hoflich, works as a Chf clk [clerk] for Bell Tel Co. 163 Ontario Street N: Ontario Street N Ontario Street N Dr. H.M. Lackner 1926 149 Ontario Street N: Weins, D. (Tenant) 151 Ontario Street N: John Hoflich (Tenant) 163 Ontario Street N: Ontario Street N Ontario Street N Dr. H.M. Lackner, Owner 1927 149 Ontario Street N: Weins, D. (Tenant) 149 Ontario Street N: Dietrich Jr. wks Kaufman Rbr Co. -2- Page 227 of 511 149 Ontario Street N: Jacob Fenner (Tenant) 151 Ontario Street N: Vacant 163 Ontario Street N: Ontario Street N Ontario Street N Dr. H.M. Lackner, Owner 1928 149 Ontario Street N: — Dietrich family lived there including: Dietrich (wife Marie) works Dom Button Co Agnes works Can Goodrich Co. Dietrich Jr. works Kaufman Rbr [Rubber] Co, Marguerite, works Can Goodrich Co. 151 Ontario Street N: J.J. Weigand. (Tenant) and his wife Phoebe. J. Weigard works as a caretaker at Bank of Montreal. 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H. Owner 1929 149 Ontario Street N: Hy, Penner 151 Ontario Street N: J.J. Wiegand 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) 1930 149 Ontario Street N: Hy Penner 151 Ontario Street N: Mrs. Phoebe Wiegand 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) 1931 149 Ontario Street N: Hy Penner 149 Ontario Street N: John Drobina 149 Ontario Street N: Jos [Joseph] Schnobel 151 Ontario Street N: J.J. Wiegand 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) 1932 149 Ontario Street N: Peter Penner 149 Ontario Street N: H.J. Penner 149 Ontario Street N: J. Drobina 151 Ontario Street N: Mrs. Phoebe Wiegand 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) 1933 149 Ontario Street N: Peter Penner ® 149 Ontario Street N: H.J. Penner 149 Ontario Street N: J. Drobina 151 Ontario Street N: Mrs. Phoebe Wiegand 151 Ontario Street N: Edwd [Edward] Ludwig 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) 1934 149 Ontario Street N: Bettendorf, Philip 149 Ontario Street N: Licher, Ma 149 Ontario Street N: Gengler, Nicholas 151 Ontario Street N: Cook, M., Mrs. -3- Page 228 of 511 1935 1936 151 Ontario Street N: Ludwig, Edwd. 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) Boldt, B.B. 149 Ontario Street N: Bettendorf, Philip 149 Ontario Street N: Licher, Ma 149 Ontario Street N: Gengler, Nicholas 149 Ontario Street N: Messemer, Jacob 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 151 Ontario Street N: Loewen, Peter 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the property) Lackner, H.A. 149 Ontario Street N: Radscheidt, Willy 149 Ontario Street N: Stengel, Jacob 149 Ontario Street N: Goetz, Mathw [Matthew] 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 151 Ontario Street N 163 Ontario Street N property) 1937 No Entry Loewen, Peter Lackner, H.M. Dr.* (denotes member of the family owns the 1938 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter (wife Helena) 149 Ontario Street N: Struke, John 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 151 Ontario Street N: Loewen, Peter 163 Ontario Street N: Vacant 1939 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter (wife Helena) 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Jacob, works at Globe Furn [Furniture] 149 Ontario Street N: Winsor, Louisa, Mrs. 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 151 Ontario Street N: Cornelsen, Albt 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.A. 1940 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter (wife Helena) 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Jacob 149 Ontario Street N: Partridge, E.C. 149 Ontario Street N: Delion, Alfred 149 Ontario Street N: Winsor, Louisa, Mrs. 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 151 Ontario Street N: Cornelsen, Albt 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.A. Page 229 of 511 1941 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter Malcom, W.K. 149 Ontario Street N: Partridge, E.C. 149 Ontario Street N: 149 Ontario Street N: Delion, Alfred Schneider, L. 151 Ontario Street N: Boldt, B.B. 163 Ontario Street N: 151 Ontario Street N: Cornelsen, Albt 149 Ontario Street N: 163 Ontario Street N: Lackner, H.A. 1942 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 163 Ontario Street N: 149 Ontario Street N: Partridge, E.C. 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, Hugh A. 163 Ontario Street N: Ferguson, E.W., Mrs. 1943 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Dirksen, Frank 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, Hugh A. 151 Ontario Street N: Bertrand L., Mrs. 163 Ontario Street N: Malcom, W.K. 1944 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Dirksen, Frank 151 Ontario Street N: Daub, Donald 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, Hugh A. _ 1945 1946 151 Ontario Street N: Bertrand L., Mrs. 163 Ontario Street N: Malcom, W.K. 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Dirksen, Frank 151 Ontario Street N: Schneider, L. 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, Hugh A. 163 Ontario Street N: Malcom, W.K. 1— 4 Ontario Street N: Jacob, Adams 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 151 Ontario Street N: Schneider, L. 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, Hugh A. (Dom Tire) 163 Ontario Street N: Malcom, W.K. 1947-1948 149 Ontario Street N: Jacob, Adams 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, H.A. Works as a Ctge [Cartage] 151 Ontario Street N: Adam, R. N, Works as a taxi 163 Ontario Street N: Malcom, W.K. 1949 149 Ontario Street N: Jacob, Adams 149 Ontario Street N: Peters, Peter 151 Ontario Street N: Adams, H.A. & Sons 151 Ontario Street N: Stroh, D., Mrs. -5- Page 230 of 511 163 Ontario Street N: Vacant 1951-1954 149 Ontario Street N 149 Ontario Street N 151 Ontario Street N 151 Ontario Street N 163 Ontario Street N Jacob, Adams Peters, Peter Adams, H.A. & Sons Stroh, D., Mrs. Grant, J.A. Sr. 1955 149 Ontario Street N: Janke, Edward* (*indicates the property is owned by some member of the family) 149 Ontario Street N: Shilda, Hans. Works as a carp [carpenter]) 149 Ontario Street N: Schonebeger, Frank 149 Ontario Street N: Jankowski, L. 151 Ontario Street N: Stroh, D., Mrs. 151 Ontario Street N: Steppler, Wm 163 Ontario Street N: J.A. Grant 1956 149 Ontario Street N: Janke, Edward* (*indicates the property is owned by some member of the family) 149 Ontario Street N: Shilda, Hans. Works as a carp [carpenter] 149 Ontario Street N: Schonebeger, Frank 151 Ontario Street N: Gruneberg, S. 163 Ontario Street N: J.A. Grant 1957 149 Ontario Street N: Schonebeger, Frank 151 Ontario Street N: Gruneberg, S. 151 Ontario Street N: Kabutz,Hans 163 Ontario Street N: J.A. Grant works as a Shpr [shopkeeper] Schneider 1958 149 Ontario Street N: Schcwalz, Horst 151 Ontario Street N: Gruneberg, S. 151 Ontario Street N: Lunz, Gunter 149 Ontario Street N: Schcwalz, Horst C- 151 Ontario Street N: Gruneberg, S. 151 Ontario Street N: Ott, David 1960 149 Ontario Street N: Iza, Donald 151 Ontario Street N: C.R. Hudson 1961 149 Ontario Street N: McKenzie George 151 Ontario Street N: No entry for this address 1962 149 Ontario Street N: Harry Copan 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, George 151 Ontario Street N: No entry for this address M Page 231 of 511 1963 149 Ontario Street N: Wright, Robt 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, George, works as a clerk at the Imperial Cigar Store 151 Ontario Street N: No entry for this address 1964 1 149 Ontario Street N: Pelletier, Jack 149 Ontario Street N: Root, Norman 149 Ontario Street N: Mothersell, Melville 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 151 Ontario Street N: No entry for this address 1965 149 Ontario Street N: Pelletier, Jack 149 Ontario Street N: Demanchant, B. 149 Ontario Street N: Egerdeen, L. 149 Ontario Street N: Payne, Donald 149 Ontario Street N: Mothersell, Melville 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Thompson, Colen 151 Ontario Street N: No entry for this address 1966 149 Ontario Street N: Adam, Jos 149 Ontario Street N: Pelletier, Jack 149 Ontario Street N: McLennan, F. 149 Ontario Street N: Mills, Wm 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Ritchie, Michl 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Servi 1967 149 Ontario Street N: Adam, Jos 149 Ontario Street N: Gauley, Robert 149 Ontario Street N: Dopp, J.F. 149 Ontario Street N: Sly, Dennis 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Gouliere, Betty 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Servi N 1968 E S parking lot 149 Ontario Street N: Adam, Jos 149 Ontario Street N: Miller, Robert 149 Ontario Street N: Kinzie, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Sly, Dennis 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Doyle, Patrick 149 Ontario Street N: Kennedy, John 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Servi -7- Page 232 of 511 1969 E S parking lot 149 Ontario Street N: Adam, Jos 149 Ontario Street N: Forthuber, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Kinzie, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: Snow, J., Mrs. 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Doyle, Patrick '40 149 Ontario Street N: Frank Cormier 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 4W 1970 149 Ontario Street N: Jones, Glady (Apt 1) 149 Ontario Street N: Morton, Ernie 149 Ontario Street N: Guy, Danl 149 Ontario Street N: Brown, Ronald 149 Ontario Street N: Glenn, Chas 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Truchon, J. 149 Ontario Street N: Deforge, Donald 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1971 1 149 Ontario Street N: Jones, Glady (Apt 1) 149 Ontario Street N: Morton, Ernie 149 Ontario Street N: Guy, Danl 149 Ontario Street N: Brown, Ronald 149 Ontario Street N: Glenn, Chas 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Truchon, J. 149 Ontario Street N: Deforge, Donald 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1972 149 Ontario Street N: Jones, Glady (Apt 1) 149 Ontario Street N: Kitnzie, Peter 149 Ontario Street N: St. Clair, Ross 149 Ontario Street N: Scott, J. 149 Ontario Street N: Nightingale, B. 149 Ontario Street N: Weber, G.H. 149 Ontario Street N: Novak, J. 149 Ontario Street N: Gottschalk, D. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1973 149 Ontario Street N: Jones, Glady (Apt 1) 149 Ontario Street N: Miller, Brian 149 Ontario Street N: Lenox, Chas 149 Ontario Street N: Salter, G., works as an asmbler [assembler] at Electrohome 149 Ontario Street N: Craft, Victor Page 233 of 511 149 Ontario Street N: Brennen, B. 149 Ontario Street N: Anderson, L. 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1974 149 Ontario Street N: Jones, Glady (Apt 1) 149 Ontario Street N: Alexander, J. (Apt 7) works as a waiter at the Grand Union Hotel 149 Ontario Street N: Jasper, J. (Apt 8) 149 Ontario Street N: Salter, G. (Apt 5) works as an asmbler [assembler] at Electrohome 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 149 Ontario Street N: Rohrback, Ernest (Apt 10) 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 149 Ontario Street N: Jacques, B. (Apt 6), works as a cabinet maker for Columbia cabinets 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1975-1976 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1977-1978 149 Ontario Street N: Scott D. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1979 149 Ontario Street N: Goldring N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1980 1 149 Ontario Street N: Goldring N. 149 Ontario Street N: Wiegand D. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1981 149 Ontario Street N: Aschmore U. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1982 1983 149 Ontario Street N: Villemaire D. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 1: Vacant 149 Ontario Street N: 2: Louberg M. 149 Ontario Street N: 3: No return 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Duong L. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: Nurcombe G. 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. Page 234 of 511 1984 Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 149 Ontario Street N: 3: Storage 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Louberg M. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: Nurcombe G. 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1985 Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 149 Ontario Street N: 3: Storage 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Campbell R. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: Nurcombe G. 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1986 Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 149 Ontario Street N: 3: Storage 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Feeney D. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: Nurcombe G. 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Feeney D. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: Nurcombe G. 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd, 1988 Apartments: 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. -10- Page 235 of 511 149 Ontario Street N: 4: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 5: Hart L. 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R. 149 Ontario Street N: 7: No Return 149 Ontario Street N: 8: Fraser W. 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Robb N. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1989 Apartments: AMW 149 Ontario Street N: 12: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 149 Ontario Street N: 4: No Return 149 Ontario Street N: 5: No Return 149 Ontario Street N: 6: Lang R 149 Ontario Street N: 7: No Return 149 Ontario Street N: 8: No Return 149 Ontario Street N: 9: Fraser W. 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Services Ltd. 1990 149 Ontario Street N: 1: Vacant 149 Ontario Street N: 2: No return 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Ser 1993-2014 149 Ontario Street N: Vacant 151 Ontario Street N: Bernhardt Insurance Ser, Ll -11- Page 236 of 511 APPENDIX D: COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES 126 Project # LHCO281 Page 237 of 511 Appendix I: Comparative Analysis Example of Semi -Detached Buildings with the CCNHCD Photo 1: 67/69 Athens Street West, built c. 1905 Photo 2: 86/88 College Street West, built c. 1900 Page 238 of 511 Appendix I: Comparative Analysis Photo 3: 57/59/61 Ellen Street West, triplex built c. 1880 Photo 4: 171 Victoria Street North, built in an Italianate style in c. 1885 Page 239 of 511 L7■ -9 MASSAGE L311 Or !&Nkv -58 !fir A + AN; --ffl FA C ,~ x_ #dip 11 hYhh � i Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 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: January 19, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-057 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 30-40 Margaret Avenue RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 7, 2022 and prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) on behalf of Activa. The HIA is fora proposal to develop the subject property municipally addressed as 30-40 Margaret Street, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) as well as the Civic Centre Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). It is part of the requirements for a submitted Site Plan Application (SP22/187/M/AP). At present the subject property is vacant except for mature trees. It was formerly the site of several significant mansions, which fell into a state of disrepair and were demolished in the 1980's and 1990's. The subject property represents the single largest vacant lot in the HCD, and its size and location on a highly travelled road means any development that occurs will be distinctly visible and has the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood. As such there is area specific design guidelines in Section 6.9.1 of the CCNHCD Plan that applies to the subject property, and Policy 3.3.5 (h) of the Plan requires that these guidelines be used in the review and evaluation of proposals for 30-40 Margaret Avenue, to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent context. The subject property is adjacent to 54 Margaret Avenue, which is identified as a District Significance A Building, and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North (The Church of the Good Shepherd) which is also a District Significance A Building and designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposal includes the development of eight blocks of townhomes for a total of 48 dwelling units and 52 parking spaces. Access is provided via Margaret Avenue in the form *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 242 of 511 of a private internal drive aisle, and most of the parking spaces are located within individual garages and not visible from the street. There is a public park proposed on the east side of the subject lands as well as surface visitor and accessibility parking spaces, and on the west side and rear of the subject lands there is proposed landscaped areas. It is also proposed that landscaping be provided at the front of the site through a planted median located within the City right-of-way, which would require an encroachment agreement. The townhomes are contemporary in design and do not include any traditional architectural features. The applicants and architects will be attending the February 7, 2023 meeting of the Heritage Kitchener Committee to answer any questions or concerns. Heritage Planning Staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment or discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning Staff are also seeking the Committee's input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of the complete staff review and processing related to the associated Planning Act Application. A copy of the HIA has been included as Attachment A in this report. MARGARET AVENUE Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan Page 243 of 511 o a O® _ 0 . v aOa tiP.II oOo M!!0 �8o o ei feaO �e�s!!rcflO O MOM] !!IL!.!.O lm IIolhl '1iIa' M e o 0 0 a ® o®o ® ,E��olCl. �H E ra. m O ® a O.1 0--o O ® O O a] O l ® e ® v� ;., 0) O 00 ®� 6xr ®- g d '! O O o © 00 O m m m m m m m sola 0 O m A p A 111111 RAsar � A L k1J..r1.Ld.LkIJ..b•,A:L...aLd.6.LeL.i i.;k_ ■ A Figure 5: Rendering of Front of Townhomes Figure 6: Rendering of Proposed Interface Between Site Frontage and Streetseape with Planted Median Page 245 of 511 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 30-40 Margaret Avenue Page 246 of 511 Scoped tl. Heritage I -v r Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, ON Date: December 7, 2022 Prepared for: Acti va Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Project No. 878481 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel.................................................................................................................................... 3 Glossaryof Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities......................................................................................4 3.8 ExecutiveSummarY................................................................................................................................5 20 i.o Introduction.......................................................................................................................................6 23 i.3. Background...................................................................................................................................6 23 2.0 Methodology and Approach.............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Approach.......................................................................................................................................8 26 3.o Description of Subject Lands........................................................................................................... 3.0 3.i General Description of Subject Lands.......................................................................................... 3.0 3.2 Heritage Status............................................................................................................................ 13 4.o Description of Surrounding Area.....................................................................................................15 5.o Description of Proposed Development............................................................................................ 3.8 5.3. Description of New Construction................................................................................................. 3.8 5.2 Landscape Alterations................................................................................................................. 20 6.o Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Policy Analysis ............................................... 23 6.1 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) ..................................... 23 5.2 Site Specific Guidelines: Margaret Avenue.................................................................................. 23 6.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning Guidelines for Margaret Avenue ........................................... 25 6.4 Site/ Area Specific Design Guidelines: Margaret Avenue............................................................. 26 6.5 Guidelines for Part IV Designations within CCNHCD................................................................... 28 6.6 Guidelines for New Residential Buildings.................................................................................... 29 6.7 Other Applicable Guidelines forthe Public Realm within CCNHCD.............................................. 32 6.8 Compatibility with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) PreferredExamples of Infill............................................................................................................... 34 7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development.................................................................................................. 38 December7, 2022 MHBC I i Page 248 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7.3. Classifications of Impacts............................................................................................................. 38 7.2 Assessment of Beneficial and Neutral Impacts........................................................................ 38 7.3 Assessment of Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District..........................................................................................................39 7.3.3. Impact of Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views..........................................40 7.3.2 Impact of Land Disturbances..........................................................................................44 7.4 Assessment of Adverse Impacts Specific to Adjacent 54 Margaret Avenue ................................. 45 8.o Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures.....................46 8.3. Alternative Development Approaches.........................................................................................46 8.2 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................46 8.3 Conservation Measures............................................................................................................... 47 g.o Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................................48 3.o.o Bibliography..................................................................................................................................49 Appendix A -Map of Subject Lands....................................................................................................... 52 AppendixB -Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix C -Building Elevations & Renderings.................................................................................... 54 Appendix D- Tree Management Plan................................................................................................... 55 Appendix E- Designation By-law Church of the Good Shepherd........................................................ 56 Appendix F- Terms of Reference.......................................................................................................... 57 AppendixG- Curricula Vitae................................................................................................................. 58 December7, 2022 MHBC I ii Page 249 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Lucy Chen Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Senior Heritage Planner Technician Glossary of Abbreviations CCNHCD CHVI CHL HCD HIA MHBC MHSTCI OHA O -REG g/o6 PPS 2020 SOS December7, 2022 Senior Review Research, Author Map Figures Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Cultural Heritage Interest or Value Cultural Heritage Landscape Heritage Conservation District Heritage Impact Assessment MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Regulation 9/o6 fordetermining cultural heritage significance Provincial Policy Statement (2020) Statement of Significance MHBC 13 Page 250 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Acknowledgements This report acknowledges the assistance provided by City of Kitchener Planning Staff, the Waterloo Historical Society, the Grace Schmidt Room in the Kitchener Public Library and the Waterloo Region Museum. Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener is situated in the traditional territory of Haudenosaunee, Anishnawbe, Attiwonderonk (Neutral) nations. These lands are acknowledged as being associated with the following treaties: • The Simcoe Patent- Treaty 4, 1793 • Haldimand Treaty This documenttakes into consideration the cultural heritage of indigenous communities, including their oral traditions and history when available and related to the scope of work. Present Owner Information: Activa, c/o Alex Sumner 2823.889 Ontario Inc. 55 Columbia Street East Suite 3., Waterloo, Ontario N2J 4N7 December/, 2022 MHBC 14 Page 251 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Executive Summary The City of Kitchener requested a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development on the subject lands located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario. This report assessed the impact that the proposed development may have on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, including any potential impact to the individually designated property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 3.3.6 Queen Street (the Church of the Good Shepherd). In conclusion, the proposed development conforms to the majority of the policies and guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) and the adverse impacts are limited to a negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands. Mitigation measures include tree replacement and that replanting be considered for the landscaped area between the buildings and edge of the property that abuts adjacent properties. Furthermore, frontage of the property should reflect the similar theme of a tree boulevard along the south side of Margaret Avenue, Queen Street North and Ellen Street West. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area and of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions to cultural heritage resources as a result of the proposed development. However, as a precautionary measure, in orderto ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entryto the site during construction and storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in orderto honourthe subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. December7, 2022 MHBC 15 Page 252 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture ("MHBC") was retained in January 2022 by Martin Simmons Sweers Architects to undertake a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener hereafter referred to as the 'subject lands' (see Appendix `A'). The subject lands are located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. In November 2oo6, a heritage conservation district study was completed on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and the following year, in August 2007, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (CCNHCD) was established to regulate the designated district. The subject lands are located within CCNHCD and therefore, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The subject lands are currently vacant; formerlythere were seven (7) dwellings on the subject lands, however, all dwellings were demolished in the late 198os and early lggos. As such, there is no protected property on the subject lands as defined by the OHA and Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020). The purpose ofthis scoped HIA isto evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impactsto cultural heritage resources located adjacent to the property and to the overall CCNHCD. There are 17 adjacent properties to the subject lands including: 12, 54 & 64 Margaret Avenue, 116 Queen Street North and 15, 17, 21, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 & 45 Ellen Street West. The adjacent, contiguous property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street North (Church of the Good Shepherd) is designated under Part IV and is a protected property under the OHA and the PPS 202o. The other properties are located in the CCNHCD, however, are not listed under 'Group A' in the District, meaning that they are not considered to have high cultural heritage value. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. It also uses previous reports including: a scoped HIA completed by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2013), an HIA completed by MHBC in 2o1g and subsequent Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) (2020). December7, 2022 MHBC 16 Page 253 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2mOMethodology and Approach 2.1 Methodology The methodology of this report is based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City of Kitchener for the Scoped HIA for development on the subject lands (see Appendix `F'). The City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner requires the following content for this scoped Heritage impact Assessment: • Present owner information; • A written description of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material'; • An outline of proposed development, its context and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage propertieso including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties shall be assessed. • Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. • A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). • Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. • Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. • The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 1 There are no buildings orstructures on-site, however, the property has been documented with photographs. December7, 2022 MHBC 17 Page 254 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario • The summary statement should provide a full description of: ■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. ■ The identification of any impactthe proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. ■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. It is important to note that the subject properties do not include any buildings or structures or particular landscape features and therefore, the analysis is based on the heritage attributes of the adjacent protected heritage property and of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. 2.2 Approach A site visit was conducted by MHBC Staff on March 4, 2oig and October 33., 2022 to documentthe current state of the subject lands. This report reviews the following documents: • HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2oo8); • Scoped HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (203.3); • Scoped HIA by MHBC (2o3.9) and Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (2020); • City of Kitchener's Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (203.4), • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study (2oo6); • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007), • The Planning Act; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • The Ontario Heritage Act; • The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit which includes Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries); • Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition) • Region of Waterloo Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties This HIA assesses the proposed development in terms of its compliance with these policies, guidelines and recommendations and assesses any impacts of the development on cultural heritage value and attributes of adjacent resources. In particular, this report assesses the impact that the proposed development will have on the key heritage attributes of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Key heritage attributes of the CCNHCD are outlined in 2.6 (Section 2.4) of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). These attributes are the defining factors of the heritage district. Key attributes are described in the physical geography and configuration of similar original buildings and their direct relationship to surrounded businesses and factories and original land development pattern of the City. It also describes December7, 2022 MHBC 18 Page 255 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario the progression of architecture and building technology exhibited by houses and other buildings, in particular the unique form of Queen Anne Style specific to the City of Kitchener dubbed "Berlin Vernacular". `Fine' examples of these are categorized by Group'A' or'B'; three quarters of the properties (3-47 properties) are categorized as Group 'C' which exhibit the standard construction and are in a condition of repair and potential restoration. The following is a list of the key attributes of the CCNHCD as defined by the District Plan (2007) on 2.7: • 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 3-800s and early 3-9oos that are largely intact; • A number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and atthe edges ofthe 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; • 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 greenjewel in the centre of the District. December7, 2022 MHBC 19 Page 256 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3 . 0 Description of Subject Lands 3.1 General Description of Subject Lands The subject lands are located centrally within the City of Kitchener and bound by Margaret Avenue to the south, Ellen Street West to the north, Queen Street North to the east and Victoria Street North to the west. The subject lands are currently vacant and include open space with mature trees planted in the Zorn century including Silver, Sugar, Norway, Manitoba Maple, White Mulberry, Black Walnut, Norway Spruce and Basswood. Currently, there are is one vehicular entry to access the subject lands off of Margaret Avenue. The subject lands are surrounded by residential properties to the west, north and south and a place of worship (institutional) to the east. Figure i : Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red dotted line (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 201.9) December7, 2022 MHBC 110 Page 257 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 2: Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan Land Use, Secondary Plan Map 9 identifying the subject lands as medium density multiple residential within the CCNHCD boundaries (see Appendix `G'); red arrow identifies subject lands (Source: City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014) The subject lands are zoned R8 55 1-R and designated as 'Medium -Density Multiple Residential' and within a'Special Area Policy" in the Secondary Plan forthe Civic Centre Neighbourhood (Map 9 of the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (2014), see Figure 2 and 3). The overall parcel area is approximately 3.o1 acres (12,198 sqm). December7, 2022 MHBC I z1 Page 258 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario h4r,T- 11, a OOT MVY167L'7U168R!17H 3 MU -1 167U,.560R g'�+� al 1., 14 R i.aa MU_ SJs -1y 1671 562R �,4 ,�0tiJ fP��27U � 12 MU -1 167k:s 660R. 1731 5i I - I.>`� F I1 F. I :u '13VW GEN IRL " 5:4 . I'� 1 a' R-0 551R I 30 ... .0 de 714, 21- A R-7 al R-5 127V �. I1 Oj 15 Kit(Y�6ha -0Pa 84 5 ;r 21 carer r SII rr CITY COMMERUAL C' � � �QIICCIf Marg alefl� 46 Placa R-0 ©, �h7F �r 13 :I 2 R 7 yir Fc Figure 3: Zoning map of the subject lands; red arrow identifies subject lands (Source: Kitchener Interactive Map, 2022) December7, 2022 MHBC 1 12 Page 259 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.2 Heritage Status The subject lands are not 'listed' (non -designated) or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, however, they are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (2oo6) (see Figure 4). The property does not include any potential built heritage resources as it is vacant. There are special policies within the HCD Plan (2oo6) that address the subject lands and future redevelopment of the lands. o�.I Lti�PK�, IL ?. d. i 5 �, UN r 1 Figure 4: Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red line; green line indicates the CCNHCD boundaries (Source: MHBC, 201.9). December7, 2022 MHBC 1 13 Page 260 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.3 Existing Conditions The current site is vacant and does not include any buildings or structures (see Figures 5-6). There are some mature trees along the rear property line and a portion of the former foundation walls of one of the former dwellings also remains. There is a vehicular parking spot via Margaret Avenue on the west side of the subject lands. Figures 5 & 6: (above) Street view of subject lands looking north-west along Margaret Avenue; (below) Street view of subject lands looking north-east along Margaret Avenue (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2021). December7, 2022 MHBC 1 14 Page 261 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4. 0 Description of Surrounding Area 4.1 Description of General Surrounding Area The subject lands are located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. To the north of the subject lands are two storeys, residential dwellings along Ellen Street West and to the east is the Church of the Good Shepherd. Further to the east is the contemporary building of the Centre in the Square. To the west of the property is the heritage home at 54 Margaret Avenue, which is the last remaining house, aside from 70 Margaret Avenue, from the original row of houses on the north side of Margaret Avenue in the early loth century (see Figure 7). Figure 7: View of the surrounding area (Source: Google Earth Pro and MHBC, 201.9) The properties to the south of the subject land in include both heritage homes as well as residential apartment buildings. There is a four storey apartment building located at 43 Margaret Avenue and an 1.8 storey apartment building at ii Margaret Avenue/ ioo Queen Street North, "The Queen Margaret Apartments." December7, 2022 MHBC 1 15 Page 262 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.2 Description of Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources Adjacent lands are defined by the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Policy 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 meaning "those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property oras otherwise defined in the municipal official plan." The following Table s.o identifies adjacent designated properties and a description based on the CCNHCD Plan. Table s.o Description Heritage Status 54 Margaret Street "A flamboyant large house with Listed; Designated under Part decorative half-timber Tudor details and V(Group A); Identified as `Unique grand circularturret and conical roof Building" in Section 3.4.3 of the exposed currently on three sides. Built in CCNHCD Study (2006) c. 1904 for Herbert J. Bowman, County Clerk, later occupied by Charles J. Baetz, President of Baetz Brothers, Speciality Manufacturers, makers of floors and table lamps." 64 Margaret Street (Formerly 66 Margaret Avenue) Presently Designated under Part V a vacant lot with the exception of a one storey accessory building. William H. Breithaupt who constructed a house at 64 Margaret Street (now Margaret Avenue). The house was demolished in 2003. 116 Queen Street/ 12 Three-storey Gothic Church of the Good Designated under Part IV and Part Margaret Street Shepherd Swedenborgian church with V (see below for more information clock tower, fence and adjoining coach regarding designation). house (12 Queen Street) originated with the William Roos Estate, c.1885, Roos was a wholesale grocer. 3.5 Ellen Street West Two-storey brick house built in c 1920. Listed; Designated under Part V( Group C) 17 Ellen Street West Two-storey vernacular brick house built in Listed; Designated under Part V c.1910. (Group C) 21 Ellen Street West Two-storey stucco house built in c.1905 Listed; Designated under Part V (Group B) 25 Ellen Street West Two-storey vernacular brick house built in Listed; Designated under Part V c. 1905. (Group C) 29 Ellen Street West Two-storey brick house built in c. -19-10 Designated under Part V (Group C) 33. Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Queen Anne Designated under Part V (Group C) house built in c. -19-10 with shingled gable. 33 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick and stucco, Tudor Designated under Part V (Group C) house built in c. 1925. 35 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick, Tudor house built in c. Designated under Part V (Group C) 1925. 37 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular Designated under Part V (Group C) house built in c. -19-10 December7, 2022 MHBC 1 16 Page 263 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 39 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular Designated under Part V (Group C) house built in c. 1910 41 Ellen Street West Two storey, brick, Vernacular house built Listed; Designated under Part V in c. lgoo (Group B) 43 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular Listed; Designated under Part V house built in c. lgoo (Group C) 45 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular Listed; Designated under Part V house built in c. 1910 (Group C) On July 15, 1985, By-law 85-129 was passed pursuant to Section 29 of the OHA to designate under Part IV of the OHA the property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, "The Church of the Good Shepherd" (see Appendix `E'); this by-law outlines the designating features as follows: [This property] is designated as being of historical and architectural value that part of the aforesaid real property known as 116 Queen Street North being comprised of the portions of the wrought iron fence stretching from the drive beside the Church along Margaret Avenue to Queen Street and the section along Queen Street stretching to the Church property. This designation is acknowledged in the CCN HCID Plan as being a key attribute of the property. The cast iron fence that encircles the grounds at the Church of the Good Shepherd is an excellent example of period fencing. Originally, the fence enclosed the grounds of the home of William Roos, a prominent industrialist in the city. The Church now maintains the fence as an important link to its past, and serves as an excellent example of stewardship. (CCNHCD Plan, 2007, 4.18). Figure 8: View of the cast iron fence of the Church of the Good Shepherd located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, Kitchener (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022) December/, 2022 MHBC 1 17 Page 264 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5 . 0 Description of Proposed Development 5.1 Description of New Construction The proposed development includes eight (8) blocks of townhouses with a total of 48 dwelling units and 53 parking spaces (see Figure g and Appendix `B' and `C'. Vehicular access is proposed via Margaret Avenue and continues into a private road through the development. Landscaped areas are proposed at the rear side of the development and a proposed park is proposed on the east side of the subject lands of approximately ±o.3. hectares. The new construction includes a range of materials such as: natural wood siding, natural cedar soffits, wood door, standing seam metal siding, brick veneer, aluminum framing system and architectural concrete. O m MARGARET AVENUE zz Figure g: Greyscale site plan for proposed development (MHBC, December 5, 2022) December7, 2022 MHBC 118 Page 265 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario ----------- y ---------- 0 ------- O Q -------------- ---------- (1) _—_—_—_—_—_—_—_ Q - - - - -?------------------------ -- O G o Cjj ------------------ _—_—_1—_—_—_ y ----------- 5' (z} e4ncx $ Oh Qh Figures:Lo & is: (above) Elevations of Block A (which are replicated for other blocks); (below) Coloured rendering of proposed development looking from the interior of the site (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022) December7, 2022 MHBC I 19 Page 266 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.2 Landscape Alterations The development will remove some trees located on the subject lands. A Tree Management Plan identified there were 92 trees identified on site in 2oi9, however, an update plan identifies that there are currently 20 trees on-site, 1.8 of which will be retained (see Appendix `D'). The species of trees to be retained include: • Basswood • Tree of Heaven • Norway and Sugar Maple • Black Walnut • Norway Spruce • White Cedar • White Mulberry • White Ash The trees that are proposed to be removed include an Ash Spruce (identified as Tree #20 in Figure 12) and a Norway Spruce (identified as Tree #21 in Figure 12). The Ash Spruce is identified as a 'dead' tree and the other is in fair condition; the trees are located along the rear property line. The proposed development includes a reinstated tree boulevard, private walkways, and a park abutting the adjacent Church of the Good Shepherd which includes a combination of trees and terraces. December7, 2022 MHBC 120 Page 267 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario STAa'sY -M P"TA 0NDES 2' CW.°.'An 6kREf.L A. Pi TAK s FARM;= RFARAKI* { .� 1W8PFn Ci6COF++R tk71DOFAR z�, cv. �.slu riPftPx 1 sEE 3i 711� 294&.— PLAT-- O]i36Fxft �j �ff 19 lRff 15 4 i Y OJ. BLOCK EAND G BLOCK FAND N I i PLANTER IN FRONT OF PATIO REGULARTREE SPACING -5¢e reriePmrElPd E end siodcG -smell slelure � deem edjece�R PPwerl'mes -Appnmcdmetxspe[cg - Block G hes n.iucetl depth - FCm�miel �er�n PLANTED MEDIAN - PRIVATE WALKWAY -Shmb had -1.5 nreter unit paver walkway -Reduced height mr Ppm sit ISna -Cannea%mshaved welkwry ram -VeyeGtiue WRerfor Prrvale Patiea lmm Otyvdeweyylk Ab BLOCK FAND N I i PLANTER IN FRONT OF PATIO WALKWAY -5¢e reriePmrElPd E end siodcG -15 --ft Peverwelkwey - Block G hes n.iucetl depth - FCm�miel �er�n - Cpnneds m ary aNnxelk - fnhemd ses'dertial tmnbkR - PRIVATE WALKWAY PLANTED BED TO PRIVATE PATIO -1.5 nreter unit paver walkway -Shmb bed -Cannea%mshaved welkwry ram -PmvtlesemnPleY buPo Pri peliw lmm Otyvdeweyylk PL Figures iz & 13: (above) Excerpt of Tree Management Plan identifying the trees proposed to be removed (below) Concept landscape design (Source: MHBC, 2022). December7, 2022 MHBC 12.1 Page 268 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario M V 2 Figure 14: Basic rendering of proposed landscape design for parkland adjacent to the Church of the Good Shepherd (Source: MHBC, 2022). December7, 2022 MHBC 122 Page 269 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6-oCivic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Policy Analysis 6.1 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) The CCNHCD Plan contains specific policies and design guidelines for the subject lands. This area is identified as one of four (4) site/area specific policies in the Plan including: Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, Weber Street and Victoria Street. All new development should confirm to these policies and guidelines. An analysis of the proposed development and the conformity with each policy is provided below. See Appendix `B' and `C' for site plan, floor plans and architectural renderings. 6.2 Site Specific Guidelines: Margaret Avenue 3.3.5 Site Specific Policies: Margaret Avenue 3.3.5.3 MargaretAvenue A large parcel of land on the east side of Margaret Avenue is currently vacant, except for a number of mature trees. This property was home to a number of significant mansions which were allowed by their property owners to go into serious disrepair and eventually were demolished in the 198os and zggos. It represents by far the single largest vacant property in the District where development is almost certain to happen in the future. Site plan applications were submitted in the past, but to date, nothing has been constructed. Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly traveled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. The site is designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential and zoned R8, allowing fora full range of residential uses up to 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys). The Municipal Plan contains several other policies which are included below along with additional policies that are to apply to this site to ensure that new development maintains the heritage character of the District. Pnl irioc New development on the east side of Margaret Avenue shall maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). December7, 2022 MHBC 123 Page 270 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Response 1: The proposed development is located centrally on Margaret Avenue between Victoria Street North and Queen Street North. A portion of the overall building is adjacenttothe parking lot of the Church of the Good Shepherd which is on the 'east side' of Margaret Avenue. Architectural details such as multiple entryways corresponding to multiple, separate residential units, stepbacks and landscape features (i.e. private walkways) have been intentionally designed to maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood. Underground parking is encouraged for all forms of redevelopment and is required for apartment developments, with the exception of surface visitor parking (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). Response 2: Parking is located in individual parking garages which are accessed via the Janeway within the centre of the development. Therefore, the parking is not visible from the public realm. There is a total of 52 parking spaces proposed. Redevelopment should be of a height, siting and design which will prevent it from encroaching on lower density dwellings located on Ellen and Ahrens Streets (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). Response 3: The proposed building height is approximately 3 storeys in height which is similar to the adjacent place of worship and residential houses in the area. The proposed development is approximately three (3) metres from the front yard property line which situates it close to the streetscape. The design includes a variety of heights, setbacks, forms and textures to reduce the perception of massing. Development proposals shall establish a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge that is consistent with the residential character of the District, through the use of appropriate setbacks, height, architectural features and building articulation. Response 4: The orientation and location of the proposed development promotes a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge. The separation ofthe building into several units provides a more inviting streetscape in lieu of one building mass. Any buildings proposed over 5 storeys in height may be required to undertake shadow studies to demonstrate that they will not unreasonably impact access to sunlight in rear yard amenity areas on Ellen Street. Response 5: The proposed development is less than 5 storeys and therefore, is not required. The retention and incorporation of existing trees is strongly encouraged as part of any development proposal. Response 6: A Tree Preservation Plan was prepared by MHBC Planning by a licensed landscape architect and certified arborist (see Appendix'D'). Of the 20 trees on-site, 3.8 of the trees will be retained. New trees are proposed to be placed in other parts of the site to mitigate the removal of healthytreesand the existing mature, healthy trees will be incorporated intothe overall design of the site. December7, 2022 MHBC 124 Page 271 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Traffic studies may be required to demonstrate that new development will not have a negative impact on the existing heritage character of the area with respect to any potential road width / turning lane requirements or access locations. Response 7: A Traffic Impact Study was not requested by the municipality as part of the site plan application submission. 6.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning Guidelines for Margaret Avenue 4.2.1 Land Use Designations and Zoning: Medium Density Multiple Residential Designation — Margaret Avenue "The large vacant lot on Margaret Avenue is also currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential, which is intended to permit some integrated medium density development while maintaining the overall character of the neighbourhood. Zoning for the large vacant parcel is R8, which permits a floorspace ratio of 2 and a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys) for multiple dwellings. The majority of buildings beside, across from and backing onto the large vacant site on Margaret are still the original detached dwellings, primarily 2 to 2-1/2 storeys in height. One high rise apartment is situated across from the east end of the site. While the zoning would allow for construction of an 8 storey building, it would be more difficult for a building of this height to "maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood". Actual architectural and design elements, along with siting of buildings would likely play an equally important role in whether new development was compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. With the permitted floor space ratio of 2, it would be very possible to achieve the maximum floor area. within a building envelope of5 storeys or less as shown below. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the maximum permitted height in this area to approximately 16.5 metres to reduce potential height impacts on the street and adjacent neighbours. Height impacts could also be addressed through the addition of angular planes and/orstep back requirements in the zoning by- law orguidelines to minimize building heights nearest the street. In addition, a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres is recommended to establish a street edge similar to the opposite side of MargaretAvenue. It is also recognized that there are quite a number of mature trees that are located on the property. Opportunities to retain and/or design around these trees should be encouraged. Response 7: The proposed building heights are 13.3 metres which is to maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood. The buildings are close to the street with individual entrances facing the street which is more consistent with the single detached dwellings in the immediate area. The proposed setback of approximately 3 metres establishing a similar street edge to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. December7, 2022 MHBC 1 25 Page 272 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6.4 Site/ Area Specific Design Guidelines: Margaret Avenue 6.9 SITE/AREA SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES There are several sites, as previously identified in the policies and implementation sections of this report, that have a distinct character and/or some development expectation or potential over the long term. To ensure that future development, should it occur, is compatible with the District, the following guidelines should be considered during the building and site design in these areas. 6.9.1 Margaret Avenue New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of io metres. Response 8: The front yard setback is approximately 3 metres and therefore, is within the maximum setback and similar to the rest of the street. Landscaping of a tree boulevard for the proposed development will also address the relationship between the trees on the south side of the street and those in front of the new building. A minimum rear yard setback of io to 15 metres is encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West, given that the topography slopes onwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. Response g: The rear yard setback ranges from approximately 4 to 3.6 metres. The rear yard is intended to be landscaped. December7, 2022 MHBC 126 Page 273 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 15: Coloured rendering of rear yard (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022). Building step backs are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Step backs should be a minimum of 2 metres to provide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. Response 10: The proposed new construction is not greaterthan 3-4 storeys in height, however, it does include building step backsto minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. There are terraces proposed to the rear of the units above the parking garages. Street level architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative door and window details, turrets, porches, bays and other similar features. Response 11: The proposed development is contemporary in design and does not include traditional historic architectural features. Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly singlefamilynature of the neighbourhood. Response 12: This architectural design of the building uses repetitive fagade elements, such as the mirrored rhythm of building sections. The transition of building with stepbacks also breaks up and creates a rhythm along the fagade of the three buildings along Margaret Avenue (see Appendix C for architectural elevations and renderings). December7, 2022 MHBC 127 Page 274 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario The articulation of the front facades reflects width and spacing of the single detached dwellings on the south of Margaret Avenue. There are seventeen entrances to the property from the street accessed from Margaret Avenue which has the effect of creating individual front yards similar in character to the single detached dwellings on the south side of Margaret Avenue. The use of brick and/or stone is strongly encouraged for the front fagade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to the parcel of land; Response 13: The CCNHCD Study (2oo6) identified that brick was used in 87.02% of the properties in the district. The proposed developed will use a light cream/ buff brick veneer on the front facades. It also proposes to use wood materials which are also present in the District. Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. Response 14: As per Response 2, parking is located in individual parking garages which are accessed via the laneway within the centre of the development. Therefore, the parking is not visible from the public realm. There is a total of 52 parking spaces proposed. Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an 'instant' amenity and to help it blend into the heritage landscape that exists in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. Response 15: See Response 6. 6.5 Guidelines for Part IV Designations within CCNHCD 3.3.7 Part IV Designations A number of properties in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood are currently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. When such properties are included in a Heritage Conservation District, the requirements of Part V of the Act take precedence over Part IV. As a result, the specific heritage attributes that are protected under Part IV are to be identified and included in the Heritage District Conservation Plan to ensure their continued protection. To address this situation, the following policies are established for properties previously designated under Part IV. December7, 2022 MHBC 128 Page 275 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Policies: The policies and guidelines of this Conservation Plan are to apply to all properties previously designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition to the policies and guidelines of this Plan, all interior and exterior features previously designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that are or may be above and beyond those features to be protected as a result of designation under Part V for the following properties are to continue to be protected in the same manner as prior to their designation under Part V. This includes: • 116 Queen Street North (fence) — Wrought iron fence Response 16: The proposed development will not negatively impact the wrought iron fence along the property of the Church of the Good Shepherd. This is analyzed in Sub -section 7.0 of this report. 6.6 Guidelines for New Residential Buildings 6.6 NEW BUILDINGS - RESIDENTIAL In addition to the large vacant tract of land on Margaret Avenue, there are a few locations in the residential core area of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District where new buildings are likely to be constructed. New or replacement buildings may be constructed in some cases as a result of fire or structural instability. In such situations, new buildings must be designed to be compatible with the heritage characteristics of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood to help retain the overall visual context of the area. Recommended Practices and Design Guidelines Match setback, footprint, size and massing patterns of the neighbourhood, particularly to the immediately adjacent neighbors. Response 17: See Responses 3 and 12. The new construction presents itself as separate units similar to the surrounding single family dwellings (including 54 Margaret Avenue) and is separated into several blocks to avoid a single mass. It also has elements of massing patterns and material that reflect the adjacent Church of the Good Shepherd. Setbacks of new development should be consistent with adjacent buildings. Where setbacks are not generally uniform, the new building should be aligned with the building that is most similar to the predominant setback on the street. Response 18: See Responses 8 & 9. The front yard setback of the adjacent church and the house at 54 Margaret Avenue are approximately 3.5 metres. However, the front yard setbacks of the buildings on the south side of Margaret Avenue are shallower and more similar to the proposed setback of the development. December7, 2022 MHBC 12g Page 276 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario New buildings and entrances must be oriented to the street and are encouraged to have architectural interest to contribute to the visual appeal of the neighbourhood. Response 19: The development will be oriented to the street and entryways, including private walkways, are proposed to encourage the visual appeal of the neighbourhood. Respond to unique conditions or location, such as corner properties, by providing architectural interest and details on both street facing facades. Response 20: The subject lands front Margaret Avenue and have designed the front elevation along the streetscape to have architectural interest and details that promote a fluid streetscape. Use roof shapes and major design elements that are complementary to surrounding buildings and heritage patterns. Response 21: The new construction includes flat, platform rooflines which reflect that of the adjacent church (at least as it relates to the battlement inspired bell tower). The parapet of the tower is mimicked by the roof terraces. The design of the blocks was intended to reflect the consistent residential streetscape in the surrounding area, particularly that of Ellen Street. Size, shape, proportion, number and placement of windows and doors should reflect common building patterns and styles of other buildings in the immediate area. Response 22: The size, shape, proportion, number and placement of windows and doors are contemporary in nature, although do take cues from surrounding buildings, particularly, those of the adjacent church which exhibits elongated, narrow window openings and asymmetrical entries with solid wood doors. The proposed entries include doors with sidelights and transom lights (the transom lights include wood slat siding). Use materials and colours that represent the texture and palette of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Response 23: The new construction includes a range of materials such as: natural wood siding, natural cedar soffits, wood door, standing seam metal siding, brick veneer, aluminum framing system and architectural concrete. Some of the materials represent the texture of the District while others are contemporary. The colour palette is proposed to be neutral which is supported by the use of some natural materials. Colours proposed include: Light cream, weathered copper, dark grey/ black, charcoal, blonde (aluminium) and natural wood colours (for the use of Cedar and other woods for architectural elements). December7, 2022 MHBC 1.30 Page 277 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figures 16 & 17: (above) Coloured rendering of front elevation of Block'H' (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022); (below) View of the Church of the Good Shepherd (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022). December7, 2022 MHBC 13.1 Page 278 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Where appropriate, incorporate in a contemporary way some of the traditional details that are standard elements in the principal facades of properties in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Such details as transoms and sidelights at doors and windows, covered porches, divided light windows and decorative details to articulate plain and flat surfaces, add character that complements the original appearance of the neighbourhood and add value to the individual property. Response 24: Details include: transoms and sidelights at doors, portico -like entry ways and the use of a variety of materials that would be reflected in the District (i.e. brick, wood). Front drive garages are strongly discouraged. Garages should be located in the rear yard whenever possible and will be subject to the design guidelines of the HCD Plan. Response 25: See Response 2. New residential or office conversion uses shall generally be of a low rise residential form, with a minimum height of 1-1/2 storeys. New buildings should not be any lower than the lowest residential heritage building on the block or taller than the highest residential heritage building on the same block. Response 26: The new construction is generally of a low-rise character, however, it is taller than the highest residential heritage building on the same block (it is more consistent with the adjacent place of worship/ institutional building). 6.7Other Applicable Guidelines for the Public Realm within CCNHCD There are other applicable guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) which are reviewed in this sub- section which relate to the overall public realm and the effect on the district by the proposed development. Mature trees are to be protected and preserved to the extent possible. (CCNHCD Plan (2o07), Public Realm, 3.3.6 (a))) Response 27: Response 16 addresses the concern of tree preservation for the overall site. Landscaping that complements the existing landscapes of the district, screens parking areas and contributes to the overall pedestrian quality is encouraged for all new development. Specific landscape elements will be governed by Site Plan Approval. (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, 3.3.6 (c)) Response 28: Landscaped areas will screen the surface parking to the rear of the property. Landscaping at the front of the building includes the signature tree boulevard and low-lying plants. Where construction and/ or construction activities on private property may impact publicly owned trees, submissions for site plan approvals/ permits shall be accompanied by a tree preservation plan clearly indicating measures to preserve the municipally owned tree and approved by Urban Forestry. December 7, 2022 MHBC 132 Page 279 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario The tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, certified arborist or registered professional forester (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Street Trees, Sub -section 7.3.1). Response 29: A Tree Management/ Preservation Plan is included in Appendix `D' of this report. All boulevards should be maintained as green space, serving as an important buffer between vehicular and pedestrian space within the streetscape (Public Realm, Boulevards, Sub -section 7.3.2). Response 30: The existing boulevard will be maintained as green space to serve as a buffer between vehicular and pedestrian space within the streetscape. Residents of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood are encouraged to consider the use of plant materials that were typically employed in Ontario residential landscapes during the post -Confederation and post -Victorian periods" (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub -section 7.4.2). Response 31: Landscaping includes alternating gardens in sequence with the sections of the building; these gardens are composed of typical plant material selection for residential landscaping indicated in Table 5.1 of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). New fences should be consistent in design, materials, and scale with heritage fencing. Wood, and iron fencing are recommended over vinyl, plastic, aluminium or other more modern materials. In the event that a more decorative or ornate style of fencing can be identified as historically installed on the property, it is desirable that the fencing should be replicated (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub -section 7.4.2). Response 32: There are retaining walls proposed along portions of the front elevations as part of the physical separation between unit entries. The walls are proposed to be architectural concrete, lightly sandblasted with clear matte sealer, however, these are intended as physical architectural elements and not as `fences'. Terraces include wrought iron picket guard which is similar to the designated iron wrought fence of the Church of the Good Shepherd. Where fences are proposed where they did not historically exist, uncomplicated heritage designs are recommended over more modern styles. Unfinished pressure treated lumber fencing and chain link fencing are discouraged in the study area, especially in the front and side yard areas where fencing material can affect the streetscape character most (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub -section 7.4.2). Response 33: There are no fences proposed, however, as mentioned in Response 32, the terraces include wrought iron guards to be consistent with the character of the area. Size and scale of the fencing should be considered closely, and take into account distance to viewing points, viewing heights and sight lines over fencing (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub -section 7.4.2). December 7, 2022 MHBC 133 Page 280 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Response 34: There is no proposed fence line along the front elevation of the proposed development. The retaining walls that are proposed will not block any viewing points or sight lines. Ornamental furniture should be coordinated, and if possible sourced from the same supplier in order to achieve the same economy of scale. A bench such as the MLB 3ioM bench available from Maglin Site Furniture Inc., finished in black pilaster powder coat, made from solid cast aluminium. The ML WR 200- 32 trash receptacle and MBR2oo bike rack are also available in the black powder coat finish, and coordinate with the bench (CCNHCD Plan (2oo7), Public Realm, Street Furniture, Sub -section 7.3.6). Response 35: There is no ornamental furniture proposed. 6.8 Compatibility with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) Preferred Examples of Infill The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (OHTK) outlines acceptable infill designs within a cultural heritage landscape (see Figure 3.8). According to the OHTK, infills in designated cultural heritage landscapes are to fit in the immediate context, be of the same scale and similar setback, maintain proportions of windows and entrances similarto other cultural heritage resources and be of similar colour and material. Section 4.0 of this report completed an overall analysis of the policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007). This analysis concluded that the proposed development is compatible with the overall character of the CCNHCD. new infill----� should fit IIS MMUO immediate �QQm �an I i 101010 �� I i _ contest r 0 tl I1 M2 p ^p o naw infill should F-7 be generallyQi]n same height QQn !1➢� I I 440 CU] I t)p00 00 ul andwidth as 1.117[71 ` 7(] m OAD + j Carl pulp l i f 0[ri10 ¢Qa m m neighbours r -1 ! ! ! new infill should have Set backs 1- -- i simiEarfv i 41" no i'- ��1'- neighbours' - --- This it a good maintain�� EIpp JOE m [1 exampleofthe proportions of windows and Doo f1t]0 900 -> _o ooa �p p� use ofsimple enlrances _ , graphic to --� demonstrate acreptablr and use Similar or l@hng m - -- ok no unacceptable infill design. materials and I �1 I' i- ' (Graphie colours Ili o Minirtry of - cul") Figure i8: Diagram showing good and bad examples of infill (OHTK, December7, 2022 MHBC 134 Page 281 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 15 la Elevation on Margaret Avenue looking north to proposed low-rise redevelopment. Height of buildings to he similar to existing building heights of three storeys near the street, up to five storeys mid -block_ Figures ig & 20: (above) Preferred example showing axonometric view of a proposed development from Sub- section 6.9.1. of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (belowo Example of front elevation of preferred example along Margaret Avenue (Source: CCNHCD Plan, 6.29- 6.30). The proposed development relays similar architectural articulations as the preferred example provided in the CCNHC Plan above in Figures 1.9 and 20. Although, the development is taller than the historic residential buildings in the immediate surrounding area, it generally complies with the neighbourhood. In addition to complying with the architectural design guideline policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007), the overall design of the proposed development also considered the preferred examples from case studies outlined in 6.33 of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). The excerpt below explains how these preferred examples are compatible for Margaret Avenue. 'More Preferred'Examples The photos below illustrate examples of development that would be considered reasonably compatible in the Civic Centre neighbourhood, in areas such as Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, December7, 2022 MHBC 135 Page 282 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Weber Street and Victoria Street. These developments generally display good relationship to the street, sensitivity to scale, massing and built form, appropriate interpretation of roof lines, and window placement. For the most part, they also break up the buildings visually into smaller units through articulation of the front fagade and variation in building materials (CCNHCD Plan (2ooA Section 6.33). Figures Zito 24 provide a comparative analysis of the preferred examples presented in the Plan and the proposed new construction. Some similarities include separate unit entries and the use of setbacks and various projecting bays and contrast of brick and other materials. December7, 2022 MHBC 136 Page 283 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Proposed Development �I Figures 21- 24: (above left to bottom left) Preferred examples from Sub -section 9.6.5 of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (right) Coloured rendering of the proposed development (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022) December7, 2022 MHBC 137 Page 284 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7mO Impacts of Proposed Development 7.1 Classifications of Impacts The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long-term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post - construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. According to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, the following constitutes negative impacts which may result from a proposed development: • Demolition of any, or part of any, heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of a building; • Shadows created that obscure heritage attributes or change the viability of the associated cultural heritage landscape; • Isolation of a heritage resource or part thereof from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Obstruction of significant identified views or vistas of, within, or from individual cultural heritage resources, • A change in land use where the change affects the property's cultural heritage value; and • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. In addition, this Heritage Impact Assessment assesses the impact of the proposed development on the overall Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District and assesses the compliance with the applicable policies of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). 7.2 Assessment of Beneficial and Neutral Impacts The subject lands, which historically were used for residential dwellings, are nowvacant. The vacancy has created a void along the Margaret Avenue streetscape which is within one of the City's oldest neighbourhoods. Infill in this case is recommended as a form of conservation for the general rhythm of the neighbourhood and in particularthe streetscape of Margaret Avenue. A building of good quality and architectural design can be beneficial for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization and overall historical land use patterns, as well as visually provide a scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. December7, 2022 MHBC 138 Page 285 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario ].3 Assessment of Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District The following Table i.o analyzes the impact of proposed development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (including its potential impact on 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street (Church of the Good Shepherd) which is also designated individually under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Table i.o Impacts to CCNHCD Impact Level of Impact Analysis (Unknown, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Major) Destruction or Alteration of Negligible. The proposed development will remove Heritage Attributes two (2) trees from the existing 20 trees on site, one of which is in poor condition/ dead. Shadows No. The proposed development will not result in shadows that negatively impact the CCNHCD including landscape features (i.e. mature trees). Isolation No. The proposed development will not isolate adjacent heritage buildings or features but rather create a fluid streetscape. Direct or Indirect Obstruction No. of View , December7, 2022 The proposed development will not negatively alter the view of the western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd eastwardly along Margaret Avenue. It will also not affect the scenic view of the designated wrought iron fence along Margaret Avenue and Queen Street. The coach house was specifically constructed to the rear and not intended as a building of significant views. The proposed development does not obstruct the view of the eastern fagade of 54 Margaret Avenue as this was not intended to be the significant view and is currently obstructed from view by vegetation. The proposed development will not obstruct the view of rear elevations of adjacent propertiestothe rearofthe subject lands as MHBC 13-9 Page 286 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario they were not intended to be viewed (see Sub -section 7.3.1). A Change in Land Use No The land use on the subject lands will remain for residential purposes. The proposed development is approximately 29.8 metres from the adjacent coach house, 20-28 metres from properties to the rear along Ellen Street. The new construction will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction (see sub -section 7.3.2). Drainage and grading should be appropriate based on an approval of an adequate drainage and grading plan. 7.3.1 Impact of Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views The Standards and Guidelines of Historic Places (Second Edition) defines in Section 4.1.5 `Visual Relationships" which is included as part of a character -defining element of a historic place and relates to an observer and their relationship with a landscape or landscape feature (viewscape) or between the relative dimensions of landscape features (scale). This policy adopts the following definition for viewscape: Viewscape can include scenes, panoramas, vistas, visual axes and sight lines. In designed landscapes, a viewscape may have been established following the rules of pictorial composition: elements are located in the foreground, middle ground and background. A Viewscape may also be the chief organizing feature when a succession of focal points is introduced to draw the pedestrian onward through a landscape. The Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport (Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, 2014) has adopted the following definitions of a view and vista, respectively: Vista means a distant visual setting that may be experienced from more than one vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit acknowledges that views of a heritage attributes can be components of its significant cultural heritage value. This can include relationships between settings, landforms, vegetation patterns, buildings, landscapes, sidewalks, streets, and gardens, for example. View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. December7, 2022 MHBC 140 Page 287 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Views can be either static or kinetic. Static views are those which have a fixed vantage point and view termination. Kinetic views are those related to a route (such as a road or walking trail) which includes a series of views of an object or vista. The vantage point of a view is the place in which a person is standing. The termination of the view includes the landscape or buildings which is the purpose of the view. The space between the vantage point and the termination (or object(s) being viewed) includes a foreground, middle -ground, and background. Views can also be'framed' by buildings or features. While there may be many vantage points providing views and vistas of a property, landscape, building or feature, these must be evaluated to determine whether or not they are significant. Significance is defined by PPS 203.4 as follows: Significant: means e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Therefore, a significant view must be identified as having an important contribution to the understanding of a place, event or people. The CCNHCD Plan (2007) mentions the importance of views and overall effect ofvisibiIityofthe proposed development on the District, Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly traveled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. (Sub -section 3.3.5.3 Margaret Avenue, CCNHCD Plan, 2007). Thus, it is important that the affect the proposed development has on significant views and viewscapes in the district. The following diagram identifies views, both kinetic and stationary, as well as viewscapes that may be affected by the proposed development. The CCNHCD Study (2006) reviewed views and viewscapes within the boundary of the district. The study states that, "-where street are consistent as along Ellen Street, Ahrens Street or Gordon Avenue, the views are closed but long" (Section 4.3). Consistency as part of a view and viewscapes of the district will be evaluated in this sub -section. See the following Table 2.0 for an analysis of potential impacted views and viewscapes. December7, 2022 MHBC 141 Page 288 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table 2.o- Analysis of Views and Viewscapes View/ Viewscape Description of View Kinetic view along Margaret Avenue View No. 2 Kinetic view along Ellen Street West View No .3 Kinetic view along Queen Street North View No. 4 Stationary view of western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd Viewscape No. 5 Viewscape (scene) of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue Analysis of Views and Viewscapes and Potential Impacts View No.s- The CCNHCD Study of 2oo6, specifically identifies in Sub -section 4.4 that scale and character does shift across Margaret Avenue. Margaret Avenue is currently composed of low, medium and high- rise buildings. The scale and character of the Avenue is a mosaic of types of architecture. The kinetic view along Margaret Avenue will change so as to fill in a space that historically was filled with residential dwellings. The impact is neutral to this view and will not adversely affect the streetscape but rather it will complete the streetscape while maintaining the overall view of the street. View No.2- The kinetic view along Ellen Street West will not be negatively impacted. The proposed development maybe visible to the rear of the residential homes. However, existing trees in the rear yards of these homes and the existing and proposed trees on subject lands will screen the building masses. December7, 2022 MHBC 142 Page 289 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario View NO -3- Queen Street North is characterized by a variety of types of architecture; there are medium/ high rise buildings existing along this street. The proposed development will not impact the kinetic view of Queen Street North. Figure 25: Rendering of proposed development along Margaret Avenue (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architect). View No. 4-. The view of the western facade of the Church of the Good Shepherd will not be negatively impacted due to the development. Due to the parking lot on the church property and the proposed park, the view of the north facade will still be visible. Viewscape No. 5- The CCNHCD Plan (2007) defines churches as "distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District" as one of the key attributes of the district .The viewscape in the form of a scene of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue is a distinctive part of the district. The Gothic inspired church with by its wrought iron fence at the corner of this intersection marks its presence on both streets. This scene is presented by the wrought iron fence in the foreground, church structure in the middle ground with itsthree storey clock tower leading the viewer to the heavens as a background. The view of the wrought iron fence will be limited to the change in the background from the proposed development. The foreground including the fence and the middle ground of the landscaping and church will, however, remain the same. December7, 2022 MHBC 143 Page 290 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 26 : Aerial view of the Church of the Good Shepherd; Black dotted line outlines the approximate perimeter of the designate wrought iron fence line (Google Earth Pro, 201.9) 7.3.2 Impact of Land Disturbances The proposed development is approximately 29.8 metres from the adjacent coach house, 20-28 metres from properties to the rear along Ellen Street. The new construction will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue to the west which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction. Figure 27: Overlay of site plan on aerial showing the distances between new construction and existing buildings and structures in the immediate surrounding area (Source: MHBC, 2022). December7, 2022 MHBC 144 Page 291 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario ].LF Assessment of Adverse Impacts Specific to Adjacent 54 Margaret Avenue _Table 2.0 Impacts to the Natural Heritage On-site and Surrounding CCNHCD Impact Level of Impact Analysis (Unknown, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Major) Destruction or Alterationof No. Heritage Attributes Shadows No. Isolation No. Direct or Indirect Obstruction No. of View i A Change in Land Use Land Disturbances December7, 2022 No. The proposed development will not _destroy or alter heritage attributes. The proposed development will not cause shadows that will negatively impact the heritage attributes of the adjacent property. There is proposed development on either side of 54 Margaret Avenue. A landscaped separation has been created between the development and the existing building to reduce any impact on the building. The landscaped buffer also purposes as a transition in scale and mass. The proposed development does not obstruct the view of the front facade of 54 Margaret Avenue. This is the significant view of the property from the street. The land use on the subject lands will remain for residential purposes. The proposed development will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue. This is sufficient distance such that impacts on the foundations, due to vibrations, are not expected. MHBC 145 Page 292 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 80oConsideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. 8.1.1 Do nothing This option would result in no development on the site. This is not recommended as historically the subject lands facilitated residential dwellings as part of the development of the City of Kitchener. The limited impacts of the proposed development are not cause to deny development opportunities. 7.1.2 Develop the site as proposed This option would result in the development of the site as designed in the attached site plan by MHBC Planning (see Appendix B). 8.1.3 Develop the site with an alternate design Alternative layouts and building orientation have been considered in the past with other proposed developments. The current design reflects the 'more preferred examples' outlined in the CCNHCD Plan (2007) in Section 6.9.5, architectural design guidelines; it also was developed based on previous proposals to ensure that it meets the requirements of the municipality. 8.2 Mitigation Measures The following adverse impacts have been identified as impacts related tothe proposed development are: • Negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands Mitigation measures include tree replacement and that replanting be considered for the landscaped area between the buildings and edge of the property that abuts adjacent properties. Furthermore, frontage of the property should reflect the similar theme of a tree boulevard along the south side of Margaret Avenue, Queen Street North and Ellen Street West. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area and December7, 2022 MHBC 146 Page 293 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. 8.3 Conservation Measures There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions as a result of the proposed development, however, as a precautionary measure, in order to ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid both of these properties, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in orderto honourthe subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. December7, 2022 MHBC 147 Page 294 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9 . 0 Conclusions and Recommendations The City of Kitchener requested a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development on the subject lands located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue. This report assessed the impact that the proposed development may have on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) including any potential impact to the individually designated property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 3.16 Queen Street (the Church of the Good Shepherd). In conclusion, the proposed development conforms to the majority of the policies and guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) and the adverse impacts are limited to a negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands. Mitigation measures include tree replacement and that replanting be considered for the landscaped area between the buildings and edge of the property that abuts adjacent properties. Furthermore, frontage of the property should reflect the similar theme of a tree boulevard along the south side of Margaret Avenue, Queen Street North and Ellen Street West. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area and of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions to cultural heritage resources as a result of the proposed development. However, as a precautionary measure, in orderto ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entryto the site during construction and storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in orderto honourthe subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. December7, 2022 MHBC 148 Page 295 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10 . 0 Bibliography Blumenson, John. "Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 3.784 to the present". Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 3.99o. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1874 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside,199o. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study, 2oo6. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2007. City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (203.4). City of Kitchener, By-law No. 85-129. To designate the property at 3.16 Queen Street (The Church of the Good Shepherd) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (15 July, 3.985). Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 3.973.. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 3.996. Glaeser, Adolph, Mayor George Gruestzner, John Klein, Ezra Kraft, Ludovika Isabella Lang, Jacob Mohr, Joseph Mueller, Revered Andrew Spetz, Albert Tuerk. Berlin Today 3.8o6-3.906 Official Souvenir. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library, S1420. Google Maps & Google Earth Pro, 2022. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County. An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 3.997. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, Zoog. Intaglio Gravure Limited, Toronto & Montreal. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 3.935. Martin Simmons Architects. Site Plan & Rendering, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Tree Preservation Plan, October, 2022. December7, 2022 MHBC 14-9 Page 296 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Site Plan, March, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Landscape renderings, March, 2022. mills, rych. Kitchener (Berlin)188o-1g6o. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2oo6. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2oo6. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener. Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979 n/a. Busy Berlin, Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Act 2005, R.S.O. lggo, c. o.18 Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/c)oo3.8. Ontario Ministry of Affairs and Housing. Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014. S.3 the Ontario Planning Act R.S.O 1996. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page2lc.aspx Pender, Terry. "Vacant Margaret Avenue property to house condo: ACTIVA Group plans two, six -storey buildings on land made vacant 25 years ago." Waterloo Region Record. October 12, 2013. Pender, Terry. "Local developer purchases long -empty Margaret Avenue land." Waterloo Region Record. August 9, 2012. Region of Waterloo GIS Locator, 2o18. Region of Waterloo. "Infill: New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods". Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties. (PDF) Accessed February 17, 2019. Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C.1955. Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. "Our Historical Journey through the Ages". http://www.shepherdsway.ca/our-history.-Accessed February 21, 2019 Unknown. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 1965-1970. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library. December/, 2022 MHBC 15o Page 297 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. Waterloo Generations. "Family Surname Search." http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/searchform.php . Accessed February 14, 2019. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. MAPS Aerial photograph of subject lands of 193o, 3.945, 3.955 and 1963. KMZ Files. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. C.M. Hopkins. "Map of the Town of Berlin, Waterloo County." 1879. Scale unknown. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. City of Kitchener. Map 9 of the Secondary Plan. City of Kitchener's Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). City of Kitchener. Aerial and zoning map for the subject lands. City of Kitchener Interactive E -map, 2022. Goad, Chas. E. " Kitchener (including the Village of Bridgeport". February 19o8, revised March 1925 50 sheets on 4 microfiche.G3464.K7G4751917.G63x UW Porter. Rare Book Room .1st floor. Goad, Chas. E. "Kitchener (including the Village of Bridgeport". February 19o8, revised and reprinted January 1947. Underwriters' Survey Bureau. G3464X7G475sO6.U5x Geopspatial Centre.54 sheets, 1 index on 28 pages, both sides. G3464.K7G475sO6.U5x Geospatial Centre54 sheets. H0122 UW Porter. Rare Book Room .1st floor, Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Government of Canada. "Waterloo County: Historical Canadian County Atlas." 1881. Scale not given. McGill University Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University (Digital). http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/CountyAtlas/searchmapframes.php M.C. Schofield. "Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo". 3.853-3.854. Scale Eight Chains to the Inch. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Voght, G.H. "Berlin, Province of Ontario." 1875. Lithograph. Published in in 3.989 by the City of Kitchener L.A.C.A.C. with the Kitchener Public Library. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. December7, 2022 MHBC 15.1 Page 298 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix A -Map of Subject Lands December7, 2022 MHBC 152 Page 299 of 511 1pP L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MHBC ARC ITDECTURE 200-540 BINGEM—S CFNTPF DK I,K,r'ENER O',Fi2B 3X9 P: 519.576.3650 F:51^,.5'..0121 : .'WW.Nt!,LCF'LAk.C3M ° }' , `t� OL it , I . .:% I '9.• `aid -'S. � -, '� .) �, � ��y* oil lr®Tlf tl�®Tl�©Y'Ymt'� !rte BLOCK C TOMHOOSE 6 UNITS MARGARET AVE Y -46 Ad ph " "Nih, 10M��aON-,10 O\ r. v PLA N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MHBC ARCHITDECTURE 900-540 RINGFM.N$"FNTP= rJ I,I,C IFNFR O',. h2R 3X9 P: 519.576.3650 F:51^,.57,..021 :.:'WN.MACF"LAN.COM Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix B -Site Plan December7, 2022 MHBC 153 Page 302 of 511 N3GX3'25 E -5151 LN U a -- w g E . 0 0 = oI ®� = /Z xz F 3Z® m�O ' o i �(D —Z32'11 3.53 m W oD 3_ - - 0® o u� - Z / Y ll O O D- o ME O eao waasi " w w M�L4.49 v0E5 0 v® o 6 - 3 Z - ° % 3 F� j0 z % ij/%o n O " E / 0 - Q/ dill wW o ® o 4 !// z z 3 3� _ / oz ®� o / w <� °o ° ° Asa" t W fl3.LS OS -E N �E � E w Z) z w Q H w Q 0 cQ G E .aw !Ha� o oda wa=a o o HR poi >4 .. as -,w ""'� § io H m - - a�o- �� Z $a o" o =� a a= WHa s ® a s am ae as aim E - a m � m T H a o § O w 7Z7 X04 pC s se o a 0 0000000 0 0 ° 000 €= Z m PS N .,,.-.,k Poi € O Z w0 eeeeeeee (n gU =s` =S: _ ¢ d 0 0 ae< IU 2Em z o cn .aw !Ha� o oda wa=a o o HR poi >4 .. as -,w ""'� § io H m - - a�o- �� Z $a o" o =� a a= WHa s ® a s am ae as aim E - E zP a 3nN-A °ab NAVpV 3 w a m � m H a o § O w pC s se o a 0 0000000 0 0 ° 000 E zP a 3nN-A °ab NAVpV 3 w CO eeeeeeee (n a a m m _ s. u a .. s s a� zLD W a / Z O w � s OOe - o m 0 0®® 0 w II}I ihi ww a a w _►¢ Ia �� R � 'I� � jo_ � Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix C -Building Elevations & Renderings December7, 2022 MHBC 154 Page 304 of 511 mN O c dog gti o o m®�' OJ W ¢ Z z m =o, aaa Oto o - Q Z 1 2 .� �pS ptJ 0 Q w o o o tl H W - i yg in rii a � w ~ m W 3o w ow, oc g N d' _ W Ott ag< E�'sak: �, Y p o woa 'aw am o ma„ a ae Qln� ....o ¢ �! Z M a=a wN to ao� 1. R� oye 'Q m a Xe �l J T o m_ 13 ° S o- a ,X\ ®- v o ® o z Z 00 p e® a p /X\ m" m" a m �g �g 18ig� s e B o- a o -_a® 8 8ig� ® ig� �- - - �- - Will Z oa� a� m LL� p ° ®'� ® ® e m o- ° o- -- 10 0 10 p y Y y ® Y m � ® m �g �g ozo CC C iii m m 0 a W r a n o0 0 0 z z w O to-m mwo .� apt pN 0 W w o W - ygin rii a w ~ E�H-1 Y p o woa 'aw am o ma„ a ae Qln� ..,< in sm o m d n n _ H a Fa m I m U •o'SII .:� . fl�� e® e T7 pC„ ..T7 6� n _ �� n F 4 4 1-T 'e ....... 'e n o -� ❑ I x ®� O r m ®„_- a� oEDa � _ s ® L B d® e e I �� o � o � o � 0 0 w N o w N - f ff ff Ey z _ f z - g x o - o ° ¢ U S ¢ o - i g e 2rr �s O I z 3 3 MA 0 0 o x I � 3 — O i w w Y Y z o M Q e 0i Iz C4 E 2 0 11 0 �o o U) 1 0 Ln Z z -j LL m IIII rn Wz R L 2 2E 0 z oN In 2P IL z m F IS E ME ro 0 n. miM ---------- 0 now z 0 Z 0 ------------ Lin 0 o J 1� z z 0 0 0 0 IIII z IV Iz N 0i Es o� nogg oy¢ aoo m® o r'¢ o ig 6€$ o Z s a� a �� w- Z z J m =o, aaa m o Lno- Q UpS pN 0 W w w W - i ° yg in rii a 0 w ~ m W 3o w ow, oc g N d' _ W �.� ag< E�'sak: �, `S Cl) p o woa 4aw am o ma„ a ae Qln� ... .o ¢ �! Z C7 .< Mos w a N a=a w" v7 ao� R� oye � 'Q �z O0 g ¢ lu 2E m a e ens u 7 1MVP t jTT �E 1:0j,a o -J i �m 1 n —� a 13 i �e A ii� � �o n � 4 ....... � o — J . ic ®� �J - m $ Ta — g 7777 �$ m� Lj a m o 0 �mm _ ° – ° LL °o � �o ^ z p ° o w <,> ° rw a a � - =a �P m II z m dF— sa Elm _ z z °o ° o o w � w Y Y U U O® e� O® m� m� Ln L g z ZOtn _ALU LU Y�W Q 1 o j o z 0 G ®I I C) a 0 T" 0 DIG o 0 0 o o ,1 o 0 a - 1 1 o b e 0ID 1 o- 'I O b 0- o _ 0 o 0 Y U O e Ln L g z ZOtn _ALU LU Y�W Q 0 i o� omE ®oE i 0 0 _. ID_-¢ 0 ¢ 0 m G ®I I Ln L g z ZOtn _ALU LU Y�W Q 0 i o� omE ®oE i 0 0 _. ID_-¢ 0 ¢ 0 m G C) d o 0 T" 0 DIG o 0 0 o o ,1 o 0 a - 1 1 o b e 0ID 1 o- 'I O b 0- o _ 0 o 0 o -t l I I z E) o 0 01 o 4 j o w o O,1 O �c o a C) 5 O a O e 0—'Q (D o 0 0 0 1 O O Q C 1 0 o a J �ID O 0 I �O ¢ 0 01 O O M X06R� a O- 1 oO b O O— - 4 I 4` o 3 4 W s 0 0 co W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 Jo 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 W0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G a0 O w T" 0 DIG o w G o ,1 o 1 Oo m 3 4 W s 0 0 co W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 Jo 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 W0 0 0 0 0 0 r(DE)o17 a0 T" 0 DIG o o ,1 o 1 o of x,00 o- 'I O b O 0l C) _ } OID I � O 010 O I z �O — ID u z o w o g w �c o a Z 5 O a O e 0—'Q O e J m M X06R� Ba< €< m z o m o o s OIC 0-0 p II" o o o' �0 r(DE)o17 a0 0 DIG o o ,1 1 o of x,00 o- 'I O b O 0l C) } OID I � O 010 O I z �O — ID u z o w o g w �c o a 5 O a O e 0—'Q O e d g z zov) LU —gW W In 9l 91 Q m� m o QQ e� m 0 1 Cl C4 I o -o r F o - 4I O II r • „ m Y Oo m Q w4, 4 Q14' �k m Q p o ■ o. ° m m 0 Q IDm 4® �� m- m m m o o� - m o0 Q m� m o QQ e� m 0 O Cl II I o -o r F o - 4I O II I 3 „ m Y Oo 3 4 co 0 0 LL p 5 s — CC $ O W W soso3 oo go o =_oa o o o= 3o a w WXw J o 60 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 ao 0 O WO ao 0 o 0 0 z 0 e Y Y a m 0 p 0KA t OO oa ~� oa ID ID O F 1 O O i w 0 O O 3 U O U mOo - 3 4 0 0 LL s s WW so so3 >�� ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 1111111111111 •��r•• m O ■ m m m o� Iv ® m�om ■ '° � � m o m 1 ®� ® o m Om m ® • Ott_ �® ® mi_. m00 - ® ®'- MEN o m o m m z 0 e Y Y a m 0 p 0KA t OO oa ~� oa ID ID O F 1 O O i w 0 O O 3 U O U mOo - 3 4 0 0 LL s s WW so so3 >�� ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 Z O O � m o &--LO I O 0--bf � o b o b � Y o 0o i m� ID d ID (D to oo b o 0 0 0 O O C) 0 Z O O w O e m it it it it it � & 3 4 co W s 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 O O WO 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 IV o Z 0 Iz 0 o w z J w 2,2 ¢ Y w 0 X21 0 11 0 11 LOA 0 61AGM 0 "WEE IN Iml§ 6 eke, -0 M � I a 0 Ml. 0 0 0 Komi 0 0 0 0 HIM 6 �Z 1r° Do srY 0 D 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 AN Go IMP, F a 1 pip. 0 0 0 0 0 00 Lim—, gm_,.,0 0 0 0 O N �xqlq wa 0® 0 0 0 0 Go EKE, rp WIN a mil 00 - I 0 El 0 a Oil ® , illlllla`aWLl,iii�iii'°'r° _ ® �- _ 00 0 00 e � ® O 0 I le O 0 0 0_ _ O O ® ® ■ PIN ® �ee�® ® ■ Lim ��i1a�°o o o o e—_ ° ■ID -0 0 p�l'i o 0 0 0 ° '�� 0 r ° ®SAW --- �= ■ � Iii+ili°Nti��!� � I ® ■ � �e� p. 0 00 ° 0 O o 0 e_ ® o° ® a®as o OA o ®= i ® ■ Fm 0 e 0 ■ ® " 'per 0 0. 0000 0 00 �_ I y ' 0 ® _ N� Ali ° �® �■= 00 0 `a�O1 Era O; ® 00 ® ■O® a ® r� O ® ® `a° ®40 ■®�� ° :.0... �� ■ lu 00 L101 jr. 00 — - OEM, 00 0 0 0 O o ®.0 III � rl ea`— u I)I JI aanainixxmiiaxilt,l,h$II'aon®v ® = os I ® i o i ® o 0 0 °• o ■ o e US TF �A - ® 1 __ �. n o ■ u, �I� 4 �0'1�1911I�'ro'"'�.. o O 0 �0 Oi 0 0 O 0 0 0 O.p[ O _ MofiLM1u El I o T- Q lz CO z U) z 0 . . .. ... w zPmwo Ij LLJ w o -g N I j Cl) LLJ 0 o T. o N 2E m z o U) Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix D- Tree Management Plan December7, 2022 MHBC 155 Page 318 of 511 s"qy we„ Nva sa:sa` � w z bz - O C, W = 6 W w a F �G d =�M1J o -No M1�ti4 N age - _� H H H g HbH H bH H eH - ) W a W Z F y ° 3ma =90 aa3og 0009 aY�g3 o§ �2a �0= 0 Y as s '3 oa_m�o'§�?a dz s o a r ^, nen ' n n N '9�.. n n O¢� g w ^ F e a o m � a o o � ; -- 1 ��/ • s v � Y F s € u \a o 0 e I 1/ \ 1 6a a a \ ^ o a = I � e � x m w Y wxa:^.n xse d ` a y rn • O e f ^ m v � f o w� �> 9 g J a n� m • LL oho o . a a v �T �a 8• e 4 a ^ �"O _ _ a e � � x " m s ' _ s ® a ^ v u E i s \ o Q 4 aw d� Ea= k U I b op ¢ �- - - _ \ )�( > § ■ K; LU Z _ >� 2 ��` = E �}\ \ \� .��.< \ £�.. �■�■�■�|�■�■� �■� ■■ ■■ Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix E- Designation By-law Church of the Good Shepherd December7, 2022 MHBC 156 Page 321 of 511 •A-4agdoxd Lpanto aLp O; buTip;aa}S laaXIS UaK�- btioTe uoT408S ata pue IZas+S uaaM 0-4 an—AV -4az'b.z2'L•J bUOTe LpjnLC) aq-4 apTsaLX anT3p airy uT)sj %UTLp-49x4a ODUa; UGIT 4gbno.7M atR ;0 SUoruOd 9IR go pasTAdaoL, buTaq q4joL%l jj)qj?S uaanp 9TT sp uroL.n{ )�jxadozd Teas psesaxo3e airy jo wed geLtl anTeA TeLn4a4TLTaze pup OTaor4sTLL 3o buTaq se pa}eubtsdp ST aiai{L 'T :SMOTTo3 se sW.Ieua .zauaIP TN ;o 14TO aLi .4o UoT-4ezocuoD at}L .4o TTa-10D aii ;Idagm iL MON :I}TTadTortiml�i aq; 30 X=aTD ata mxJn paaaos uaaq sear uoi-4eubTsap pasodoad ag-4 o4 uot4aaC(. j 40 aoTlot1 0u SKdS-4kkA Ck& :s�raara anT}noasuo0 aaii.� �o gopa ao3 aauo A�TTpdTaTui7iu age UT v T -r osTo Tezauab buTneq IWQdwAau a u-1p9geTTqr4d a4 03 UQT-4tw-4ul d0 aoTjo\i guns Nampa spq pup 'paqumsap iag4eU-Fa.WLJ asau n-4.xa..iaxd Tea.z pT�azoy2 aL14 30 zed qvq; a-1 TeanWiD4T�sp p—OT,10 . �o L»�zva Se a}punisLki 04 LioTlua4ul 30 aOTIciy r 'UOT-2PUllod abL-4-PaH OT.IUZUp ai4 uodn pae 'xauaip TA 3o A}To airy uT L[�ION WOX4S uaaLY7 dTi se ATTecnTDTtmiu Lwoux sesxwa-Td pue spiel aLC4 30 ,zaumc ai4 UO panus al o-4 pasnmD seg xatraLfia4TIJ 30 �4TD ai(} 3o wTpezodzoo aid, 3o TTaunca air} y d3tiSkIM UW :�sara�uT �o an -[e4 TeYn�a4TLroZe pue 0Tao�sTLr. ;o aq 0-4 'uoa wq4 samlan a-48 pue SBuTpTTrir TT$ &nPrr[OuT 'Awadoxd Teaj a4EL. Tsap C4 O—T-ALL -4OpUa a4 &-4-Fj 2ULOLUr%% V jU TTOULLUV aLC4 SOWPOL UR 'LEE aa -4d -O ' UJ6T ' LJ' Z;' d -4314 ane4T-Aati OT.1744W aq-4 30 6Z L OT4--*aS StifM3BM (an -[2n Tgxn-4ca4Tipue Pm TQOTso4sTq ;O bmaq Se z9uagz4TA f0 Aq TD aLT; LIC L[4IOpi '4aa3;S uaanp 9 -El se tu4o k ATTedTaTurru A'�adOld a,[} go wed a-euFJzsap -; rveT Aq a buTag) 2LIMML11 ao AC LID alive ao NoilvaodwD 5iv ao -e J 's.B daGiaq "WI Ali s /-O� LD 0 N N co N 0) m n s �! LO 0 co (N (o N 0) m n 20Aew ' 30 Aep {{L�� S-rg4 sauauagrx 3o Agri aq4 uT saa ge UUS'SF d sxaam an'[gn0asuoo aas{g .4o gpVs) .w* Quu AgTUMUIL) ay4 ui uotge jnDJtZ) N-Iduaj 1JUZARq aedsdsr iau aces aq4 uT pa{sT-Eclnd as 0; 11121 -Aa sTq; 3o 6uTssled aq4 40 ):>i4Lu asnao a4 pue uor}Ypiuua abegrsaH oi3E4uO --LP uo puu A4,auojd pTesaxo3a aL[4 -p 3arreo aq4 w pan,zas aq og tw-1-Aa srq} ;o A w a asnieD 0g tazzsoggne ngaSay WE AlaTD ate, 'C • a0t;3o Ax}sTfiaa pueT la—ld aq} uz (gsed a suuog ea.za pageu6isap pTw atm qOT 30) ogazau ..V,.a�npac[0S uT pagposep A-4.1adold aq-4 30 at0gra -P gsutebe paaagsTuaA aq 04 n+eT Ag sTq� _40 A= a asnkD og pazTxog-4ne L,,dxaq st XOgTaTTOS AgT' aciL -Z P -4guI Ur Wq-4 sa Guam aq4 aq ora papuaqur mr pUeT 3o j-,.Ild prep) 'PUL'I 3o I—ed Nayisosap uiazal "i3 3o '4?'JITT AIJ84saf4 aqq PUL, aSuTuroCpE AT,-42rp ,Ur ue 30 }saM ar[� � punuan� �aJt zein ;*U}Y ri nls�{ a4xud aK; "w' 30a3 Z'631 3o aaue4sTp I ATaoq4JoN burpuaUa t.Rprra ieTnorpued-Ted uana u -r 9 puel 30 ciuzs a tiUTaLt i7I4 :i0I pies 30 4jed Jana nay-yo-3gb?2{ e '88SZi3-K xagWnl Wauau4suT se pa.za,�sTbas Paaa UT 4"Y' has Se V16 40'1 pias 30 31- Dano ne;.� 3o-��r�{ a ;UL doalais '-4uauidaua-JDO 30 prod aqz 3 S'£UG '3s saanuruz saazbap t3S t{} 'ate aq4 &Y.>Teja � =anuand 'aaJEbzt� 3o �n,;iI Alzati�zOM pias at{} ttr �UTOci E o3 4aa3 6'b8l 'VIZ 4-I pies 40 ;TUll A1xa4sed at{} u -4T- IaITe-mci '3s:jm sagnu-ml SE sadabop OE �{ na; L3i1uiL =Wrod E 014 4aa3 5'9I '49ea 8d4Iu Tw S saaai,ap oS gltx,y aJ:j:jd, =4uruu e o4 -4003 I'GI '4sa.1 sa4nurw Cl saaabap IE lona,; :;::.",L ":UI i 2 04 -4--3 06 'ATJ---4GOM UOT:anpOxa s;i pUe SZZ WI 30 4TLrLC Alz-q4JoLv ares atm uUOII '4sam sa-4nUTw dy saaJcap d of 7J, i 'SLG 4uI PTRS 3o 4 -PATI ATxdq-4JCli auk uY 4u.Lx-' e o -4aai SI '4s -et[ sa4nurtu cI saaJbap 4UTOd s o; 4aa3 ZEJ 'SZZ qoI preS 3o gFgT .CT-IOT4z V -LR g4 -Fm IaTIip-iled '48aM sa'anu[w b SaaaWp bmoots :•r.xu�rur• Pry 30 grulrT ATra4ssa aLR UT W -rod a o4 4--I3 8't 8j '�Jls uaanU 3o '4rmrl ATa04saM prem aq4 buoTe '4mt' 1a3nutul zI saa bap I£ 4ma0N L43bcl ,i, =tiLE oeid Prem uo ty"s se -4aaJIS uaanC) 30 ;p:rcl ATaa eaM aq} pue anuanV 4D-112 tW 30 4MIMT ATzaq:"gU aq4 Aq p04-9sJalur ST a -r$ aJ�4�•� EZZ W-! pzps 30 DWUa A[za3sL-aq-}Ltps aq-4 4E DiIDN j ooTza�aM 30 A}TZ rar�9+i T�r�2I a� UT Pue JauegD4 30 � D a� UT (zauap4Tt 30 A}TD 9LP 203 SGS9L Jaquz4q }uamlquul se paaa�srbai ISE 'CN mT-A£! Aq PBsoTD) sawl pua 8-4,-e24!3 85 -4orl 30 aaed pLm tL£ upld paaa-4sTbag 4IZ put: a eG '!344 sial 0 �L4.1 pue VC:Z pua £ZZ SWI 30 Cha8oduu0 bUraq 'orn Ub 30 aouTnOJd aq4 UT i7km OOTJa4tiM 30 A4ti>xIrOTmj" TErsotba8 "14 uT 'Jaual{0-4-PA 30 n-4?,i aLL} ur buTaq pue BUTA-{ 'ager)-4rs sasnraJd pUa P=T 30 8432X4 ao Razuw ure4jao asog4 211tI[l�iVIS (1NK `YI1t '' 7'0 _ JI S, L.K,4 3 Maps Z. rn 0 N (o N 0) m n P -4guI Ur Wq-4 sa Guam aq4 aq ora papuaqur mr pUeT 3o j-,.Ild prep) 'PUL'I 3o I—ed Nayisosap uiazal "i3 3o '4?'JITT AIJ84saf4 aqq PUL, aSuTuroCpE AT,-42rp ,Ur ue 30 }saM ar[� � punuan� �aJt zein ;*U}Y ri nls�{ a4xud aK; "w' 30a3 Z'631 3o aaue4sTp I ATaoq4JoN burpuaUa t.Rprra ieTnorpued-Ted uana u -r 9 puel 30 ciuzs a tiUTaLt i7I4 :i0I pies 30 4jed Jana nay-yo-3gb?2{ e '88SZi3-K xagWnl Wauau4suT se pa.za,�sTbas Paaa UT 4"Y' has Se V16 40'1 pias 30 31- Dano ne;.� 3o-��r�{ a ;UL doalais '-4uauidaua-JDO 30 prod aqz 3 S'£UG '3s saanuruz saazbap t3S t{} 'ate aq4 &Y.>Teja � =anuand 'aaJEbzt� 3o �n,;iI Alzati�zOM pias at{} ttr �UTOci E o3 4aa3 6'b8l 'VIZ 4-I pies 40 ;TUll A1xa4sed at{} u -4T- IaITe-mci '3s:jm sagnu-ml SE sadabop OE �{ na; L3i1uiL =Wrod E 014 4aa3 5'9I '49ea 8d4Iu Tw S saaai,ap oS gltx,y aJ:j:jd, =4uruu e o4 -4003 I'GI '4sa.1 sa4nurw Cl saaabap IE lona,; :;::.",L ":UI i 2 04 -4--3 06 'ATJ---4GOM UOT:anpOxa s;i pUe SZZ WI 30 4TLrLC Alz-q4JoLv ares atm uUOII '4sam sa-4nUTw dy saaJcap d of 7J, i 'SLG 4uI PTRS 3o 4 -PATI ATxdq-4JCli auk uY 4u.Lx-' e o -4aai SI '4s -et[ sa4nurtu cI saaJbap 4UTOd s o; 4aa3 ZEJ 'SZZ qoI preS 3o gFgT .CT-IOT4z V -LR g4 -Fm IaTIip-iled '48aM sa'anu[w b SaaaWp bmoots :•r.xu�rur• Pry 30 grulrT ATra4ssa aLR UT W -rod a o4 4--I3 8't 8j '�Jls uaanU 3o '4rmrl ATa04saM prem aq4 buoTe '4mt' 1a3nutul zI saa bap I£ 4ma0N L43bcl ,i, =tiLE oeid Prem uo ty"s se -4aaJIS uaanC) 30 ;p:rcl ATaa eaM aq} pue anuanV 4D-112 tW 30 4MIMT ATzaq:"gU aq4 Aq p04-9sJalur ST a -r$ aJ�4�•� EZZ W-! pzps 30 DWUa A[za3sL-aq-}Ltps aq-4 4E DiIDN j ooTza�aM 30 A}TZ rar�9+i T�r�2I a� UT Pue JauegD4 30 � D a� UT (zauap4Tt 30 A}TD 9LP 203 SGS9L Jaquz4q }uamlquul se paaa�srbai ISE 'CN mT-A£! Aq PBsoTD) sawl pua 8-4,-e24!3 85 -4orl 30 aaed pLm tL£ upld paaa-4sTbag 4IZ put: a eG '!344 sial 0 �L4.1 pue VC:Z pua £ZZ SWI 30 Cha8oduu0 bUraq 'orn Ub 30 aouTnOJd aq4 UT i7km OOTJa4tiM 30 A4ti>xIrOTmj" TErsotba8 "14 uT 'Jaual{0-4-PA 30 n-4?,i aLL} ur buTaq pue BUTA-{ 'ager)-4rs sasnraJd pUa P=T 30 8432X4 ao Razuw ure4jao asog4 211tI[l�iVIS (1NK `YI1t '' 7'0 _ JI S, L.K,4 3 Maps Z. Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix F- Terms of Reference December7, 2022 MHBC 157 Page 325 of 511 City of Kitchener PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM Project Address: 30-40 Margaret Avenue Date of Meeting: May 26, 2022 Application Type: Site Plan Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Jessica Vieira Email: Jessica.Vieira@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 Date of Comments: May 12, 2022 ❑X I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: The following comments provided by Heritage Planning staff are based on the pre -submission application packaged received April 1, 2022. The package concerns a proposal for 30-40 Margaret Avenue by Activa Holdings Inc which involves the development of 48 3 -storey cluster townhomes. Heritage Status The subject property municipally addressed as 30 Margaret Avenue is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The property is also located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). There are no buildings present on the property. 54 Margaret Avenue adjacent to the west side yard and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North adjacent to the east side yard are classified under the 'A' Building Group, which means that they are structures with a high significance to the district. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decision of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS defines significant as resources that have been A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 326 of 511 determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people, and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. The City's Official Plan also contains policies which require development to have regard for cultural heritage resources. As part of this, is establishes requirements for the submission of studies as part of complete planning applications, such as Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). It should also be noted that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan contains site specific policies for Margaret Avenue (Section 3.3.5.3). These policies require new development to maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood and be appropriate in height and siting to reduce impacts to adjacent dwellings. Policy 3.3.5.3 (h) also requires that the guidelines provided in Section 6.9.1 of this Plan be used to review and evaluate the proposal. Heritage Impact Assessment A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required. Within the scoped HIA, the heritage guidelines, principles, and standards that will be used to guide the development of the site are to be identified. The scoped HIA will also evaluate any impacts of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Associated mitigative measures are which avoid or reduce impacts to a satisfactory level are to be recommended and reflected in the design of the proposed development. As per Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' Heritage Toolkit publication Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, potential negative impacts to cultural heritage resources include, but are not limited to: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible with the historic fabric, appearance and context; • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; and • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to cultural heritage resources. Similarly, measures to mitigate potential impacts as referenced in Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry's Heritage Toolkit include: • Alternative development approaches; • Design that harmonizes mass, setback, setting, and materials; • Limiting height and density; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 327 of 511 • Allowing only compatible infill. In keeping with the Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of HIAs, the following key components will need to be addressed: • Historic research, site analysis and evaluation • Description of the planning application and proposed development. • Assessment of the impact of the heigh, built form, setbacks, massing, and other design details on the Margaret Avenue streetscape and on the integrity of the character of the CCHCD in general. • Assessment on how the details of the proposed design (architecture, materials, colours, specifications, lighting, etc) address the CCNHCD Plan policies and guidelines • Concluding value and summary statements. As the subject property is a vacant lot, the identification of the significance of cultural heritage resources on the subject properties (design/physical value, historic/associative value, contextual value), including a listing of heritage attributes and if applicable the identification of significant views and vistas, and recommendations for conservation of identified attributes is not required. The following is also expected to be included within the HIA: • Anticipated impacts to 54 Margaret Avenue identified and appropriate mitigation measures proposed; • Anticipated impacts to 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North identified and appropriate mitigation measures proposed; and • Anticipated impacts to the properties located at the rear of the subject land which are also designated under Part V of the OHA, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed. A scoped terms of reference has been provided. Cultural Heritage Protection Plan A Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) will be required. The CHPP should detail the measures to be undertaken prior to and during grading, construction, servicing or other development activity to eliminate or mitigate impacts to the adjacent heritage properties (54 Margarete Avenue and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen St N). The following components should also be addressed, in accordance with the City's standard terms of reference for CHPP's: • Analysis of the cultural heritage resource(s), including documentation, identification of cultural heritage attributes, assessment of resource conditions and deficiencies; • Short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures, interventions and implementation strategies including appropriate conservation principles and practices, methods and materials, and the qualifications of the contractors and trades involved in undertaking such work; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 328 of 511 • Security and monitoring requirements, including measures to protect the resource/attributes during phases of construction or development. A scoped terms of reference for the CHPP can be provided upon request. Heritage Permit Application Projects that are likely to affect the heritage attributes of a heritage conservation district require a Heritage Permit Application (HPA), in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. This includes the construction of new buildings. Section 4.5.1 of the CCNHCD Plan also notes that approval is required for new buildings constructed on vacant properties. As such, a Heritage Permit Application will be required. Design Comments As mentioned previously, under Policy 3.3.5.3 (h) of the CCNHCD Plan, the guidelines of Section 6.9.1 are to be used in proposals for new buildings, to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent context. Highlighted policies include: • New development is to establish a strong relationship to the street similar to what exists on the south side of the street • Developments are to establish a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge • Minimum rear yard setbacks of 10 to 15 metres are desired to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West. In considering the above, it is recommended that all building massing be concentrated to the front of the subject lands. Appropriate landscaping and stepbacks at the front of the site should be incorporated as well. 2. Plans. Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Elevation Drawings and 3d Massing Model • Heritage Impact Assessment • Cultural Heritage Protection Plan • Heritage planning staff would also like to request to be circulated a copy of the Planning Justification Report and/or Urban Design Brief 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: • Approved Heritage Permit Application A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 329 of 511 • Approved Heritage Impact Assessment • Approved Cultural Heritage Protection Plan • Special condition of site plan approval o Review and approve elevations in conjunction with urban designer o Implementation of the recommendations of the HIA and CHPP 4. Anticipated Fees: Not applicable A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 330 of 511 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix G- Curricula Vitae December7, 2022 MHBC 158 Page 331 of 511 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Evaluations Morningstar Mill, St Catherines MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin Designation of St Johns Anglican Church, Norwich Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton Demolition of former farmhouse at 1.0536 McCowan Road, Markham Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 1.o Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge Badley Bridge EA, Elora Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge Conservation Plan for Log house, Beurgetz Ave, Kitchener Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener Page 332 of 511 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Tribunal Hearings: Redevelopment of 21.7 King Street, Waterloo (OLT) Redevelopment of 1.2 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St Catharines (CRB) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) Demolition 1.74 St Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) Designation of io8 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave, Cambridge (LPAT) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) Designation of St Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway) LAND USE PLANNING Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: • Secondary Plans • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan Page 333 of 511 EDUCATION 2011 Higher Education Diploma Cultural Development/ Gaelic Studies Sabhal M6r Ostaig, University of the Highlands and Islands 2012 Bachelor of Arts Joint Advanced Major in Celtic Studies and Anthropology Saint Francis Xavier University 2014 Master of Arts World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development The International Training Centre of the ILO in partnership with the University of Turin, Politecnico di Torino, University of Paris 1 Pantheon - Sorbonne, UNESCO, ICCROM, Macquarie University www.linkedin.com/in/rachelredshaw CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Rachel Redshaw, a Senior Heritage Planner with MHBC, joined the firm in 2018. Ms. Redshaw has a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Celtic Studies and a Master of Arts in World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development. Ms. Redshaw completed her Master's in Turin, Italy; the Master's program was established by UNESCO in conjunction with the University of Turin and the International Training Centre of the ILO. Rachel is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Ms. Redshaw provides a variety of heritage planning services for public and private sector clients. Ms. Redshaw has worked for years completing cultural heritage planning in a municipal setting. She has worked in municipal building and planning departments and for the private sector to gain a diverse knowledge of building and planning in respect to how they apply to cultural heritage. Rachel enjoys being involved in the local community and has been involved in the collection of oral history, in English and Gaelic, and local records for their protection and conservation and occasionally lecturers on related topics. Her passion for history and experience in archives, museums, municipal building and planning departments supports her ability to provide exceptional cultural heritage services. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 2022 - Present Senior Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018-2022 Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018 Building Permit Coordinator, (Contract) Township of Wellesley 2018 Building Permit Coordinator (Contract) 1 Page 334 of 511 CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP RSM Building Consultants 2017 Deputy Clerk, Township of North Dumfries 2015-2016 Building/ Planning Clerk Township of North Dumfries 2009-2014 Historical Researcher & Planner Township of North Dumfries 2012 Translator, Archives of Ontario 2012 Cultural Heritage Events Facilitator (Reminiscence Journey) and Executive Assistant, Waterloo Region Plowing Match and Rural Expo 2011 Curatorial Research Assistant Highland Village Museum/ Baile nan Gaidheal Page 335 of 511 PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS 2022 -Present Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals 2017-2020 Member, AMCTO 2018-2019 Member of Publications Committee, Waterloo Historical Society 2018 Member, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario- Cambridge 2018 -2019 Secretary, Toronto Gaelic Society 2012 -2017 Member (Former Co -Chair & Co -Founder), North Dumfries Historical Preservation Society 2011 -2014 Member, North Dumfries Municipal Heritage Committee 2013 Greenfield Heritage Conservation District, Sub -committee, Doors Open Waterloo Region CONTACT 2012 Volunteer Historical Interpreter, Doon Heritage Village, Ken 540BingemansCentre Drive, Seiling Waterloo Region Museum Suite 200 2008-2012 Member, Celtic Collections, Angus L. Macdonald Library Kitchener, 650x7511N N2B 2012-2013 Member Public Relations Mill Race Folk Society ( )� F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2 Page 335 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2011 Member, University of Waterloo Sub -steering Committee for HCD Study, Village of Ayr, North Dumfries 2010-2011 Member (volunteer archivist), Antigonish Heritage Museum AWARDS / PUBLICATIONS / RECOGNITION 2019 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Old Shaw: The Story of a Kindly Waterloo County Roamer 2014 Master's Dissertation, The Rise of the City: Social Business Incubation in the City of Hamilton 2014 Lecture, A Scot's Nirvana, Homer Watson House and Gallery 2013 Lecture, The Virtual Voice of the Pasta The Use of Online Oral Accounts for a Holistic Understanding of History, University of Guelph Spring Colloquium 2012-2013 Gaelic Events Facilitator, University of Guelph 2012-2015 Intermediate Gaelic Facilitator, St. Michael's College, University of Toronto 2012 Nach eil ann tuilleadh: An Nos Cr aig nan Gaidheal (BA Thesis) Thesis written in Scottish Gaelic evaluating disappearing Gaelic rites of passage in Nova Scotia. 2012 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Harvesting Bees and Feasting Tables: Fit for the Men, Women and Children of Dickie Settlement and Area, Township of North Dumfries 2007-2012 25 historical publications in the Ayr News (access to some articles http://ayrnews.ca/recent ) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES 2021 Certificate for Indigenous Relations Training Program with University of Calgary 2020 Condo Director Training Certificate (CAO) 2018 Building Officials and the Law (OBOA Course) 2017-2018 AMCTO Training (MAP 1) 2017 AODA Training 3 Page 336 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2010 Irish Archaeological Field School Certificate COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Word Office Bluebeam Revu 2017 ArcGIS Keystone (PRINSYS) Municipal Connect Adobe Photoshop Illustrator ABBYY Fine Reader 11 Book Drive SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE 2018-2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Promenade at Clifton Hill, Niagara Falls (Niagara Parks Commission) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (Former Economical Insurance Building) Peterborough Lift Lock and Trent -Severn Waterway (TSW), National Historic Sites, Development for 380 Armour Road, City of Peterborough Middlesex County Court House, National Historic Site, for development at 50 King Street McDougall Cottage and National Historic Site, for development at 93 Grand Avenue South, City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Former Post Office, Development for 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo, Phase II Consumers' Gas Station B, Development for 450 Eastern Avenue, City of Toronto 82 Weber Street and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 39 Wellington Street West, City of Brampton 4 Page 337 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 543 Ridout Street North, City of London 34 Manley Street, Village of Ayr, Township of North Dumfries Quinte's Isle Campark, 558 Welbanks Road, Prince Edward County (OLT) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (OLT) 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 383-385 Pearl Street, City of Burlington St. Patrick's Catholic Elementary School, (SPCES), 20 East Avenue South, City of Hamilton 250 Allendale Road, City of Cambridge 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan Specific for Relocation of Heritage Buildings 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Kelso Conservation Area, Halton County 5" Side Road, County Road 53, Simcoe County Waterdown Trunk Watermain Twinning Project, City of Hamilton CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS 52 King Street North, City of Kitchener Sarnia Collegiate Institute and Technical School (SCITS), 275 Wellington, City of Sarnia (Municipal contingency study) 10536 McCowan Road, City of Markham Former Burns Presbyterian Church, 155 Main Street, Town of Erin (Designation Report) Former St. Paul's Anglican Church, 23 Dover Street, Town of Otterville, Norwich Township (OLT) 6170 Fallsview Boulevard, City of Niagara Falls CONSERVATION PLANS City of Waterloo Former Post Office, 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo 82 Weber Street East, City of Kitchener 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener Page 338 of 511 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@mhb cplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plans (Temporary protection for heritage building during construction) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (included Stabilization, Demolition and Risk Management Plan) 12 & 54 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 82 Weber Street West and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 660 Sunningdale Road, London DOCUMENTATION AND SALVAGE REPORTS 16-20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener 57 Lakeport Road City of St. Catharines Gaslight District, 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 721 Franklin Boulevard, City of Cambridge HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener 50 King Street, London 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo (Old Post Office), Phase II (alteration to building with a municipal heritage easement, Section 37, OHA) 50-56 Weber Street West & 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener (demolition and new construction within HCD) 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener (new construction within HCD) 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan (alteration within HCD) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (demolition within HCD) HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS/ MASTER PLANS/ HERITAGE CHARACTER STUDY Elgin, Central and Memorial Neighbourhoods, Municipality of Clarington Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (Project Lead 2021-2022) Town of Aurora Heritage Register Update Page 339 of 511 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 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: January 18, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-049 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 83-97 Victoria Street North RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated December 2, 2022, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology regarding a proposal to redevelop the subject properties municipally addressed as 83-97 Victoria Street North. 83-87 Victoria Street North have no heritage status. 97 Victoria Street North is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. Additionally, the subject properties are also located adjacent to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), and 70 Francis Street North, which is also listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The proposed development includes two additions: • An addition to the existing building at 97 Victoria Street North which will increase its building height from 2 storeys to three storeys (Fig. 1). • A one -storey addition adjacent to the existing building at 97 Victoria Street North extending along the southeast portion of the property (Fig. 1). The proposed development includes 44 affordable rental housing units and relocating the St. John's Kitchen to a new one -storey dining hall and community clinic on-site for counselling and recreation. A severance application to divide the site for financing purposed was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on January 17, 2023. The development proposal has received conditional site plan approval, subject to several conditions, including final approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment by the Director of Planning. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 341 of 511 VICTORN STREET NORTH I �rao�a�annxrc... +.eroer�m - �F4 1 A , I I �. Figure 1: Proposed addition on the existing building located at 97 Victoria Street North highlighted in red, and the adjacent addition highlighted in green. Since 83-87 Victoria Street North do not have any heritage status, they were not assessed for cultural heritage value in the HIA. However, according to the HIA, 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria for designation and would be eligible for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the February 7, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions the Committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments which will be taken into consideration as part of staff review of the HIA and processing of Page 342 of 511 related Planning Act Applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the February meeting. 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2021 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 83-97 Victoria Street North Page 343 of 511 DRAFT REPORT: 4.. -� LHC I Heritage u-_�� Planning and Archaeology w — gY -- _ - I&I LEI Kingston I Toronto _ = Ottawa Huntsville 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1 G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 This page has been left blank deliberately Page 345 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Report prepared for: Nikita Thompson Perimeter Development 119 King Street West, Suite 220 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1A7 Report prepared by: Ben Daub, MA, BAT Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Benjamin Holthof, MPI, MMA, CAHP, MCIP, RPP Marcus Letourneaul, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Page 346 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of `Owners'. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the property for cultural heritage value or interest. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct an evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to archives were limited. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. iv Page 347 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results as well as limitations. LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of The Working Centre, to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North in the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes for the Property are provided in Section 6 of this HIA. This HIA was prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and its surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MCM's Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. In LHC's professional opinion, the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the Property's two storey height and six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored. It was determined that Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred alternative. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. The City of Kitchener may require a Conservation Plan (CP) to guide project work. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plans. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). Page 348 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rightof Use............................................................................................................................... iv ReportLimitations...................................................................................................................... iv ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction to the Property................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Property Location......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Property Owner............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Property Description.................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Property Heritage Status.............................................................................................. 2 2 Study Approach.................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2020) ................. 6 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review............................................................................................. 9 2.3 Historic Research......................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Site Visit......................................................................................................................10 2.5 Impact Assessment.....................................................................................................10 3 Policy Framework..............................................................................................................12 3.1 Provincial Planning Context........................................................................................12 3.1.1 The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.................................................................12 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020)......................................................................12 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18...........................................................13 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005...................................................................14 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) ............15 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25...................................................................16 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary.................................................................16 3.2 Regional Planning Context..........................................................................................16 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) .........................................16 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) ....................20 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary..................................................................21 3.3 Local Planning Context...............................................................................................21 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014)...................................................................21 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) .................................26 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual...............................................................29 3.3.4 City of Kitchener Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape ...................... 30 A Page 349 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3.3.5 Local Planning Context Summary........................................................................31 4 Research and Analysis......................................................................................................33 4.1 Early Indigenous History.............................................................................................33 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE)............................................................................33 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE).........................................................................33 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE — CE 1650)............................................................33 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context..............................................34 4.3 Region of Waterloo.....................................................................................................37 4.4 City of Kitchener.........................................................................................................37 4.5 Property History..........................................................................................................38 Pre-1900............................................................................................................................... 38 1901-1950.............................................................................................................................39 1951-2000.............................................................................................................................40 2001-present.........................................................................................................................40 4.5.1 97 Victoria Street North Property Ownership........................................................40 4.5.2 97 Victoria Street North Property Tenancy and Land Use....................................42 4.5.3 The Working Centre.............................................................................................43 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions....................................................................................53 5.1 97 Victoria Street North Exterior..................................................................................53 5.2 97 Victoria Street North Interior...................................................................................57 5.2.1 Worth a Second Look (First Storey).....................................................................57 5.2.2 St. John's Kitchen and Safe Supply Clinic (Second Storey).................................61 5.2.3 Community Outreach (Rear Wing Addition).........................................................64 5.3 Surrounding Context...................................................................................................64 5.4 Adjacent Heritage Properties......................................................................................65 6 Evaluation..........................................................................................................................67 6.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation.............................................................................67 6.2 Additional Considerations...........................................................................................69 6.3 Summary of Evaluation...............................................................................................74 6.4 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.........................................74 6.4.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest..................................................74 6.4.2 Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................74 7 Description of the Proposed Development.........................................................................76 Vii Page 350 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7.1 Massing, Access, and Setbacks..................................................................................76 7.2 Architectural Design....................................................................................................78 7.3 Description of Alteration to Heritage Resources..........................................................84 8 Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes...................................................................85 8.1 Potential Impacts to 97 Victoria Street North...............................................................85 8.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Property at 70 Francis Street North..............................88 8.3 Potential Impacts to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape..................90 8.4 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles...........................................92 8.4.1 Standard and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada .......92 8.4.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties ......................95 8.5 Summary of Potential Impacts....................................................................................96 9 Considered Mitigation and Conservation Strategies...........................................................97 9.1 Considered Options....................................................................................................97 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use..........................................................97 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use.......................................................97 9.1.3 Option 3: Retention of Entire Structure and Integration into Proposed Development 97 9.1.4 Option 4: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop.........................................97 9.2 Preferred Option.........................................................................................................98 9.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................98 10 Conclusion and Recommendations..............................................................................100 11 Signatures..........................................................................................................................101 References.............................................................................................................................102 Policy and Legislation Resources........................................................................................102 MappingResources.............................................................................................................104 ArchivalResources..............................................................................................................108 AdditionalResources...........................................................................................................108 Appendix A Project Personnel.................................................................................................111 AppendixB Glossary...............................................................................................................113 Appendix C City Directory Records.........................................................................................118 Appendix D Land Registry Records........................................................................................129 viii Page 351 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Property Location........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Current Conditions...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Warehouse District....................................................32 Figure 4: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ...................35 Figure5: Haldimand Tract.........................................................................................................36 Figure 6: 1853-1854, 1856, 1861, 1879, and 1912 historic maps showing the Property ............ 47 Figure 7: 1875 birds eye view showing the Property.................................................................48 Figure 8: 1904, 1925, and 1947 fire insurance plans showing the Property...............................49 Figure 9: 1916, 1923, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1956 topographic maps showing the Property ........... 50 Figure 10: 1930, 1945, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2017, 2021 aerial photographs showing the Property....................................................................................................................................51 Figure 11: 1963, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1994, 1998 topographic maps showing the Property ......... 52 Figure 12: Current Worth a Second Look floor plan (first floor)..................................................58 Figure 13: Current St. John's Kitchen floor plan (second floor)..................................................62 Figure 14: Rendering looking east showing the third -storey addition to the Property.................77 Figure 15: Rendering looking east showing the single -storey southwest wing addition to the Property....................................................................................................................................77 Figure 16: Site plan showing the proposed redevelopment.......................................................78 Figure 17: Architect's window drafts..........................................................................................80 Figure 18: Rendering of the northwest and northeast elevations showing the proposed windows .................................................................................................................................................81 Figure 19: Rendering of the northwest and southwest elevations showing the proposed windows .................................................................................................................................................81 Figure 20: Floor plan of the proposed southwest wing..............................................................82 Figure 21: Axonometric rendering of the proposed development showing the southwest wing's slopedroof................................................................................................................................82 Figure 22: Internal rendering looking northeast within the proposed southwest wing ................83 Figure 23: Internal rendering looking west within the proposed southwest wing ........................83 Figure 24: View of the proposed entrance on the southwest elevation......................................84 ix Page 352 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Water Street House at 115 Water Street North...........................................................45 Photo 2: Detail showing transition between original building at 115 Water Street North (right) and two-storey addition (left) constructed in 2020............................................................................46 Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition.....................................................................................................................................46 Photo 4: View south showing the Property's northwest (primary) and northeast elevations ....... 54 Photo 5: View west showing the Property's northeast elevation................................................55 Photo 6: Panoramic view northwest showing the Property's southeast elevation ......................55 Photo 7: View northeast showing the Property's southwest elevation........................................56 Photo 8: View northwest of the Property's southeast elevation. The addition on the right follows the same rhythm of bays and buttresses found along the other elevations. The addition to the left is void of buttresses and is a distinctly different colour..............................................................56 Photo 9: View north showing the single storey addition that branches off the southwest elevation ofthe previous addition.............................................................................................................57 Photo 10: View north upon entering the first storey of the building............................................58 Photo 11: View southeast showing the building's structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems..................................................................................................................................... 59 Photo 12: View southwest showing material use towards the rear of the first floor....................59 Photo 13: View showing the material use towards the rear of the first floor...............................60 Photo 14: View showing a tiled floor area..................................................................................60 Photo 15: View showing painted brick walls..............................................................................61 Photo 16: View southeast showing the foyer and stairs.............................................................62 Photo 17: View northwest showing the staircase providing second floor access .......................63 Photo 18: Panoramic view showing the second floor of the building..........................................63 Photo 19: View showing St. John's kitchen (right) and an open hallway (left)............................64 Photo 20: View north showing 70 Francis Street North's primary elevation...............................66 Photo 21: View northwest showing 70 Francis Street North's southeast and northeast elevations .................................................................................................................................................66 x Page 353 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements... 6 Table 2: Relevant Policies in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Official Plan ...................17 Table 3: Relevant Policies in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan..............................................21 Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 Permitted Uses............................................................................27 Table 5: Additional By-law Provisions that Apply to the Property...............................................28 Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual..............29 Table 7: Pertinent guidelines from Section 5.2.7, 5.3.1, and 5.4.4 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual......................................................................................................................................30 Table 8: Warehouse District Values..........................................................................................30 Table 9: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation for 97 Victoria Street North....................................................67 Table 10: Comparative Examples of Industrial Vernacular Architecture in Kitchener's Warehouse District.......................................................................................................................................70 Table 11: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 97 Victoria Street North..85 Table 12: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 70 Francis Street North..88 Table 13: Impact assessment for city's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape ......... 90 Table 14: Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines........................................................93 Table 15: Compliance with the Eight Guiding Principles............................................................95 A Page 354 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of the The Working Centre (the "Proponent"), to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North (the "Property") in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. This HIA is being prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's (MCM) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. 1.1 Property Location The Property is located at the address municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North and legally described as Plan 374 Lot 71. The Property is situated along the south edge of Victoria Street North and is located to the southwest of the Victoria Street North and Weber Street West junction, which is the intersection of two major arterial thoroughfares within the City. 1.2 Property Owner The Property is owned by The Working Centre located at 58 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1V6, (519) 743-1151. 1.3 Property Description The Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North is located in Ward 10 in the City of Kitchener, in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. The Property's legal description is Plan 374, Lot 71. The Property is located on the south side of Victoria Street North, south of Breithaupt Street, west of Weber Street West, north of Heit Lane, and east of Duke Street West (Figure 1). The section of Victoria Street North that the Property is situated alongside comprises a two-way street consisting of two eastbound and two southbound lanes. The Property is situated within the Innovation District of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre (Figure 2). The Property follows an "L" shaped plan and is approximately 1,215.5 m2 (0.12ha/0.30 acres) in size.' The site is currently occupied by a two-storey brick building fronting onto Victoria Street ' Information taken from City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017. Page 355 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 North. The building is generally rectangular in plan; however, there is a small, one -storey concrete block rear wing that branches off the southmost corner of the structure's southwest elevation. The Property's northwest (primary) and southeast elevations are narrowly setback from their respective property lines. The northeast and southwest side elevations are moderately setback, allowing for pedestrian traffic to access the building. The property is covered by engineered surfaces and has no landscaping. The property is zoned D-6 Arterial Commercial Zone and has two Special Use Provisions for Specific Lands (116U and 403U), one Special Regulation Provision[s] for Specific Lands (105R), and one Holding Provision[s] for Specific Lands (1 OH) under the City's By-law. See Section 3.3.2 for the definition and permitted uses associated with D-6 Zoning. 1.4 Property Heritage Status 97 Victoria Street North is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; the property was added 6 May 2014.2A Statement of Significance (SOS) was created for 97 Victoria Street North at the time. The SOS notes that the building was built c. 1927 and originally served as an industrial building housing the Mitchell Button Company. The document titled Statement of Significance 97 Victoria Street North includes a description of the Property, a statement of heritage value or interest, heritage attributes, photographs, and the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form. The statement of heritage value or interest and heritage attributes states, verbatim: Heritage Value or Interest The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The house is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; 3 by 9 bays; red, yellow and beige brick; shallow buttressing between the windows; original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; and groups of three 6/ 6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district. The building is historically linked to its surroundings within the warehouse district. The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, original use and present owner. Walter Mitchell began manufacturing ivory buttons in 1914 (Moyer, 1979). W.E. Mitchell, Walter's son, took over the company in 1915 (Moyer, 1979). The company was known as the Mitchell Button Company. Dwindling supplies and foreign competition shifted the business from ivory to plastic under the direction of Lloyd G. E. Mitchell in 1945 (Moyer, 1979). The company started on Frederick Street in 1915, moved to Gaukel Street for a short period and then to the Victoria Street site around 1921 for 50 years (KW Record, 1958; KW Record, 1970). The company name changed to Mitchell Plastics. 2 The City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register was last updated 24 October 2017. 2 Page 356 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Marshall Ariss joined the company in 1955 and lead the change from plastic buttons to plastic components for industries including IBM, Otis Elevator, International Harvester, Greb and Leigh (Moyer, 1979). Ariss is associated with the early plastics industry and has been honoured with membership in the Plastic Pioneers Club of Canada (Moyer, 1979). The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre's Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares store and St. John' s Kitchen. According to The Working Centre's website: " The Working Centre was established in the spring of 1982 as a response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. The Centre grew roots in the Kitchener downtown through the dedication of Joe and Stephanie Mancini, a young married couple who had just graduated from St. Jerome' s College at the University of Waterloo. They saw the potential for building a community of interest around responding to unemployment and poverty, developing social analysis and engaging in creative action." Heritage Attributes: The heritage value of 97 Victoria Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • Two storey height; • Flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; • 3 by 9 bays; • Red, yellow and beige brick; • Shallow buttressing between the windows; • Original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; • and groups of three 6/ 6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district; and, • The link to the surrounding warehouse district.3 3 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," May 6, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1313095&searchid=l776bd8l-ecfc-4b97-a973-cc6bcblcf560&dbid=0, 2- 136-2-137 - 136-2-137 Page 357 of 511 NFiMAP KEY VI- N '� : dAe[r�� nk 1 � Cnnr+lnya c e° 5 r - a D14y a p'yk O F3 !,1 aklsain r :, Lrdr[xm„ Tofon[o ss kits "au ; 5 a r Guelph •. iASealn can to e � a workwb. hrtcl�ief -. �'.. ik.ikle C tiwu5r dale " �5`'s,i,yyow"e N. p ' '1tCrlOO 4S uw.txnn 57a''� v / Fim Ilton I F•,rkhHlloada J/ - Hevl FxN fyxd4Par µ.sl Rea ana Cd/hUery Oa%�,` 0-" IN5l:ir:if.rll�."_ nrarhaenr�r ! rAi++ARA London SCALE -1 + - P L" A N S U L PA a c t^c 1 arkrtasar,a CALF 1 :3, 000 000 \ ['orurnl=ia 32 a7 inm ;rr l3at drop I > "arms � � ® � °� - 4 �-• '- a n R+° q'illrnr•as ale ryrrrt. I - n ? �d"Fn, ■ L yr5'i• Y 4arur - .. L 52 n F' ra-f lv \ nN°5 awt S _.nn y il a q`s 5Y•i it d 5+ - bod4aPoa5�a,c PilsPa FWk.- s °r ,�aH Ir n[5 x.[15- �'S.uN" AY8rldpo gS.�f�n5 Alvk cFa �, syt Cl nivrnita nl Jarfi 'ilY};u1 a1- �w'eu{Y`' 41'aferlon A. tin v `"� - gndP^p°riR isy,wv 74 -� E 21, An-rnoF.rN Er l�u�yg� f 9g .o a'rld sao�, C' ell i„ rAr Ree.AS.•aarl Ea n n y c v a0,6 d°.ss f. ",��5 n4 °i'' _�I-,-iYY-°part`•�r,�,q�e FSA Palk Nlo, Aller a :, ,n pas5lr 6�irpprr5-ul�� ` - ! ms rr Ar` auk /� asr. - • B Ra, n Dunt res frsil 'h'[[LtdYr Palk F..n k. 3y5� Haslmn unl r, 93 051.11 10 Af ple I I Ile 4 iy W aI.K uI hSr-�* a M, r'�✓ ^e x 4;. rY / '4fn g11a- 4 P k P •..51e 55 _ -Gp �k�� 37 � f l��r o -`F Rrad kf Frla ROM � w RdW adds/tivi L R h�,c R-kSa-ar' jY[yr{Nrar' S • p'ja °¢ _ y RodmaY rv•y.t'9S� l;em etary r 30 4 -...�5p ' t;�5�5dn'.� Park 4 s n�� Cwrsa y f sir e�al t �N.-x J„ P.655 Pwk Qae°n C�� Lr y r r Pork 4 arN44 S iI h4i d,`. _ M1r. r[s._hn Or A 4 a 4a [ 9-m j '✓My, 3 p Park 4 i 2 A>•q �N t l• .,. �4a y5p� •• .fir i.14 F $ S ' R �e ry 9'rin Fra[Ittran'@1+If d J S r` Alava SID 4 �d5 rm Fa rsr La[uentim5 IMP. ¢ = sa Kitchener \F.vkrx- l� o ram Wak 28 `•'- Put Him Pnk Giorc Park Y w m.e. Rd se w o 0 1 2 Kilometers � Hn[ern a ter— �y TITLE Legend Location Plan CLIENT • Property Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. PREPARED LHC REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), DESIGNED JG (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS Community Pnrtinns of this document include intellectual nrnnertv of Fsri anti its lirensors and are uteri uen nder lirse anP 3,58 n oolI ' r r 1,r � • i J s4 - r y w e .; 100r . 0 20 40 Meters I Legend Current Conditions, 97 Victoria Street CLIENT Property Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, DESIGNED JG USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community age O Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. 1HC FIGURE # 2 Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada's Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and MCM's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.4 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: 1) Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation, and evaluation—when necessary. 2) Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. 3) Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. The impact assessment is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Information Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resources The HIA includes recommendations for design and heritage conservation to guide interventions to the Property. 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2020) The City's HIA ToR require an assessment to determine potential impacts to cultural heritage resources by proposed development. An HIA prepared for the City: ...shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. Requirements of an HIA submitted to the City include the following items listed in Table 1. Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements Requirement Location Present owner contact information for properties proposed Found in Section 1.2 of this HIA. for development and/or site alteration. A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from Found in Section 4 of this HIA. the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). A written description of the buildings, structures and Found in Section 5 of this HIA. landscape features on the subject properties including: 4 Canada's Historic Places, "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", 2010, 3; MCM, "Heritage Property Evaluation" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. 5 MCM, "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006 Page 360 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the Found in Section 6 of this HIA conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. Documentation of the subject properties to include: current Found in Section 5 of this HIA. photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or Found in Section 7 and Section development, its context, and how it will impact the 8 of this HIA. properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. Options shall be provided that explain how the significant Found in Section 9 of this HIA. cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, reservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, Page 361 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles Found in Section 8 of this HIA. and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be Found in Section 9 of this HIA. justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, Found in Section 9 of this HIA. describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. The qualifications and background of the person(s) Found in Appendix A of this HIA. completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature Found in the References cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and Section of this HIA referenced in the report. The summary statement should provide a full description Found in Section 10 of this HIA. of: • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. • The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. Page 362 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. The consultant must write a recommendation as to Found in Section 6 of this HIA. whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review The HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property. The impact assessment considers the proposed project against this framework. 2.3 Historic Research Historical research was undertaken to outline the history and development of the Property and its broader community context. Primary historic material, including air photos and mapping, were obtained from: Page 363 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 • Library and Archives Canada; • Department of National Defence; • Ancestry; • Waterloo Open Data; • University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection; and, • Kitchener Public Library. Secondary research was compiled from sources such as: historical atlases, local histories, architectural reference texts, available online sources, and previous assessments. All sources and persons contacted in the preparation of this report are listed as footnotes and in the report's reference list. 2.4 Site Visit A site visit was undertaken on 28 September 2022 by Lisa Coles and Christienne Uchiyama. The primary objective of the site visit was to document and gain an understanding of the Property and its surrounding context. The site visit included a documentation of the surrounding area, exterior views of the structure, and the structure's interior. 2.5 Impact Assessment r The MCM's Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans' outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or property alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to: 1) Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2) Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3) Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4) Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5) Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 6 MCM, "Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Info Sheet #5" in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006) 10 Page 364 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7) Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The HIA includes a consideration of direct and indirect adverse impacts on adjacent properties with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in Section 8. 11 Page 365 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3 POLICY FRAMEWORK 3.1 Provincial Planning Context In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, the OHA, and the PPS. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is an analysis of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage. 3.1.1 The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as ... the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.' Under Section 1 of The Planning Act: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter ... shall be consistent with [the PPS].8 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS which makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations concerning planning and development within the province. 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The Province deems cultural heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1 e and Section 2.6. ' Province of Ontario, "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13," July 1, 2022, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl3, Part 1 (2, d). 8 Province of Ontario, "Planning Act," Part I S.5. 12 Page 366 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. Subsection's state: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.9 The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.90 The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied in each situation. A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of 9 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 29. 10 Ibid. 51. 13 Page 367 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.11 Part 1 (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. 12 O. Reg. 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06) outline criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance. Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41, Part V of the OHA. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. Amendments to the OHA were announced by the Province under Bill 108: More Homes, More Choices Act and came into effect on July 1, 2021. Previously, municipal council's decision to protect a property determined to be significant under the OHA was final with appeals being taken to the Conservation Review Board, who played an advisory role. With Bill 108 proclaimed, decisions are appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal for adjudication. Sections 33 and 34 Part IV and Section 42 Part V of the OHA require owners of designated heritage properties to obtain a permit or approval in writing from a municipality/municipal council to alter, demolish or remove a structure from a designated heritage property. These sections also enable a municipality to require an applicant to provide information or material that council considers it may need to decide which may include a HIA. 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005 The Places to GrowAct guides growth in the province and was consolidated 1 June 2021. It is intended: a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation; b) to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes efficient use of infrastructure; c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; 11 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18," last modified October 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 12 Ibid. 14 Page 368 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government. 13 This act is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure and enables decision making across municipal and regional boundaries for more efficient governance in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Property is located within the area regulated by A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was consolidated on 28 August 2020. In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Metis communities. 14 Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing: ...a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas, a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources." It describes cultural heritage resources as: The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities unique and attractive places to live. 16 Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows: Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas; 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Metis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and, 13 Province of Ontario, "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl3, 1. 14 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," last modified 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.odf, 6. 15 Ibid. 39. 16 Ibid. 39. 15 Page 369 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making." Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with PPS 2020. 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 The Municipal Act was consolidated on 11 April 2022 and enables municipalities to be responsible and accountable governments with their jurisdiction.'$ The Municipal Act authorizes powers and duties for providing good government and is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Amongst the many powers enabled by the Municipal Act is the power to create By-laws within the municipalities sphere of jurisdiction.19 Under Section 11 (3) lower and upper tier municipalities are given the power to pass by-laws on matters including culture and heritage.20 Enabling municipalities to adopt a by-law or a resolution by Council to protect heritage, which may include requirements for an HIA. 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require a HIA for alterations, demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property. These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following provincial policy direction. 3.2 Regional Planning Context 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (WROP) was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board on 18 June 2015 and is currently under review. 21 The ROP sets out policies to guide growth and land use within the Region in keeping with provincial policy. Chapter 3 addresses cultural heritage policies, writing that: These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the 17 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 47. 18 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25," last modified April 11, 2022, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. 19Ibid. 11. 20 Ibid. 11(3). 21 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," last modified June 18, 2015,https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-use-planning.aspx 16 Page 370 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community .22 Policies related to the Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Archaeology, Heritage Planning Advisory Committees, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation, Promotion and Research, and Scenic Roads are outlined by the WROP. Policies most relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 2. Table 2: Relevant Policies in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Official Plan 22 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 371 of 511 Policy Policy Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources 3.G.1 The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. Cultural Heritage Landscapes 3.G.5 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. This guideline will outline the framework for identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes, including Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest, and for documenting each individual landscape through a Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plan that includes: (a) a statement of significance; (b) a listing of the cultural heritage resources and attributes being conserved within the Cultural Heritage Landscape through the use of existing planning 22 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 371 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy tools, such as Heritage Act designations, listings on the Municipal Register, official plan policies, secondary plans and zoning bylaws; and (c) recommendations for additional conservation measures. 3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. 3.G.7 The Region will assist Area Municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plans for Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest. Archaeology 3.G.8 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Archaeological Master Plan, an associated Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline, and maps identifying archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential. The Master Plan will provide detailed information on the variables used to determine areas of archaeological potential and define the archaeological review process. 3.G.9 During the review of development applications and/or site plans, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will require the owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline following the Ministry of Tourism and Culture's Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Archaeological Master Plan. 3.G.10 Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the Region or Area Municipality will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the Area Municipality; or b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 18 Page 372 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 19 Page 373 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created because: Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well- being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and enhance the community's unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources; implement strategies to support existing and additional arts, culture, and heritage initiatives; and ensure their long-term prosperity and sustainability.23 The goals of the Master Plan are to achieve the following: 24 1. Community Identity and Character Develop a stronger cultural heritage identity for the region, one that celebrates its diversity, the character of its multiple towns and cities and the differing traditions of their founders; its natural features; and the richness of its arts, culture and heritage assets. 2. Education and Awareness Build a stronger foundation for arts, culture, and heritage within the community. 3. Coordination and Partnership Formation Encourage a greater degree of collaboration across all sectors and disciplines. 4. Resources 23 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/artsmasterpIan.pdf, I. 24 Ibid. IV. 20 Page 374 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Support opportunities for the development and sustainability of existing arts, culture, and heritage organizations. 5. Accessibility Maximize accessibility to arts, culture, and heritage opportunities and information. The Master Plan provides guidance and direction for the region for protecting, identifying, and enhancing cultural heritage aspects for communities, and in serving as a primary document to help develop new policies and implementation strategies. 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources is an important element of the land use planning process. Cultural heritage resources are viewed as important drivers for the Region's cultural and economic growth. The Region requires the completion of an HIA for proposed work on a listed property and assessment of archaeological potential. If the property is of Regional interest, a copy of the HIA must be submitted to the Region for review. 3.3 Local Planning Context 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) was approved with modifications by the Region on 19 November 2014 and was consolidated to 2019.25 The OP guides growth, land use, and environmental protection for the City to 2031.26 Section 12 addresses cultural heritage policies which are of historical, cultural, social, economic, environmental, and educational value to the City.27 Policies relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 3. Table 3: Relevant Policies in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan Policy Policy Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 25 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," last modified October 29, 2019, httos://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN City of Kitchener Official Plan 2014.pdf, cover. 26 Ibid. 1-1. 27 Ibid. 12-1. 21 Page 375 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Funeral. Burial and Cremation Services Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources which will include the following: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, d) heritage corridors. The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal, Provincial and Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. 12.C.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.C.1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.7. Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or interest associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on the regulation in the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Archaeology W, Page 376 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 12.C.1.17. During the review of development applications or applications for site alteration, The City and/or the Region will require an owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with any applicable Regional or Provincial Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Regional Archaeological Master Plan. 12.C.1.18. Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the City and/or the Region and the Province will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource in accordance with Ministry approvals by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the City, or, b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Conservation Measures 12.C.1.19. In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection, maintenance and conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources including built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes and implement Cultural Heritage Resource Conservation Measures Policies in this Plan. These may include but are not limited to covenants and easements pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act; by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By- law, demolition control, site plan control, community improvement provisions, provisions in a subdivision agreement); and by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Municipal Act (Property Standards By-law, tree by-law, sign by-law). 12.C.1.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.22. The City may require financial securities from the owner/applicant of an application submitted under the Planning Act, including applications for consent, 23 Page 377 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy site plan, draft plan of vacant land condominium and draft plan of subdivision, to ensure the conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources both during and after the development process. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, 1. e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 24 Page 378 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy f) implementation and monitoring; and, 1. g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 12.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days 25 Page 379 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/Integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 12.C.1.48. Signage on protected heritage properties will be compatible and complementary to the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property and in accordance with and consistent with good conservation practice. 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) The City is currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws in force: Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to all properties in the City.28 Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April 2019 and is currently under appeal.29 It is stage 1 of the City's zoning review and includes the ...framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and urban growth centre (downtown).30 The Property is not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and is currently subject to Zoning By- law 85-1. The Property is zoned D-6, which is known as Arterial Commercial Zone, which supports the uses identified in Table 4 below. This zoning classification does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations. The Property is also subject to two Special Use Provisions for Specific Lands (116U and 403U), one Special Regulation Provision[s] for Specific 28 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 29, 2004, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201 %20-%2OGeneral%2OScope.pdf, 1 29 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051," last modified April 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CROZBY Consolidated Zoning Bylaw Council Approv ed.pdf. 30 City of Kitchener, "Zoning bylaw," Development and construction, last modified 2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.asox. 26 Page 380 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Lands (105R), and one Holding Provision[s] for Specific Lands (1 OH). These additional provisions are defined in Table 5 below. Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 Permitted Uses31 Permitted Use Permitted Use Permitted Use Audio -Visual or Medical Beverage and Beverage- Building Material and Laboratory Making Equipment Sales Decorating Supply Sales Canine or Feline Grooming Carwash Commercial Parking Facility or Training (By-law 93-129, S.9) Commercial Recreation Convenience Retail Craftsman Shop Day Care Facility Educational Establishment Financial Establishment Funeral Home Garden Centre and Nursery Gas Station Health Clinic Health Office Hotel Office Personal Services Printing Establishment Private Club or Lodge and Religious Institution Repair Service Union Hall Restaurant Sale of Pets and Pet Sale of Sporting Goods (By - Supplies (By-law 96-58, S.2) law 98-136, S.1) Sale or Rental of Furniture Sale, Rental or Service of Sale, Rental, Service, and Electric or Electronic Business Machines and Storage or Repair of Motor Appliances or Electric or Office Supplies Vehicles, Major Recreational Electronic Equipment Equipment and Parts and Accessories for Motor Vehicles or Major Recreational Equipment Sale, Rental, Storage or Studio Surveying, Planning, Service of Tools and Engineering or Design Industrial or Farm Business (By-law 87-145, Equipment S.1) Tradesman or Contractor's Transportation Depot (By-law Veterinary Services Establishment 93-129, S.9) Warehouse Wholesaling 31 City of Kitchener, "Section 17 Warehouse District Zone (D-6) Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 5, 2012, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%2017%20- %20Warehouse%2ODistrict%2OZone%20(D-6).pdf, 1-2. 27 Page 381 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Table 5: Additional By-law Provisions that Apply to the Property Provision Description Provision 116U, Special Notwithstanding Section 17.1 of this by-law, within the lands Use Provisions for Specific zoned D-6, described in the clauses listed below, commercial Lands entertainment excluding amusement arcade, retail and multiple dwellings shall also be permitted only in the buildings existing on the day of the passing of By-law Number 92-232, and having a minimum facade height of 6.0 metres.32 Provision 403U, Special Notwithstanding Section 17.1 and Schedule 105 of Appendix Use Provisions for Specific D, subsection iii) of this By-law, within the lands zoned D-6 on Lands Schedule 84 of Appendix "A", described as Part Lot 69, Lot 70 and Lot 71, Plan 374, a residential care facility shall be a permitted use and may be located on the ground floor.33 Provision 105R, Special Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2(c) or 17.3 of this by-law, Regulation Provisions for within the lands zoned D-6, described in clause (iv) below, Specific Lands the following special regulations shall apply: i) The maximum gross leasable commercial space for retail shall be 7,000 square metres with no single outlet exceeding 1,000 square metres. ii) The maximum gross floor area for office located within a building existing on the day of passing of By-law Number 92- 232, which building has a minimum facade height of 6.0 metres, shall be 100 percent of the floor area of the building. iii) Residential use shall not be located on the ground floor, except for access. iv) Parking spaces shall be provided for uses located within buildings existing on the day of passing of By-law Number 92- 232 in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.1.2(c) of this by-law or in the following quantities, whichever is the lesser: 34 32 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 116," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%20C%20- %20Specia1%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20 LandsH1161.1.pdf, 1. 33 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 403," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%20C%20- %20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//403U.pdf, 1 34 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS 105," last modified December 12, 2016,https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%2OD%20- %20Special%20Regulation%20 Prov isions%20for%20Spec ific%20 LandsHl05R.pdf, 1. 2s Page 382 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual The City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual was approved in 2019 for the purposes of establishing expectations, guiding, and deriving a vision for the City's design through considerations of city building, economic development, and sustainability. Section 1.8.2 entitled Cultural Heritage Resources contains several pertinent guidelines, as identified in Table 6 below: Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline. Provision redacted for Plan 374, Lot 71. Provision 10H, Holding Multiple dwellings shall not be permitted until such time as the Provisions for Specific City is presented with documentation from the Ministry of the Lands Environment advising that the Ministry is satisfied with respect to the potential adverse environmental conditions or constraints caused by adjacent industrial uses, transportation corridors and site decommissioning requirements; and the holding symbol affecting the particular lands affected has 1.2.8 been removed by By-law. 35 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual The City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual was approved in 2019 for the purposes of establishing expectations, guiding, and deriving a vision for the City's design through considerations of city building, economic development, and sustainability. Section 1.8.2 entitled Cultural Heritage Resources contains several pertinent guidelines, as identified in Table 6 below: Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline. - 1.2.8 Conserve cultural heritage resources including buildings, views and vistas, paragraph structures, districts, streetscape and landscapes using the following strategies; 1,3 Rehabilitation: repair or replace heritage attributes, construct compatible and reversible additions, integrate the cultural heritage resource or components of the cultural heritage resource into a new development, or adaptively reuse the cultural heritage resources.ae 1.2.8 New development on a site with a cultural heritage resource and additions to paragraph cultural heritage resources should integrate new, contrasting building materials 5 in ways which respect the integrity of the cultural heritage resource. Conserve heritage value by being physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the cultural heritage resource. Section 5 of the City's Urban Design Manual provides additional guidelines relative to the downtown. Several Guideline sections including 5.2.7 Heritage Resources, 5.3.1 Built Form, 35 City of Kitchener, "HOLDING PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 10," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PubIishedCurrentText/Appendix%20F%20- %20Holding%2OProvisions%20for%20SPecific%2OLandsHlOH.pdf, 1. 36 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part A Urban Structure & Built Form, City -Wide," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 01 City Wide Design.pdf, 18 29 Page 383 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 and 5.4.4 UGC3 Innovation District — a specific guideline area — each contain pertinent guidance, as identified in Table 7 below. Table 7: Pertinent guidelines from Section 5.2.7, 5.3.1, and 5.4.4 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline # Guideline Conserving cultural and natural heritage resources within Kitchener's Downtown is of critical importance, as doing so gives variety to the urban fabric, perpetuates the cultural history of DTK and encourages exploration, sustainability, and a sense of living history.37 5.3.1 Adaptive reuse of-- and additions to-- existing buildings should respect and paragraph enhance the established character of the building, its streetscape, and any 4 surrounding open areas. This is the case regardless of a building's cultural heritage status.38 5.4.4 The continued preservation and adaptive reuse of remaining historical paragraph buildings is critical to maintaining the character of the Innovation District, as is 2 streetscape design and pedestrian and mid -block connections that improve the pedestrian network between these assets.39 3.3.4 City of Kitchener Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS), published in December 2014, identifies that the Property resides immediately adjacent to the City's Warehouse District. Albeit not within the district, the Property's SOS acknowledges its connection and describes it as being a contributing piece .40 The Warehouse District is bounded by Glasgow Street, Dominion Street, Breithaupt Street, Francis Street, Victoria Street, and Belmont Avenue and is recognized for its associations with Kitchener's industrial, urban, and transportation development (Figure 3). The CHLS identified that the Warehouse District has maintained its historical integrity and retains both cultural and community value, as described in Table 8 below. Table 8: Warehouse District Values Historical Has been used for the same purpose since the railway was originally Integrity established in 1856. Retains several factories and industrial buildings that date prior to 1912, when Kitchener was officially incorporated as a city. 37 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 05 Downtown.pdf, 6 38 Ibid, 7 39 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 05 Downtown.pdf, 7 40 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes," last modified December 2014, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Rerort.pdf 30 Page 384 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Value Description Cultural Explains the development history of Kitchener and is contextually important to Value surrounding neighbourhoods. Contains industrial buildings of the famous architect, Albert Kahn, and architectural design that will never be repeated again. Community A source of employment for many people living in Kitchener and the Value surrounding area. 3.3.5 Local Planning Context Summary The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them in the land use planning process. Through its OP policies, the City has committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. An HIA is required when a proposed development is on or adjacent to a recognized heritage property. The City has adopted Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and will reference them when assessing proposed developments. 31 Page 385 of 511 s •-yti.L Xw M y 1M A .�, �.� (� '�- ��r� � � A'►EC,. � �. 5�; ,,�,�dl� SRS /,_�°' y,{� tT�tr W54 �ZIF toE leai�-„'.- a+hr•:_' . '� ergs �0,�(jFz ..' ti % 4ry_ar`¢a 11 �, 3E: r { , S , - ,%- Cx ry IVA s�`" l y I firs. lj• CO jG ?" , " 1�#� 1 ST ri y 16 r 0 265 530 Meters Legend Property Cultural Heritge Landscapes, Warehouse District CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT I YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Appendix 6", December 2014. 1HC Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copvriqht (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. PREPARED LHC DESIGNED JG FIGURE# age Mb Of b71 3 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 4 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Early Indigenous History 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier .41 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500- 8000 BCE), the climate was like the present-day sub -arctic and vegetation was dominated by spruce and pine forests.42 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big -game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.43 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE), the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a preference for smaller territories of land — possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of MexiCo. 44 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE—CE 1650) The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE — CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub -divided into the Early Woodland (1000-400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE — CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).45 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking .46 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village -based communities during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early (CE 1000-1300); Middle (CE 1300-1400); and Late (CE 1400-1650).47 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded 41 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, "Paleo-Indians," in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990), 37. 42 EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 33 Page 387 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario — and more widely across northeastern North America —organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. Communities south of Lake Ontario at this time included the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Senecas, Onondagas, and Tuscarora, and groups including the Anishinaabe and Neutral (Attiwandaron).48 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged military warfare on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.49 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Anishinaabe. The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in military conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.50 Most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy allied with the British during the American Revolution (1765 — 1783) with the promise that their land would be protected.51 This promise was not kept, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory was ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Paris in 1783.52 In compensation, Captain General Fedrick Haldimand granted the Haudenosaunee Confederacy 950,000 acres through the Haldimand Proclamation dated 25 October 1784 (Figure 4 and Figure 5). 53 The land grant has been in debate ever since and has been steadily reduced to 46,000 acres today. 14 48 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013, http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm; University of Waterloo, "Land acknowledgment," Faculty Association, hUps://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement; Six Nations Tourism, "History," https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/. 49 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation," Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, last modified 2018, https://mncfn.ca/about- mncfn/commun ity-profile/. 50 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "History", 3-4. 51 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanad ianencycloped ia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. 52 Ibid. 53 Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, "History of Six Nations," https://sndevcorp.ca /history -of -six -nations/. 54 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013. 34 Page 388 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 4: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 182155 55 Library and Archives Canada, "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]," 1821, Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 35 Page 389 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology >T � �" � m � s �► ► ^. :." rt KITCHENER,, •..]r+nt�ryt'tue.e "'a _ _ ro. "! =y•- aAIMLLE ri.w MLm[.rp� � ! ia4 t =ar. � - ,BLRONGFON L ,r'ietnbun.. HAMILTON 7 r •rt"�" � rJ r _. '•�� Gtrelu6y Liaca#n C " ..., X1J a resat •rci.aw. r-. .s.. yy- iNnra 1 p� r ••-wr -�-aL .a' �^ 4,..HuSLILIR H®idimand rrt. �tIm wIG ae Ip p 4I L t r. � '� [ 1 �� "19 Bw_r '7 T7�� -Pon Gwu ty tg' fwur vonlaw, ted by F""" - t Halldimarui p+pclartratksn Cu rreM Sin. Nat— Ra -sera, - hen i-� ApyNvrrmatrly App—vtnaSlty granted on 44,.544)&CteS or 4.9% Ocsober 2$, 7284 rrmarnrng as of April 2404 Figure 5: Haldimand Tract 56 56 Six Nations, "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784," Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. 36 Project #LHC0333 Page 390 of 511 W!vq�- ► ^. :." rt KITCHENER,, •..]r+nt�ryt'tue.e "'a _ _ ro. "! =y•- aAIMLLE ri.w MLm[.rp� � ! ia4 t =ar. � - ,BLRONGFON L ,r'ietnbun.. HAMILTON 7 r •rt"�" � rJ r _. '•�� Gtrelu6y Liaca#n C " ..., X1J a resat •rci.aw. r-. .s.. yy- iNnra 1 p� r ••-wr -�-aL .a' �^ 4,..HuSLILIR H®idimand rrt. �tIm wIG ae Ip p 4I L t r. � '� [ 1 �� "19 Bw_r '7 T7�� -Pon Gwu ty tg' fwur vonlaw, ted by F""" - t Halldimarui p+pclartratksn Cu rreM Sin. Nat— Ra -sera, - hen i-� ApyNvrrmatrly App—vtnaSlty granted on 44,.544)&CteS or 4.9% Ocsober 2$, 7284 rrmarnrng as of April 2404 Figure 5: Haldimand Tract 56 56 Six Nations, "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784," Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. 36 Project #LHC0333 Page 390 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 4.3 Region of Waterloo The Haldimand Proclamation was divided into six blocks by the Government of Upper Canada and sold to fund an annuity to the Six Nations people.57 Block Two was sold to land speculator Colonel Richard Beasley in 1796 covering an area of 94,012 acres .58 Beasley began to subdivide the land and sell plots to Pennsylvania Mennonites fleeing after the American Revolution, this portion numbering 63,000 acres and called the German Company Tract.59 The German Company Tract was surveyed by government surveyor Augustus Jones in 1805.60 The survey resulted in a closed Pennsylvania Mennonite community that did not include clergy, Crown, or Loyalist reserves and which was divided into equal 448 -acre lots without lot and concession numbers.61 The German Company Tract was incorporated into Wellington District in 1816 and renamed Waterloo Township.62 The Township grew quickly as it began a centre of German settlement in Upper Canada.63 Boundaries were redrawn following the Baldwin Municipal Act of 1849 and the Hinks Act of 1852 creating the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey in 1849.64 Waterloo County became independent in 1853 with Berlin as its seat. 65 The Region of Waterloo was established in 1973.66 4.4 City of Kitchener A community began to form in the German Company Tract at what would become Kitchener, then known as Berlin, beginning with the settlement of a group of Pennsylvania Mennonites in 1807 including early families like the Schneiders and Ebys.67 The Village of Berlin was established in the 1850s with most of its population of 700 working in agriculture.68 A station on the Grand Trunk Railway was established at Berlin in 1856, linking the village to the rest of North America.69 This coupled with access to inexpensive power from Niagara Falls lead to Berlin's industrial growth and nickname of "Busy Berlin" with a population of nearly 4,000 by 57 Kenneth McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. 58 Waterloo Region Museum, "History of Waterloo Township," https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-township.aspx#notel . 59 Ezra Elby, A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county, Volume 1, (Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895), 1 and 26. 60 John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: An Illustrated History, (Toronto: Robin Bross Studio,1996), 19-20. 61 English and McLaughlin, 19. 62 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Bill Moyer, Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History, (Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979), 1. 68 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Rych Mills, Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 7. 69 Mills, 7. 37 Page 391 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 1890.70 Berlin received city status in 1912 and operated as a multi-lingual city, mixing German and English.' World War One brought change to Berlin with the city facing prejudice as Canada fought German y.72 Berlin voted to change its name to Kitchener in 1916 in response .73 Despite slowed growth during the war years, Kitchener grew from 20,000 in 1920 to 30,000 in 1930 leading to a housing and industry boom following the Great Depression.74 The city continued to grow through the 1900s, becoming Canada's fastest growing city in 1965.75 Kitchener experienced economic turmoil in the 1990s as the recession closed many long standing industries and lead to a restricting of the city's economy and workforce.76 Into the 2000s, the City has pushed for the reconstruction of Kitchener with increased post -secondary education and reuse of heritage properties." 4.5 Property History Pre -1900 A map that portrays the City's road and land parcel layout entitled Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo was drafted in 1853-1854 by George John Grange. Although the map does not identify the presence of structures on every lot, it shows many of Berlin's early commercial, civic, and institutional buildings including the railway station — which is located adjacent to the Property on lot 71 (also visible on the map) — as well as Town Hall, the Post Office, and the Courthouse and Jail (Figure 6). A subsequent map produced in 1956 entitled Plan and Lots Drawn from M. C. Scofield's Map of the Town of Berlin reveals much of the same information as the 1853-1854 map identified above; however, there is evidence that several lots, specifically along the north side of Victoria Street, were subdivided (Figure 6). The 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township yields little additional information specifically about the development status of the Property or neighbouring properties; however, it does begin to display emergent development that was occurring along the City's streets — most notably the downtown core of the City along King Street. Notably, the block that contains the Property has been given a shadow adjacent to the street, which may indicate the presence of buildings; however, the shadowing is located along Francis Street North, not Victoria Street (Figure 6). Analysis from the 1861 Tremaine Map is mirrored within an 1875 artist rendering of Berlin that depicts a bird's eye view of the City's Core. Although the map is to be understood as an interpretation, it shows that the Property had not yet been developed. The map does display 70 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 " Ibid. 72 Mills, 7. 73 Moyer, 56. 74 Mills, 8. 75 Moyer, 83. 76 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, (Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012), 97. 77 Ibid. 108-109 38 Page 392 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 several buildings along Francis Street North, indicating the presence of development directly adjacent to the Property (Figure 7). The 1879 map entitled Berlin displays additional development within City's downtown area; however, additions solely display civic and institutional development. Notwithstanding, this map highlights that development concentric to the City's core was beginning to occur. No evidence suggests that the Property had been developed; however, development on nearby lots is displayed, including St. Jerome's College and a church located on Duke Street and Water Street, respectively. 1901-1950 By 1904, most properties in the vicinity of the Property had been developed aside from the Property itself. A Fire Insurance Plan identified that each property contiguous with 97 Victoria Street had been developed, typically with small one -and -a -half storey residences (barring the two -and -a -half storey structure located at 70 Francis Street North) (Figure 8). A map developed as part of the City Plan for Greater Berlin in 1912 continues to lack any direct identification of development on the Property. The Property is identified as being within the `Union Station Plaza', which comprised an area bound by the Grand Trunk Railway to the north, Weber Street to the east, Water Street and Francis Street to the south, and David Street (now Duke Street) to the west (Figure 6). "a The Union Station Plaza development does not appear to ever have been implemented, as evidenced by the increased presence of development within the block where it was meant to be located. The 1916 topographic map of the area displays two buildings at the crux of Water Street and Francis Street, one building along Duke Street, and one building in the southwest corner of the Weber Street and Victoria Street intersection (Figure 9). Despite its proximity to the Property, the building at the Weber -Victoria junction is more likely to have been developed on 111 Weber Street. From the 1904 Fire Insurance Plan, it is known that most of the properties in the vicinity were developed, including 111 Weber Street (Figure 8). Another topographic map from 1923 shows the same four buildings as the 1916 map. Although the Property remains to appear undeveloped, this map shows an increasing number of buildings in the vicinity which more closely aligns topographic mapping data with Fire Insurance Plan data (Figure 9). The first evidence of development on the Property is found on the Fire Insurance Plan for the area from 1925. This plan identifies the presence of two small singe -storey structures located in the Property's southeast corner fronting onto Heit Lane. There is no indication that the industrial building had yet been erected (Figure 8). Kitchener's downtown intensification is further evident in the 1929 topographic map of the city, which uses shading alongside roads to indicate the presence of development. This map shows that the stretch of the south edge of Victoria Street North between Duke Street to the west and Weber Street to the east is developed (Figure 9). The presence of the building on the Property is expected during this time, as city directories, along with a 1930 aerial photograph, suggest that the building was erected c. 1927 (Figure 10). 39 Page 393 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Subsequent topographic maps produced in 1936 and 1938 and an additional aerial photograph from 1945 depict much of the same information and offer no additional clues into the development of the Property (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The first mapping resource that portrays the industrial building is the 1908 Fire Insurance Plan that was revised in 1947. This map depicts the Property directly abutting the property lines along Victoria Street North and Heit Lane (Figure 8). 1951-2000 Topographic maps developed in 1956, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1994, and 1998 also do not identify the presence of a building on the Property despite it being known that development had occurred. Notwithstanding the lack of specific evidence of development of the Property, clear alterations to Kitchener's downtown core occurred throughout this 50 -year span (Figure 9 and Figure 11). The most notable transformation that occurred is the locale of civic development. During the early phases of Kitchener's development, civic infrastructure and development was centred along King Street, typically between Young Street to the west and Lancaster Street to the east. Throughout the mid -20th century, new civic development was typically constructed along Weber Street, such as Kitchener's courthouse, developed in 1964 at 20 Weber Street East (Figure 11). 2001 -present Aerial photography of the Property from between 2001 and 2021 does not identify the presence of any evident modifications to the site (Figure 10). 4.5.1 97 Victoria Street North Property Ownership The earliest indication of ownership of the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North and legally described as Plan 374 Lot 71 from Land Registry documentation is from August 1905, when Marian Brauer (nee Dopp) sold the lot to Sophia Roehr for $1,050.7$ 79 It is possible that the Property was sold to Brauer by Duncan Ferguson in 1872. Land Registry documents indicate that Ferguson sold the neighbouring lot (legally described as Plan 374 Lot 72) to Brauer in 1872 who then, along with the Property, sold it to Roehr in August of 1905.80 Roehr, along with her husband Gustav who was later identified in registry documentation, received, and discharged several mortgages during their ownership of the Property and on 15 June 1916 sold it to Emanuel Hamel for $6,300.00.81 Shortly after acquiring the Property, Hamel sold it again to Annie Duch on 16 June 1917 for $7,500.00 who in turn sold it to Lucinda Bauman on 15 July 1918 for $8,000.00.82 On 21 August 1918, Bauman sold the Property to Carl G. Pritschau, a real estate broker, for the consideration of $1.00.83 Shortly thereafter, Pritschau sold the lot to the Ontario Glove Company Ltd. for $6,000.00.84 It is unclear as to if the Ontario 78 Ancestry, "County of Waterloo, Division of Berlin Marriages," 1906. 79 Land Registry Ontario, Waterloo (LRO 58), Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 19242 80 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 72, Instrument No. 19261. 81 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 36216 82 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 36871, 38194 83 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 38388 84 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 38399 40 Page 394 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Glove Company had plans to develop the site, as the company had already been operating from 38 Benton Street - a lot located approximately 750 metres southeast of the Property. Shortly after acquiring the Property, the Ontario Glove Company would resell the Property back to Pritschau on 19 April 1920 for $7,500.00.85 The Property would once again change hands several times during the 1920's. On 2 September 1920, John H. Meyers purchased the Property from Pritschau for $10,000.86 Meyers subsequently granted the lot to Carl Huether, the president of the Huether Brewery located at 476 King Street West, for the consideration of $1.00.87 On 12 February 1923, Huether would once again sell the Property, this time to Charles A. Kern who was a manager at L McLain Company Limited, an aluminum ware manufacturer.88 Kern would grant the Property to two different parties, first on 29 July 1924 to Ernest Denton - a photographer, and second on 8 May 1925 to M. B. Shantz - a real estate broker.89 Denton would retain title until transferring ownership to his spouse, Louisa, on 30 June 1932.90 Nearly 16 -years later on 8 June 1948, Denton would grant ownership to Oliver E. Fries and Stanley Grundman, who owned Midtown Motors Limited.91 Six -years later on 8 November 1954, Fries would grant the Property to the McCall Frontenac Oil Company for $27,000.00.92 On 11 October 1955, McCall Frontenac granted the lot to Highway Realties Limited for $55,228.00 who then leased it back to McCall Frontenac for $110,388.44.93 On 13 January 1981, Highway Realties granted the Property to Texaco Canada Inc. who later granted it to Paul D. and Celeste M. Fackoury on 30 April 1987 for the consideration of $186,400.00.94 V, Akin to Denton, Shantz also granted his property to a new owner: William E. Mitchell of the Mitchell Button Company which had been operating at 21 Gaukel Street until the acquisition of the Property on 14 April 1927.95 Photographic evidence and tenancy documentation found in city directories suggests that Mitchell had the structure on the Property built shortly after taking lot ownership. Per the registry, it appears as though Mitchell, along with the Canada Permanent Trust Company, retained ownership of the Property and leased it to the Mitchell Button Company for $5,400.00 yearly.96 In 1967, the Mitchell Button Company would retain ownership of the Property. The company would acquire several mortgages, most often from the Industrial Development Bank over the course of their ownership, including drafts for $19,000.00, $62,000.00, $90,000.00, and $70,000.00 in 1963, August 1967, February 1967, and 1969, 85 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1919, LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 42061 86 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 43296 87 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 43297 88 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 48453 89 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 52432, 54120 90 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 68189 91 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 96423 92 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 122695 93 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 131694, 131695 94 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 696474, 894005 95 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1926-1927, LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 58377 96 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 271598 41 Page 395 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 respectively. 97 It is unclear as to how the Mitchell Button Company's tenure as property owner ended, as after a discharge of mortgage from 7 February 1973, no records are present on registry documentation. A transcribed history of the Property legally known as Plan 374 Lot 71 can be found in Appendix D. 4.5.2 97 Victoria Street North Property Tenancy and Land Use Contrasting Property ownership found on land registry documentation against Property tenancy found within City directories yields several discrepancies between who owned versus who occupied the site. In many cases, ownership of the Property directly aligned with ownership of the adjacent property legally described as Plan 374 Lot 72. Development of this adjacent lot occurred before the development of the Property. This is evidenced in the City's 1907-1908 directory which identifies that `Gustav Roehr' occupied the property municipally known as 111 Weber Street West.98 It is possible that Roehr operated the Property as a boarding house, as was his noted occupation in subsequent city directories. Under Ernest Denton's ownership, 111 Weber Street West became known as `Denton Apts', providing further evidence of the adjacent lot's residential use.99 The earliest indication of development and occupation of 97 Victoria Street North is found in the 1928-1929 City directory, which indicates that the Mitchell Button Company occupied the Property.10' Occupation of the Mitchell Button Company can be triangulated and confirmed using both land registry documents, which established that the owner of the company, W. E. Mitchell was granted the site in 1927, and topographic maps of the City, whereby no structure is located on the Property in 1923, but in 1929, the entire block is denoted as being developed. An aerial photograph of the City from 1930 also shows the Property along with the building that currently occupies it. The Property is part of what the City of Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape report defines as the `Warehouse District'. The report makes note of Kitchener's rapid uptake of industrial trade that was an outcome of its position along the Grand Trunk Railway. Driving the City's emerging economy was a range of factories that were typically developed along the railway — the Warehouse District. Many of the buildings were erected between 1910 and 1920, with some having been developed earlier (such as the Kaufman Rubber Company in 1908) and some having been developed later such as the Mitchell Button Company, built c. 1927.10' Accordingly, albeit contributory to its broader cultural landscape, the 97 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 272496, 359575, 392093, 415094 98 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1907-1908 99 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1924-1925 100 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1928-1929 101 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes." December 2014. htti)s://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Rerort.i3df 42 Page 396 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 building located at 97 Victoria Street North was not an early rendition of Kitchener industrial vernacular building style. City directories inform that the Mitchell Button Company Limited retained tenancy on the Property until 1969, undergoing two name changes across its 41 -year tenure, first in 1964 when it was renamed `Mitchell Plastics and Buttons Limited' and then again shortly thereafter in 1969 to `Mitchell Plastics Limited'. 102 A second company called the `Woeller Upholstering Company' also took occupancy in the building between 1932 and 1940.103 By 1941, after renaming to Woeller-Bowsfield Upholstering Co' and moving to 27 Gaukel Street, Mitchell Button Company became the sole tenant once again. For the first 41 -years of its developed existence, the Property supported an industrial use as it housed manufacturing companies. Despite Mitchell Plastics and Buttons retaining ownership of the Property as indicated on land registry documentation, the site remained vacant between 1970 and 1971 when the company moved to a new lot in 1970 located at 11 Hoffman Street. 104 In 1972, a company called `Marian Household Centre' took partial tenancy of the Property, with other sections remaining vacant. 105 Over the years, the Property supported as little as one and as many as seven tenants/uses. Some of the longest standing tenants were `Marian Household Centre' (1972-1980)106 `Dumont Press Graphix Limited' (1973-1988)107, `Schattens Canada Limited' (1975-1981)108, `Elsworthy Cabinets' (1977-1997)109, `St Vincent de Paul [The Society of, later Thrift Store]' (1982-2009)110 and `Business Cards Tomorrow' (1989-2009)11' The current tenants, `Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares', `The Working Centre', and `St. John's Kitchen' were first identified in the 2006, 2007, and 2010 city directories, respectively. 112 Tenancy since 1971 has therefore typically comprised commercial uses. For a complete, year -over -year listing of tenants for 97 Victoria Street North between 1926-1927 to 2014, refer to Appendix C. 4.5.3 The Working Centre Currently, the Property is owned by The Working Centre. The Working Centre was first opened by Joe and Stephanie Mancini in 1982 in response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. As The Working Centre grew, with support from Margaret Nally and Patrice Rietzel of 102 Kitchener -Waterloo City Directories Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1964; Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1969 103 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1932 through 1940 104 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1971 105 Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1972 106 Ibid. for the Year 1972-1980 107 Ibid. for the Year 1973-1988 108 Ibid. for the Year 1975-1981 los Cities of Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the year 1977- 1997 110 Ibid. for the Year 1982-2009 111 Ibid. for the year 1988-2009 112 Ibid. for the year 2006; 2007; 2010 43 Page 397 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Global Community Centre, it arranged a board of directors that continue to guide its ongoing development. 13 Per The Working Centre's website, their primary goal is to: ...give people access to tools to create their own work combined with continuous ways of learning and co-operating. The Working Centre organizes its projects into six areas; the Job Search Resource Centre, St. John's Kitchen, Community Tools, Access to Technology, Affordable Supportive Housing and the Waterloo School for Community Development. 114 Over the course of its 40 -years existence, The Working Centre has been able to network with other not-for-profit organizations such as St. John's Kitchen which opened in 1985. Since then, a primary care clinic, dental clinic, nurses, and outreach workers have all joined The Working Centre's ecosystem.115 For their work with The Working Centre, Joe and Stephanie Mancini were awarded with the Benemerenti Medal and Papal Honour in 2014, the Order of Canada in 2016, and honorary Doctorates from the University of Waterloo in 2019.16 The Working Centre operates a number of properties in the City of Kitchener and has a history of managing and adapting existing and heritage buildings in a sympathetic manner, regularly applying the principle of minimum intervention as a pragmatic and sensitive approach to working with their properties. In addition to the listed property at 97 Victoria Street North, the group is headquartered in a listed property at 58 Queen Street South and provides services out of a listed property at 115 Water Street North; the latter of property successfully underwent a sympathetic alteration in 2019-2020 to provide additional capacity for transitional housing, harm reduction, and health care services (Photo 1 to Photo 3). 13 The Working Centre, "About Us," n.d. 14 The Working Centre, p. 4 15 University of Waterloo, "The Working Centre's founders receive honorary doctorates," 2019. 16 University of Waterloo 44 Page 398 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 1: Water Street House at 115 Water Street North 45 Page 399 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 2: Detail showing transition between original building at 115 Water Street North (right) and two-storey addition (left) constructed in 2020 Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition 46 Page 400 of 511 i r I5_ 7 � Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition 46 Page 400 of 511 o� / of Som - � Em ol 16 a a o �^ e�a 'E � / �►, °' � E E m E _ 1A, 'sL — 4 # S � f 1= Y� n a �'' '41'f xTt _ • k ^ dry- XL q 114Y�,� aA f i4 1 ,�1� ice' f1 s ! des• '�d %s 'L J. 1 � R y tj{ '•Mr, ✓ 1 � .. r,�yi� � �i � ..',!T' E�}� `Li city �. �T�� yy .. t� hL 1®'�k. } w,t� � ,,: �� '.� t163i ��• � its °, � � �' ?,a't w �` �s ,..*+.�E■� �h,R r. it �1Y w �} . '�e�� °�1'e R 7 j tr 4 q 1 Ak, „ "►� :st�I�t4A k. �N' •�� x+:i 3.1 alit- �-'-- - to � •.�� ,�'"`� i " #r!};� �` � � �� N'. Tk r r - Legend TITLE 1875 Birds Eye View Showing the Property Property CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario _ONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. Bros ius M., "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo- region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, DESIGNED JG Madison, Ws: J.J. Stoner, 1875. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and1HC age 0 are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. FIGURE # i I I jf q I I y p��q 40 LJ I � a } -- in 0 0 25 50 Meters a ia.a nr G 16 1Y0n+rA.P ti_' ALL 0 • 25 50 Meters Legend Property TITLE 1904, 1925, and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans Showing the Property CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT PROJECT' '. LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Chas E. Goad, "Kitchener Berlin", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, scale 1:600, Toronto & Montreal: Chas E. Goad, 1894 rev. 1904. 2. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ontario', Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1925. 3. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ont.", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, microfiche, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1947. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 PREPARED LHC 1HC DESIGNED JG FIGURE # age 0 8 .'rTr F�• r� Y�• f �L i' i�M•ii *r�l a r O I E a E a E a E a E a E a cc RE - E a a a a a a —o 0 �Tlm - EE El -- -E�'m- - _ - -- - -- �= _ L r■ a ear. �a #!., F+1 r F e +�F +l.a! .■ar4'.i r'*!:#iso. + ■+. a rR. r +. s iY '+. F ■ `a9a Fey i d n N or O QO T E - E Um - - � m O ° �- - vim E E. E. r A r 9AP ars E_umm��mE umm�E_um-comma m� -Em- mEam E�tmao_� iii ■i - - �°'� =ua ms�o��6ms�o��T'��oza-a �Tlm I � r A r■ a ear. �a #!., F+1 r F e +�F +l.a! .■ar4'.i r'*!:#iso. + ■+. a rR. r +. s iY '+. F ■ `a9a Fey i r A r 9AP ars L iii ■i ■` rrAa i ■ ' �• +e +baF I � r December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 97 Victoria Street North Exterior The property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North is a two-storey "L" shaped building on a concrete foundation with three additions (Photo 4 through Photo 7). The main building is two -storeys in height and measures approximately 15.0 metres (m) wide by 35.3 m deep. The primary, northwest elevation is divided into three distinct bays by four shallow buttresses. Both the southwest and northeast elevation are divided into seven bays. A large chimney was erected in the main building's southwest corner. The first addition was attached to the east section of the main building's southeast (rear) elevation. This addition matched the two-storey height and general rhythm of the main structure, adding three bays along the building's northeast elevation and two along the southeast elevation (Photo 8 and Photo 9). Three distinct elements distinguish this building section as an addition. First, one of the three bays added along the northeast elevation does not match the width of the others; second, the roofing material is different from that of the main building and there is a distinctive parapet that is no longer situated along the roof's edge; and third, the yellow brick is slightly different in colour from the main building. Another addition was added to the building's southeast elevation, this time situated towards the westmost section. This addition is also two -storeys in height and shares the matching fenestration rhythm found along the main building; however, it comprises a different brick colour and is not arranged into bays using shallow buttresses (Photo 7). A third, single storey addition was later added and branched off the southwest elevation of the previous addition. This later addition is constructed of concrete block and gave the property its current `L' shape (Photo 9). The first storey of the building serves a retail and community outreach use, and the second storey comprises a dining hall and St. John's kitchen. The building has a flat roof and is constructed of stretcher bond brick that is red along the building's primary, northwest elevation and yellow along all other elevations. The building is typically divided into distinct bays by shallow buttresses found along all elevations; however, this rhythm is interrupted along the southmost portion of the southwest elevation because of the addition. The primary, northwest elevation is symmetrical, with buttressing located at the edges of the building as well as two additional buttresses that are evenly set along the fagade which creates three bays. The middle bay comprises a large, centre -set entrance along the first storey, and a former window bay that has been infilled and clad in painted vertical siding within the second storey. The bays that flank the centre both have three side-by-side double hung, six - over -six windows that align with the door opening on the first storey and infilled window bay on the second storey. The primary elevation also has a decorative parapet. The symmetrical pattern of buttresses and window openings continues along the building's southwest and northeast elevations. Many of the window bays on secondary elevations have been infilled and clad in vertical siding, with new windows having been installed in several locations. The rear, southeast elevation follows a similar architectural language as the other elevations; however, it is asymmetrical. It has two buttresses that are offset towards the east portion of the elevation and has windows of various size. The first storey of the building can be accessed from two locations along the Property's southwest elevation. The first access point is located within the fourth bay and the second is located towards the south corner set within the Property's second addition (Photo 7). The 53 Page 407 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 second storey of the Property is accessed via a door located in the seventh bay along northeast elevation (Photo 5). The windows set within the northwest elevation have concrete sills along their bottom edges and flat -headed, soldier course brick along their top edges. The windows extend the entire width of the bays that are formed by the buttresses. As described, the general window pattern along the northeast and southwest elevations corresponds to that of the northwest elevation; however, the window selection varies. Fixed -pane, double -hung, and smaller side-by-side double -hung windows were observed on both elevations. The Southeast elevation comprises three double - hung windows located along the building's second storey. Neither natural heritage elements nor landscaped features are present on the Property. Photo 4: View south showing the Property's northwest (primary) and northeast elevations 54 Page 408 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 5: View west showing the Property's northeast elevation Photo 6: Panoramic view northwest showing the Property's southeast elevation 55 Page 409 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 7: View northeast showing the Property's southwest elevation Photo 8: View northwest of the Property's southeast elevation. The addition on the right follows the same rhythm of bays and buttresses found along the other elevations. The addition to the left is void of buttresses and is a distinctly different colour 56 Page 410 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 9: View north showing the single storey addition that branches off the southwest elevation of the previous addition 5.2 97 Victoria Street North Interior 5.2.1 Worth a Second Look (First Storey) The first storey of the building is "L" shaped in plan and comprises Worth a Second Look along with supporting storage space (Figure 12). Despite the building's main entrance fronting onto Victoria Street North, access to the first storey is provided along the southwest elevation. Upon entrance, the first floor is a large, open room that has polished concrete floors, gypsum clad walls, and a gypsum clad ceiling (Photo 10). Typically, the wallboard has been painted white; however, the windowsills have been painted blue. Along the ceiling, the building's structural beams are visible, but they have been covered in wallboard. Structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all visible and are typically painted white to match the walls and ceiling (Photo 11). The materiality used in the main, Worth a Second Look, room typically remains congruent when moving towards the structure's storage areas located at the rear of the building. In addition to the floor typically remaining polished concrete, the walls and ceilings are also typically clad in painted gypsum wallboard (Photo 12 and Photo 13). In certain areas, the material use is changed. For instance, some walls comprise painted brick and the flooring in several areas is composed of tile (Photo 14 and Photo 15). 57 Page 411 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 FLS 11LuJ1 13 e R- iiia 1 8� Figure 12: Current Worth a Second Look floor plan (first floor) Photo 10: View north upon entering the first storey of the building 58 Page 412 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 11: View southeast showing the building's structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems Photo 12: View southwest showing material use towards the rear of the first floor 59 Page 413 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 13: View showing the material use towards the rear of the first floor Photo 14: View showing a tiled floor area 60 Page 414 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 15: View showing painted brick walls 5.2.2 St. John's Kitchen and Safe Supply Clinic (Second Storey) The second storey of the building is rectangular in plan and comprises St. John's Kitchen and the Safe Supply Clinic (Figure 13). The second storey of the building is accessed from the building's northeast elevation. The entrance provides access to a foyer area that has a tiled floor and walls that are typically clad in gypsum and painted yellow but with some exposed brick (Photo 16). A vinyl -clad, metal staircase is located to the right upon entrance that provides access to the second floor. Akin to the foyer, the walls surrounding the staircase are yellow - painted gypsum (Photo 17). The second floor also has a tiled floor throughout and walls and ceiling that are clad completely in gypsum. The walls are typically painted yellow, green, blue, or red. Like the first floor, Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all visible and are typically painted white (Photo 18). Directly ahead of the top of the stairs is the Safe Supply Clinic which is a separate suite within the building. Aside from this suite, the rest of the floor is generally open space. A hallway that extends lengthwise through the building provides access to the different rooms, including St. John's Kitchen located towards the northwest elevation of the building (Photo 19). The safe supply clinic was not accessed during the site visit. 61 Page 415 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LI mrF Figure 13: Current St. John's Kitchen floor plan (second floor) Photo 16: View southeast showing the foyer and stairs 62 Page 416 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 17: View northwest showing the staircase providing second floor access Photo 18: Panoramic view showing the second floor of the building 63 Page 417 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 19: View showing St. John's kitchen (right) and an open hallway (left) 5.2.3 Community Outreach (Rear Wing Addition) The community outreach wing of the building was not accessed during the site visit 5.3 Surrounding Context The Property is located in the Innovation District of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre, which as described in Section 15 of Kitchener's OP, is "...characterized by many large, old industrial buildings which have already been converted or have the potential for conversion to loft style office and residential uses and other viable uses.""' The Property is located between two of the City's Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD), namely the Victoria Park HCD designated under by-law 96-91 and the Civic Centre HCD designated under by-law 2008-039. The Property is located approximately 90 metres from the CN rail tracks and approximately 550 metres from Victoria Park. "' City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 15-12. 64 Page 418 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 The topography of the surrounding site is relatively flat with a slight downward slope towards Duke Street. Vegetation along the section of Victoria Street North that the Property is situated is sparse, with few properties having grass, trees, or other landscaped features. Observed land uses in the surrounding area include a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial. The buildings within the Property's immediate vicinity are typically low-rise, and generally do not exceed two -storeys in height. Victoria Street North is a two-way street with four lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and streetlights on both sides of the street. Heit Lane, situated to the rear of the Property, is a two-way, one lane street with no sidewalks or streetlights. The Property is located within Kitchener's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). Recognized as a regionally significant cultural heritage resource, the Warehouse District CHL (identified as L -COM -1) extends along the CN Rail line and is bounded by Glasgow Street, Dominion Street, Breithaupt Street, Francis Street, Victoria Street, and Belmont Street."$ 119 The Warehouse District is contextually important to the development history of Kitchener as an industrial manufacturing centre during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Supporting facilities including factories, warehouses for department stores, commercial enterprises, and residences for workers were established in the district. Within the Warehouse District, factory complexes, including the Kaufman Rubber Company building designed in 1908 by Albert Kahn (1869-1942), still stand. Residential neighbourhoods, typically constructed of brick masonry, in the immediate vicinity housed the workers of this industrial and commercial area. 120 5.4 Adjacent Heritage Properties The City defines adjacent as: ...lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. Using this definition, the Property is adjacent to one heritage property located at 70 Francis Street North which is a late 19th century Queen Anne style residence that is recognized for its design, physical, and contextual values (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The City's Statement of Significance for the property states: The building is an excellent example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features an asymmetrical plan; buff brick; rock -faced stone foundation; steeply pitched gable roof; projecting two storey bay with gambrel roof on south elevation; fan brackets with ornamental pendants; frieze board with simple dentillated trim; turret with steeply pitched polygonal roof; front door with raised panels, and a single light with beveled glass, three sidelights with beveled glass, and a transom with beveled glass; semi circular openings with radiating 118 Region of Waterloo. "Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources". 2018, 4. 119 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 2014 December, 24. 120 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 65 Page 419 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 voussoirs and moulded brick trim; 1/1 double hung windows with concrete sills; and, front porch. 121 Photo 20: View north showing 70 Francis Street North's primary elevation Photo 21: View northwest showing 70 Francis Street North's southeast and northeast elevations 121 City of Kitchener, "DTS-09-053," 7 April 2009. https:Hlf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/3wgyhgnl h3kw5yn2del 1 nzmt/3/DTS-09-053%20-%20Listing%20of%20Non- Des ignated%20Property %20of%20CUItural%20Herltage.pdf 66 Page 420 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 6 EVALUATION 6.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The Property located at 97 Victoria Street North was evaluated against O. Reg 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4 and 5 of this HIA. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 9. Table 9: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation for 97 Victoria Street North 67 Page 421 of 511 Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. - property has designor physical - becausei. is a rare, unique, representative, Yes The Property is a representative example of or early example of a style, type, a building developed using the industrial expression, material, or vernacular architectural style. construction method, The building on the Property was erected c. 1927 to serve an industrial purpose for the Mitchell Button Company who occupied the site for over four decades. Although the Property is a later addition to Kitchener's Warehouse District CHL, it nonetheless is a representative example of Kitchener's early 201h century industrial core. The Property's symmetry, decorative parapet over its primary fagade, shallow buttressing, and rectangular shape are representative aspects that reflect this building style. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Despite being a representative example of the industrial architectural style that was common in Kitchener in the early 20th century, the building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The Property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. It was constructed using common building methods at the time of construction. 67 Page 421 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 68 Page 422 of 511 Criteria Met JustificationCriteria 2. - property has historicalor associativebecause i. has direct associations with a Yes The Property has direct associations with theme, event, belief, person, Walter Mitchell and his company called the activity, organization, or `Mitchell Button Company' which operated institution that is significant to a within Kitchener for nearly 55 years. By community, direct extension of the Property's manufacturing use, the Property is directly connected with the theme of the City's industrial expansion that occurred throughout the early 20th century. ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or artist, builder, designer or theorist who is theorist who is significant to a significant to the community. The industrial community. vernacular building was built using common materials and methods at the time of construction. The Property's architect and/or general contractor are unknown. - ..-rX . - i. is important in defining, Yes The Property is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, and supporting the character of character of an area, the area. The Property is a former industrial building that contributes to the City's `Warehouse District' CHL. This area is defined by its industrial commercial development that occurred during the early 20th century and the concurrently built industrial vernacular structures. Because the Property was developed as an industrial building that was architecturally similar to other industrial properties within 68 Page 422 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met the Warehouse District, it helps to define its neighbourhood. In addition, the Property acts as a visual gateway into the Warehouse District because of its position at the edge of the district. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, Yes The Property is functionally and historically or historically linked to its linked to its immediate surroundings. surroundings, or In addition to its presence among the greater Warehouse District CHL that creates a link, the Property is directly adjacent to the City's primary rail junction. This connection is important because the Warehouse District's growth and development is connected to the ability for manufactured goods to be transported via the railway. Accordingly, the Property is directly connected to the neighbouring railway. In addition, the Property is among the first within the Warehouse District CHL that is seen by eastbound rail and vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is a symbolic gateway into Kitchener's Warehouse District. iii. is a landmark. No The Property is not a landmark. The MCM defines `landmark' as ...a recognizable natural or AEIV human -made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous... The Property does not meet this criterion. 6.2 Additional Considerations In order to understand the uniqueness and representative value of the physical features of 97 Victoria Street North as well as thematic associations outlined in the existing SOS, a comparative analysis of buildings of similar style, material, age, and massing within the Warehouse District was explored. Information was extracted from the City's municipal heritage 69 Page 423 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 register, existing SOS documents prepared by the City, and the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscapes report. Table 10 below displays other properties found within the `Warehouse District' that have been described as being built in the industrial vernacular architectural style. Note that this comparison is not a comprehensive list of Kitchener's industrial vernacular properties. Table 10: Comparative Examples of Industrial Vernacular Architecture in Kitchener's Warehouse District 111 Ahrens Street 1887 All elements related to the construction and West 122 Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • roof and roofline, including: flat roof; parapet wall; • door openings; • window openings, including: tripled 6/6 double hung windows per bay; stone headers and sills; • yellow brick construction; • stone foundation (original building); • concrete foundation (later buildings); • shallow buttressing between windows; • decorative cornice; o sign banding; and, • chimney. 113-151 Charles c. 1896 All elements related to the design and physical Street 123 value, including: • Complex of industrial vernacular buildings spanning the turn- of -the -20th century; • Breezeways interconnecting buildings; 122 City of Kitchener Development and Technical Services, "Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR," January 5, 2009, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=980089&search id=3f27fa99-22c1-4b0e-b538-65db618b4c75&dbid=0, 6-8 123 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Municipal Heritage Register Listings," May 5, 2015, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1371069&paqe=66&searchid=77bd49d5-a435-41 f5-af84- d4d89b5aadb2, 1-66 — 1-73 70 Page 424 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 124 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201&searchid=b55a7Oee-6eeO-49c4-a1f9-a01bfOcO4283&dbid =0, 8- 17-8-18 - 17-8-18 71 Page 425 of 511 • Painted signage on the exterior walls; Former administration and production buildings at the corner of Charles and Francis; • Former beam and storage house; Former leach house along Joseph Street; • Decorative brickwork; Lionhead tie roads; Segmentally arched windows with wood sashes and stone sills; • Generous floor to ceiling heights; • Wooden beams and flooring; Wooden staircases; Exposed structural columns and mechanical systems; • Freight elevators with wooden gates; and, • Metal fire separation doors with original weights and pulleys 283 Duke Street 1896; 1936; 1939 All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular West 124 architectural style of the buildings, including: • varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; off-white brick (now painted); • original windows, including 6/ 6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/ 6 windows in each bay; • original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; • slight brick work under the eaves; shallow buttressing; and entrance on 124 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201&searchid=b55a7Oee-6eeO-49c4-a1f9-a01bfOcO4283&dbid =0, 8- 17-8-18 - 17-8-18 71 Page 425 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 125 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31-2c2b-418b-b60c- 021b037427de&dbid=0, 3-17 — 3-20 72 Page 426 of 511 Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the buildings and contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes; • Proximity to the rail line; and, • Presence as a neighbourhood landmark. 72 Victoria Street 1903 All elements related to the construction and South 125 architectural style of the building, including: • all elevations of the building and additions; • red and yellow brick walls; • brick pilasters that separate the bays; • roof and roofline, including; flat roof; brick corbelling at the roofline; • window openings; • concrete sills and lintels; • brick voussoirs; • main entrance portico, including: Doric columns; Brick voussoirs; Semi -elliptical opening; rounded concrete steps; • tie rods and anchors; • yellow brick chimney; and • chimney clean out. All elements relate to the interior of the building, including: 125 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31-2c2b-418b-b60c- 021b037427de&dbid=0, 3-17 — 3-20 72 Page 426 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 126 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842-4b9d-a46d-1cabecacO483&dbid=0, 9- 139-9-145 - 139-9-145 73 Page 427 of 511 • exposed heavy timber (post and beam) construction with 4 -way steel post caps and metal stirrups, timber capital and support members; • original hardwood and concrete floors; • concrete and brick walls; • original wood ceilings; • original window on interior wall located at the ground floor loading entrance; • original freight elevator; • column base with concrete casings in basement; • original metal door and hardware in basement leading to storage units; • exposed cast iron sprinkler system; and, • interior foundation wall in basement. 130 Weber Street c. 1919 (original), All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular West 126 1946 (rebuild) architectural style with subtle Art Deco influences, including: • flat roof; • concrete • floral motifs and banding; • original window openings either with concrete sill or concrete window surround; • angled corner with entrance facing intersection; and, • concrete door surround. 126 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842-4b9d-a46d-1cabecacO483&dbid=0, 9- 139-9-145 - 139-9-145 73 Page 427 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Municipal Address.•- Attributes All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Breithaupt Street and Weber Street West streetscapes. When directly contrasting the structure located at 97 Victoria Street North with other early 20`h century industrial vernacular buildings, it becomes clear that it is not an early or unique example of the architectural style. Other industrial vernacular buildings, including several identified above, where constructed approximately 30 -years prior to the Property. 6.3 Summary of Evaluation In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. 6.4 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 6.4.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North has design and physical values because it is a representative example of an industrial building having been developed in the industrial vernacular architectural style; historical and associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community; and contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area and because it is physical, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. The building located at 97 Victoria Street North was built c. 1927 as an industrial warehouse for the Mitchell Button Company and has continued to serve as an industrial and/or commercial building until present day. The building is recognized as a contributing industrial property that supports the character of the City of Kitchener's Warehouse District cultural heritage landscape. The building was erected in the industrial vernacular architectural style that was common in Kitchener during the early 20th century. Architectural elements that define this style that are present on the property include its symmetry, flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade, shallow buttressing, use of red, yellow, and beige bricks, and 6/6 windows. 6.4.2 Heritage Attributes All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • Two storey height; • Symmetrical northwest (primary) fagade; 74 Page 428 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 • Flat roof with shaped parapet on the northwest (primary) fagade; • Shallow buttresses that define distinct bays along each of the building's elevations. • Brick construction comprising red, yellow, and beige brick; • Original window openings with soldier course brick headers and concrete sills; • Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade; and, • Chimney set in stretcher bonded, yellow brick with concrete banding. All elements related to the contextual value, including: Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District; and, • The link to the surrounding Warehouse District. 75 Page 429 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7.1 Massing, Access, and Setbacks The proposed new development seeks to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the building listed on the City's municipal heritage register located at 97 Victoria Street North. The first proposed addition is the inclusion of a third storey that will increase the building's height, and the second proposed addition is a single storey wing that will attach to the extant building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane (Figure 14 and Figure 15). The proposed development will permit the construction of a mixed use residential, commercial, and institutional building totalling a gross floor area of 2,639 m2 comprising 2,082 m2 of residential, support services, and common area space and 557 m2 of space dedicated to an updated St. John's Kitchen. The overall massing of the site is expected to increase as a result of the proposed development, mostly because of the proposed alterations to the building located at 97 Victoria Street North. The addition of a third storey (plus a mechanical penthouse situated towards the southern edge of the roof) and the addition of a new southwest wing will increase the amount of land that is developed and increase the height of the Property. Notwithstanding, the proposed southwest wing will be largely obscured from view from Victoria Street North because it will be situated behind the extant buildings located at 87 and 83 Victoria Street North. The proposed changes will not impact the Property's extant setback distances. The front (northwest) and rear (southeast) elevations will have a shallow setback, and the northeast and southwest elevations will be deeper, allowing for pedestrian and vehicular access. For pedestrian traffic, the site will be accessible from the space between 83 and 87 Victoria Street North, the space between 91 and 97 Victoria Street North, and form the driveway situated in the Property's southwest corner along Heit Lane. Vehicular access is provided via Heit Lane located to the Property's rear. Two dedicated staff parking spaces, one standard and one accessible, are located adjacent to the proposed southwest wing and are accessed via an approximately 6.3 metre wide and 17.5 metre long driveway. Six additional parking spaces, five standard and one accessible, are located in a small parking lot on the south side of Heit Lane that is adjacent to 97 Victoria Street North. In addition to parking areas, an approximately 28.5 -metre -long loading bay is situated along the proposed southwest addition and is accessible via Heit Lane (Figure 16). 76 Page 430 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 14: Rendering looking east showing the third -storey addition to the Property Figure 15: Rendering looking east showing the single -storey southwest wing addition to the Property n Page 431 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 VICTORIA STREET NORTH ,L i TT i r I �; I - 90 I 9 12 P�E]&YT F-iJIAVA,-�,r� ICs 1 111011 _ t �l -5 :..�, a•.�ti-i JI. A a3 FAe-3 W�54L.r I i - - HEIT LANE Figure 16: Site plan showing the proposed redevelopment 7.2 Architectural Design Several alterations will be made the to the listed heritage property located at 97 Victoria Street North. First is the replacement of all extant windows with contemporary counterparts. The purpose for this proposed alteration is twofold. First, the Owner is seeking to create a net -zero building. Accordingly, the proposed windows reduce the total glazed area, increase opaque/insulated area, and minimize mullion thermal breaks. Second, to allow for the maximum capacity of residential units, two units per structural bay is optimal. At present, there is one window per structural bay. An additional consideration was the ceiling height within the 78 Page 432 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 structure. To allow passage of the updated building systems, the ceiling must be dropped. The extant window openings are too tall and would conflict with this requirement. Due to the unit requirements and building systems considerations, therefore, the extant window design requires alterations. The project architect, bnkc, considered several window alternatives for the proposed design (Figure 17). Ultimately, it was decided to divide the extant window bays in two. The proposed new windows comprise a metallic frame, inset into the existing window openings found along each elevation, with two individual windows (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Second, the extant community outreach wing that branches off the Property's southwest corner will be removed to allow for the construction of a new, larger southwest wing. The proposed southwest wing will be clad in several materials. The primary, northwest elevation will comprise a 20.5 metre curtain wall with 2.3 metre curtain wall returns on either side. Flanking the curtain wall, and also on the northwest elevation, is an approximately 6.5 metre wall section to the west and approximately 8.5 metre wall to the east. Both of these wall sections will be clad in metal panelling (Figure 20). The southwest and southeast elevation will be clad in brick masonry. The roof of the proposed southwest wing is typically flat; however, a section of the roof is raised, creating a clerestory, and sloped upwards at 12 degrees. The sloped roof follows the dimensions of the 20.5 metre curtain wall situated along the northwest elevation of the proposed southwest wing. The highest point of the sloped roof is at the terminus of the curtain wall, and the lowest point is near the centre of the southwest wing. The upper portion of the curtain wall is proposed to have horizontally strung wooden louvres (Figure 21). Internally, the proposed southwest addition comprises exposed mass timber framing (Figure 22 and Figure 23). Third, a third -storey addition will be added to the extant building. The addition will be consistent in shape and size to the first two storeys and will remain similar in height (at 3.8 metres) to the 3.7 metre first storey and 4.1 metre second storey. The third storey addition is proposed to be clad in metal panelling and will have the same window style that has been proposed for the rest of the building. Along the building's primary, northwest elevation, the decorative parapet will remain, and the northwest wall of the third storey will be narrowly setback to accommodate the attribute. In addition, the northwest facing section of the setback will have a raised parapet. To create a visual buffer between the two storey heritage resource and proposed third storey, a narrow metal band circumnavigates the connection between the second and third storeys. Moreover, the structure's chimney will be incorporated into the addition, with the third storey addition wrapping around the detail. The roof of the third storey will typically be clad in photovoltaic panels towards the northwest elevation and will have the building's main mechanical penthouse situated towards the rear, southeast elevation. The mechanical penthouse will be clad in metal paneling and will add an addition 2.7 metres of height the structure. The structure will continue to have a flat roof (Figure 14). Fourth, the extant entrance centrally located along the building's southwest elevation will be redesigned and will protrude from the face of the building by just over 1.0 metre. The redesigned entrance will typically comprise glass, but metal panelling sections will be included between the first and second storey and at the top of the second storey (Figure 24). 79 Page 433 of 511 W � M i u d a+ LL _0 W i C .a .. o Jl . A a� 4) u u F CC W C) a CD W CD Z W O CD LU 2 CD Z W O J Ul � J J w Y � Q - V O I Q o6 LJ Q LU m Q o Z C w N � .0 W N W W Q Z 0 W CDS HrZ 3:z LL m O N Q Z (j) S ~ J Q O 0 Z i5 W J CD—0> Y L>u_ U) p� W 0 J W w r jGo D m Q O O a Q Z= pZ Q Ham— ZU) WH d WO �1E min W W D � z x� O i. -co C)Z 2 �� a= CN N O LU LU H W WO O_ 0 W�W' QH CD O p o CJ C) Z J J ~ z z 0 Z W Q Z Z D = W Z U, W C Z LL.0O LU GorW � W'(N p� OW W'2 W r W CD LU 0 W' W N �W00 LLQ CD Z w�0 z 00 LU -i > zWm Q z � Lu C) 0-TOJ� a(n LU w�C C)OWC) W LU U) W � M i u d a+ LL _0 W i C .a .. o Jl . A a� 4) u u F CC W C) a CD W CD Z W O CD LU 2 CD Z W O J Ul � J J w Y � Q - V O I Q �I , LJ m Q o Z C w N � .0 i5 W December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 18: Rendering of the northwest and northeast elevations showing the proposed windows Figure 19: Rendering of the northwest and southwest elevations showing the proposed windows 81 Page 435 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 21:Axonmnletriorendering ofthe proposed development showing the southwest wing's 82 Page 436 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 22: Internal rendering looking northeast within the proposed southwest wing Figure 23: Internal rendering looking west within the proposed southwest wing 83 Page 437 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 24: View of the proposed entrance on the southwest elevation 7.3 Description of Alteration to Heritage Resources The proposed development will impact two of the Property's heritage attributes identified in Section 6.4.2. First, adding a third storey to the building on the Property will change the identified `two storey height' attribute. Second, all extant windows will be removed from the building and will be replaced with contemporary counterparts. The proposed new windows are not the 6/6 style that is historically accurate for the Property and the greater Warehouse District within which it is located. 84 Page 438 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES 8.1 Potential Impacts to 97 Victoria Street North The MCM's Info Sheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include: 1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The Property located at 97 Victoria Street North was found to meet O. Reg. 9/06 and a list of heritage attributes was prepared for the Property. Table 11 below considers potential negative impacts identified by the MCM in relation to the identified heritage attributes. Table 11: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 97 Victoria Street North Two storey height Yes Alteration The proposed development proposes to add an additional storey to the extant two storey building which will make it three storeys in height. The proposed third storey will be 3.8 metres in height, which is consistent with the first storey (3.7 metres) and second storey (4.1 metres). In addition to the third storey addition, a mechanical penthouse will also be added to the building. The mechanical penthouse will add an additional 2.7 metres of height to the Property; however, it is located 85 Page 439 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion Impact Impact towards the southmost section of the building's roof. Symmetrical No None Although the northwest (primary) northwest fagade of the Property is being (primary) fagade altered through the addition of a third storey and the replacement of its windows, the symmetry of the fagade will remain unchanged. Flat roof with No None Although the proposed third storey shaped parapet on will alter the extant roof of the building the northwest on the Property, it will continue to (primary) fagade have a flat roof. The shaped parapet will also remain as -is. The section of the proposed third storey that is located to the rear of the parapet is setback from the wall face of the extant building, allowing the parapet to remain a prominent feature of the building. Shallow buttresses No None The proposed development will not that define distinct impact the bays that are divided by bays along each of the shallow buttressing along the the buildings' elevations. Modifications to the extant elevations. two-storey building are not anticipated to impact the arrangement and/or rhythm of the elevations. Brick construction No None The brick masonry that currently comprising red, comprises the building's cladding will yellow, and beige be largely unaffected as a result of brick the proposed development. Original window No None The extant window openings along openings with with their soldier course brick headers soldier course and concrete sills will be unaffected brick headers and as a result of the proposed concrete sills development. Six -over -six Yes Alteration All extant windows, including former windows on the windows that have been covered or infilled, will be removed and replaced 86 Page 440 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 northwest with contemporary counterparts (primary) fagade including the six -over -six windows currently observed on the building's northwest (primary) elevation. Each extant window bay will be infilled with two separate window sections. Both window sections comprise two glazed sections divided by a metallic mullion. The project architect, considered several window alternatives for the proposed redevelopment. Ultimately, due to the internal room layout, privacy and sustainability concerns, the proposed window design was selected. Chimney set in No None The chimney is currently obscured stretcher bonded, from view from the public realm from yellow brick with most angles. Accordingly, despite the concrete banding third storey addition building around the chimney, it will not have a ' significant impact on the attribute. Location of the No None The location of the building will not be building and impacted, and the building will contribution that it continue to support the character of makes to the the Warehouse District. continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District The link to the No None The character of the building will be surrounding unaffected, and the building will Warehouse District continue to support the character of the Warehouse District. 87 Page 441 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Property at 70 Francis Street North The seven potential impacts identified within the MCM's Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were also considered for the adjacent property listed on the City's municipal heritage register located at 70 Francis Street North (Table 12). The identified heritage attributes were taken from the City of Kitchener's Statement of Significance for the property. 127 Table 12: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 70 Francis Street North Irregular building No None The proposed development at 97 plan Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Buff brick laid in No None The proposed development at 97 common bond Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Rock -faced stone No None The proposed development at 97 foundation Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Projecting two No None The proposed development at 97 storey bay on Victoria Street North is not anticipated south elevation to have any negative impacts on the with gambrel roof property located at 70 Francis Street North. Modified gable No None The proposed development at 97 roof Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. 127 City of Kitchener, "DTS-09-053," 7 April 2009. https:Hlf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/3wgyhgnl h3kw5yn2del I nzmt/3/DTS-09-053%20-%20Listing %20of%20Non- Des ignated%20 Property%20of%20Cultura1%20Heritage.pdf ss Page 442 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Octagonal tower No None The proposed development at 97 with an eight -sided Victoria Street North is not anticipated conical roof to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Plain fascia, No None The proposed development at 97 moulded soffit, Victoria Street North is not anticipated and frieze with to have any negative impacts on the dentils and property located at 70 Francis Street mouldings North. Windows and No None The proposed development at 97 window openings, Victoria Street North is not anticipated such as the 1/1 to have any negative impacts on the windows with flat property located at 70 Francis Street rusticated lintels, North. the large first floor windows with half - round transoms. The 1/1 round topped windows with decorative surrounds and keystone, the three part oriel window; . the three section window with a two section elliptical - arch transom and brick label and, the two storey bay window with a bracketed pediment gable above Main entrance No None The proposed development at 97 door with single Victoria Street North is not anticipated light, sidelights to have any negative impacts on the with and transom property located at 70 Francis Street with beveled glass North. 89 Page 443 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.3 Potential Impacts to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape Potential impacts to the City's Warehouse District CHL are identified in Table 13, below. Appendix six of the CHL report indicates that the Warehouse District has historical integrity and that it retains both cultural and community value. The CHL report identifies several criteria for each of these three specific categories. The proposed alterations to the Property are measured against these criteria below. Table 13: Impact assessment for city's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape 90 Page 444 of 511 Historical Integrity Land Use — Continuity of No The proposed development will not alter Use the land use of the Property or any neighbouring properties within the Warehouse District. Built Elements — Original No The proposed development will not alter Groupings and Associated the grouping of sites within the Sites Warehouse District. View that Reflects No The character of the Warehouse District Landscape Character from as it appears in historic photos will be Historic Photos minimally impacted because of the proposed alterations. Designed Landscapes that No The proposed development will not Have Restoration Potential impose or destroy landscapes that have restoration potential. Cultural Value Design Value — Rareness or No The proposed development will not Uniqueness impact the rareness or uniqueness of the Property. 90 Page 444 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Attribute ImpactCHL Design Value — No The proposed development will have Aesthetic/Scenic Reasons minimal impact on the aesthetic and/or scenic value of the Warehouse District. Design Value — High Degree No The proposed development will have Technical/Scientific Interest minimal impact on the technical and/or scientific interest of the Warehouse District. Historic Value — Historic No The proposed development will have Understanding of Area minimal impact on the historic understanding and legibility of the Warehouse District. Historic Value — Direct No The proposed development will not Association with a Theme impact the associative value that the Event or Person]&— Property or Warehouse District has. Historic Value — Work of No The architect of the building on the Landscape Architect, Property was not identified and the Architect or Other Designer architectural value of the building is being largely retained. Contextual Value — No The proposed development will not Important in Defining the impact the Property's ability to help Character of Area define the character of the Warehouse District. Contextual Value — No The proposed development will not alter Historically, Physically, the Property's historical, physical, Functionally or Visually functional, or visual link to the Linked to Surroundings Warehouse District. Community Value Community Story — Tells No The proposed development will not Story of Area impact the Property's ability to contribute to the story of the Warehouse District. Community Image Identified No The proposed development will not with Kitchener's Provincial/ impact the City's reputation or any National Reputation contributing elements thereof. Genus Loci No The proposed development will not impact the sense of place that the Property contributes to the Warehouse District. 91 Page 445 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.4 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles 8.4.1 Standard and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Per the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (S&G), the proposal is a rehabilitation project, which is defined as "the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value." 128 Rehabilitation should be considered as the primary treatment when: a) Repair or replacement of deteriorated features is necessary; b) Alterations or additions to the historic place are planned for a new or continued use; and, c) Depiction during a particular period in its history is not appropriate. The S&Gs provide nine general standards along with three additional standards specific to rehabilitation projects. Table 14 below reviews the proposal's compliance with each pertinent standard. 128 Canada's Historic Places. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010. 17 92 Page 446 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Table 14: Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines 93 Page 447 of 511 Justification Criteria Criteria Met Conserve the heritage value of an Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is historic place. Do not remove, met. The Property's character defining replace or substantially alter its elements are proposed to be retained with intact or repairable character minor modifications. defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character - defining element. Conserve changes to an historic Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is place that, over time, have met. The defined heritage attributes took become character -defining into consideration the cultural heritage value elements in their own right. or interest of the main building as well as its two additions. All defined attributes are being proposed to be retained with minor modifications. Conserve heritage value by Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is adopting an approach calling for met. Although changes that will alter the minimal intervention. Property's scale and massing are proposed, the proposed changes are not anticipated to reduce its cultural value or interest. Recognize each historic place as Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is a physical record of its time, met. Both proposed additions to the place and use. Do not create a Property are distinguishable from the extant false sense of historical building and are products of their time. development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. Find a use for an historic place Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is that requires minimal or no met. The Property's use will remain largely change to its character -defining the same, with the addition of residential elements. suites. The necessary alterations will have minimal overall impact on the Property's character defining elements. Protect and, if necessary, n/a The management of archaeological stabilize an historic place until resources has not been considered as part any subsequent intervention is of this HIA. 93 Page 447 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met 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. Evaluate the existing condition of Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements to met. Interventions surrounding the determine the appropriate Property's character defining elements are intervention needed. Use the proposed to be cautiously applied. gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. Maintain character -defining Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining met. Character defining elements that have been altered, including the window bays, are elements by reinforcing their proposed to be repaired and replaced as materials using recognized part of the project. conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, -- 'WOO where there are surviving prototypes. +�► Make any intervention needed to Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is preserve character -defining met. Proposed interventions for character - elements physically and visually defining elements will be compatible with the compatible with the historic place Property. and identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. Repair rather than replace Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements. met. Although replacement of certain Where character -defining character -defining elements is proposed, elements are too severely such interventions will be compatible with deteriorated to repair, and where the Property and will not impose negative sufficient physical evidence consequences on its heritage value. exists, replace them with new 94 Page 448 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Criteria Met Justification elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. Conserve the heritage value and Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements when met. Proposed additions and alterations to creating any new additions to an the Property are compatible with, historic place or any related new subordinate to, and distinguishable from the construction. Make the new work extant building. physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place Create any new additions or Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is related new construction so that met. Alterations to the building's identified the essential form and integrity of heritage attributes are reversible. an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. 8.4.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties To help guide heritage conservation within Ontario, the MCM has defined eight principles to be considered when undertaking projects. Table 15 below assesses the proposal's compliance with all eight principles. Table 15: Compliance with the Eight Guiding Principles 95 Page 449 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met Respect for historical material Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Minimal alterations are proposed to be made to the elevations of the existing structure. The proposed new windows are not historically accurate; however, given the proposed internal layout of the structure and the owner's desire to create an environmentally conscious product, the proposed alterations will have little overall impact. Respect for original fabric Yes In the context of this project, this criterion in met. Repair work and alterations proposed for the existing building are proposed to be completed with like materials that are compliant. Respect for the building's history n/a The proponent is not proposing to restore the Property to a known former state. Reversibility Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Alterations to the building's identified heritage attributes are reversible. Legibility Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Both proposed additions to the Property are distinguishable from the extant building and are products of their time. Maintenance n/a This criterion is beyond the scope of this HIA. 8.5 Summary of Potential Impacts Potential impacts related to the proposed development were explored above in Table 11. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the building's two storey height and it's six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. No adverse impacts were identified for the adjacent heritage property listed on Kitchener's municipal heritage register located at 70 Francis Street North or the broader Warehouse District CHL. In addition, the proposed alterations to the Property are in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Table 14) and the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (Table 15). To help mitigate the potential impact to the identified heritage attributes, mitigation measures are outlined in Section 9 below. 96 Page 450 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 9 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 9.1 Considered Options The following range of possible development alternatives was explored. All options have been considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3 of this HIA. The options have considered existing conditions. The preferred option is identified. 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use This option would leave the Property as is and the existing building would remain in situ. As the Property is currently being used for commercial purposes, either the same or another commercial enterprise would retain the current use of the building. The `do nothing' option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property, or the adjacent heritage property located at 70 Francis Street as there would be no changes made. However, in the context of the needs of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use This option would leave the existing building in situ; however, the building would be used in a different way. Based on the observed existing conditions, the building could support a variety of uses. This option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or the adjacent heritage property located at 70 Francis Street as there would be no changes made An alternate use could result in direct impacts to the Property as renovations are undertaken to allow for the reuse. Because the building has had numerous owners and tenants throughout its commissioned life, modifications are likely to have already occurred to both internal and external elements of the building. At present, internal modifications pose little risk to the Property's heritage attributes because all attributes are external. In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, on-site retention in alternate use is not a viable option as it does not address the needs of this site related to housing and services. 9.1.3 Option 3: Retention of Entire Structure and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the retention of the building located at 97 Victoria Street North and its integration into the new development per the proposal. During the design phase, architectural detailing and material selection can help mitigate potential adverse impacts. This option would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or adjacent heritage properties as the design and changes would be managed with heritage conservation in mind. 9.1.4 Option 4: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop This option would seek to demolish the existing building while being designed to avoid impacts on the adjacent heritage properties. 97 Page 451 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Based on the foregoing research and analysis, 97 Victoria Street North meets the criteria established in O. Reg. 9/06. Its removal would therefore result in an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property and the loss of all heritage attributes. Furthermore, the loss of the building at 97 Victoria Street North would have an adverse impact on the Warehouse District CHL. 9.2 Preferred Option Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred option. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North, and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. 9.3 Mitigation Measures As outlined in Table 11, potential adverse impacts were identified for the following heritage attributes: • Two storey height; and, • Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Mitigation measures are required to ensure the conservation of these heritage attributes Both proposed additions — the third storey and the new wing situated towards the south of the Property's west elevation — will connect directly to the structure's extant masonry. Detailed design and construction of this addition should involve or be overseen by a qualified professional with experience working on brick masonry heritage buildings. In addition, it is recommended that the project team, in consultation with the City of Kitchener, review alternatives to replacement of the six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Previous recommendations suggested that if retention of the windows on the primary fagade is not feasible, replacement windows should mimic the existing windows to the extent possible. It is recommended that the replacements be planned and overseen by a qualified professional with experience working on masonry buildings to lessen potential for unanticipated impacts on the brick surrounding the openings. To minimize the potential for unintended impacts resulting from project construction, a conservation plan (CP) — prepared by a qualified heritage professional — is recommended to be developed for this project. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plan. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The CP should include guidance for any immediate interventions required prior to removals and construction, guidance for stabilization during removals and construction, and 98 Page 452 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 guidance for repairs and long-term maintenance following construction of the new development. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). 99 Page 453 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of The Working Centre, to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North in the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes for the Property are provided in Section 6 of this HIA. This HIA was prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and its surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MCM's Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. In LHC's professional opinion, the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the Property's two storey height and six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored. It was determined that Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred alternative. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. The City may require a Conservation Plan (CP) for this project. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plans. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). 100 Page 454 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 11 SIGNATURES Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services 101 Page 455 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 REFERENCES Policy and Legislation Resources Canada's Historic Places. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/l 8072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. City of Kitchener. "City of Kitchener Official Plan." Last modified November 19, 2014. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of Kitchen er_Official_Plan_2014.pdf. ---. "Community Services Department Report No. CSD -14-036: Listing of Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register." Last modified May 6, 2014. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=813197&searchid=4c82bf5b-2e5e- 4893-b1 e0-89f96864b850&dbid=0 ---. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 2014 December, 24. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CHL_Study_Ap pendix_6_CH L_Data_Sheets.pdf ---. "Development and Technical Services Report No. DTS-09-053: Listing of Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register." Last modified April 7, 2009. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=959017&searchid=9bbOd8a8-f1 db- 46d3-aa7a-4ebb0f73ec42&dbid=0 "Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest." Last modified October 24, 2017. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR_LEG_I ndex_of_Non- Designated_Properties.pdf ---. "HOLDING PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 10," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20F%20 -%20Hold ing%20Provision s%20for%20Specific%20Lands//10H.pdf ---. "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 116," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20C%20 -%20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//116U.pdf ---. "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 403," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20C%20 -%20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//403U.pdf 102 Page 456 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 ---. "SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS 105," last modified December 12, 2016, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20D%20 -%20Special%20Reg ulation%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//105R.pdf ---. "Urban Design Manual: Part A Urban Structure & Built Form, City -Wide," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_UDM_01_City_ Wide_Design.pdf, ---. "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_UDM_05_Downt own.pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 85-1." Last modified August 27, 2018. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of%2OCo ntents.pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 85-1: Section 17 Warehouse District Zone D-6," Zoning By-law 85-1, Last modified March 12, 2012, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section% 2017%20-%20Warehouse%20District%20Zone%20(D-6).pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 2019-051." Last modified December 24, 2021. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw2019/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of% 20Contents.pdf ---. "Zoning bylaw." Development and construction. Last modified 2021. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning- bylaw.aspx. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. "Heritage Conservation Principles for Land use Planning." Last modified 2007, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/I nfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Plan ning.pdf ---. "Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf. ---. "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.p df ---. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_I E_Process.pdf. 103 Page 457 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Province of Ontario. "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe." Last modified August 2020. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place- to-grow-office-consolidation- en-2020-08-28.pdf. ---. "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25." Last modified September 8, 2022. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. ---. "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified October 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 ---. "O. Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance - Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified January 25, 2006. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010. "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13." Last modified June 1, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl 3. ---. "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13." Last modified July 1, 2022. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl 3. "Provincial Policy Statement 2020 — Under the Planning Act." Last modified May 1, 2020. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020- 02-14.pdf. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan." Last modified October 2002. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the- region/resources/Documents/artsmasterplan.pdf. "Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources". 2018. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the- region/resources/Documents/Guideline_for_Conserving_RSCHR.pdf ---. "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan." Last modified June 18, 2015. https://www. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-govern ment/land-use-plan n i ng.aspx. Mapping Resources Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E. "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8 west half, third edition, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1956. Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E., "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map 104 Page 458 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8 west half, edition 4, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Army Survey Establishment, 1963. Author unknown, "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and- atlases/waterloo-region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:11,880, 1879. Brosius M., "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and- atlases/waterloo-region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, Madison, Wis: J.J. Stoner, 1875. City of Berlin, "City Plan for Greater Berlin Canada Showing Waterloo", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:800, Toronto: n.a., 1912 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Appendix 6", December 2014 Chas E. Goad, "Kitchener Berlin", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, scale 1:600, Toronto & Montreal: Chas E. Goad, 1894 rev. 1904. Kitchener OnPoint Map Viewer, "2003 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2006 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022). ---, "2009 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022). ---, "2012 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2017 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2021 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 6, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1980 105 Page 459 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 7, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1984. Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsporta1.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 5, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1972 Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, The Canada Centre for Mapping, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/ queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 8, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1994 Natural Resources Canada, The Centre for Topographic Mapping, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 9, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 1998. Department of Militia and Defence, "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of Militia and Defence, 1916. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1936. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of 106 Page 460 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1938. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1929. Department of National Defence, "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1923. Geo. R. & G.M. Tremaine, "Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West", (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27da17 467492d2f: accessed September 27, 2022), Ontario Historical County Maps, scale 1:39,600, Toronto: Geo. R. & G.M. Tremaine, 1861. Schofield, M.C., "Map of part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo C.W.", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:6,336, Buffalo: Compton & Gibson, 1853-1854. Simpson, A.W., "Plan of Lots Drawn from M.C. Schofields Map of the Town of Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:1,584, Toronto: Maclear & Co., 1856 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS Community Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ont.", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, microfiche, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1947. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ontario", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1925. 107 Page 461 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. https://mdl.library. utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern- ontario/index. University of Waterloo, "Photo IM30, 1930 Photo", (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed September 27, 2022), 1930 ---. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo IM30. 1945. https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html ---, "Photo IM30, 1945 Photo", (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed September 27, 2022), 1945 Archival Resources Ancestry, "County of Waterloo, Division of Berlin Marriages," 1906. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/l 03668612:7921 Library and Archives Canada. "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]" 1821. Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa. Ontario Land Registry. "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 374." Historical Books https://www.onIand.ca/ui/58/books/83201/viewer/589836728?page=1 Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1926-1927 to 2014. Additional Resources City of Kitchener. Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012. ---, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31- 2c2b-418b-b60c-021 b037427de&dbid=0 ---, "Municipal Heritage Register Listings," May 5, 2015, ttps://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1371069&page=66&searchid=77bd 49d5 -a435-41 f5-af84-d4d89b5aadb2 ---, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201 &search id=b55a70ee- 6eeO-49c4-a1 f9 -a01 bfOc04283&dbid=0 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, 108 Page 462 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842- 4b9d-a46d-1 cabecac0483&dbid=0 City of Kitchener Development and Technical Services, "Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR," January 5, 2009, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=980089&searchid=3f27fa99-22cl - 4b0e-b538-65db618b4c75&d bid=0 Elby, Ezra. A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county. Volume 1. Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895. Ellis, Chris, and D. Brian Deller. "Paleo-Indians." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 37-63. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Bross Studio, 1996. Groat, Cody. "Six Nations of the Grand River." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 18, 20202. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of- the-grand-river. McLaughlin, Kenneth. "Kitchener-Waterloo." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 24, 2017. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener- waterloo. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation." Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Last modified 2018. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-M NCFN-FI NAL.pdf. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener. Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History. Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979. Six Nations. "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784." Lands and Resources. Last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. Six Nations Elected Council. "Community Profile." Six Nations of the Grand River. Last modified 2013. http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm. Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. "History of Six Nations." Accessed https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. Six Nations Tourism. "History." https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/ 109 Page 463 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 The Working Centre, "About Us," n.d. https://www.theworkingcentre.org/about-us/82 University of Waterloo, "The Working Centre's founders receive honorary doctorates," 201 9.https://uwaterloo. ca/arts/news/worki ng -centres -fou nders-receive-honorary- doctorates Waterloo Region Museum. "History of Waterloo Township."https://www.waterlooregionmuseu m. ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo- township.aspx#note1. 110 Page 464 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX A Project Personnel Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP — Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi -disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Ben Daub, MA, BAT (Hons.) — Heritage Planner Ben Daub joined LHC in May 2022 as a junior heritage planner as he worked towards completing his master's degree in urban planning at the University of Waterloo. In addition to his now completed master's degree, Ben also holds a Bachelor of Applied Technology in Architecture — Project and Facility Management from Conestoga College. Through his education, Ben has gained a detailed understanding of the built environment at a range of geographic- and site-based scales. Professionally, Ben has gained experience working in the heritage planning domain over his time with LHC where he has written heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage evaluation reports, and official plan amendments. In addition, Ben has previous experience working in real estate development and facility management. In academic settings, Ben has also held various research and teaching assistant positions, enabling him to hone his research capacities. Lisa Coles, MPI — Heritage Planner Lisa Coles is a Heritage Planner with LHC. She holds a Master of Arts in Planning from the University of Waterloo, a Graduate Certificate in Museum Management & Curatorship from Fleming College, and a B.A. (Hons) in History and French from the University of Windsor. Lisa has over five years of heritage sector experience through various positions in museums and public sector heritage planning. She is excited to have the opportunity to work in all aspects of the heritage field and to build on her previous experience as part of the LHC team. 111 Page 465 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) — Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science (GIS) and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies from Queen's University. Jordan joined the LHC team shortly after graduating and during her time at the firm has contributed to over 100 technical studies. Jordan has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to project mapping Jordan has also begun to develop interactive maps and tools that will contribute to LHC's internal data management. She has also taken on the role of Health and Safety representative for the firm. Between graduation and beginning work with LHC her GIS experience allowed her the opportunity to briefly volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Jordan is excited to continue her work with LHC to further develop her GIS skills and learn more about the fields of heritage and archaeology. 112 Page 466 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on the Ontario Heritage Act, (OHA), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP), and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP). Adjacent Lands means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS). Adjacent means lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. (OP). Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb and "alteration" has a corresponding meaning ("transformer", "transformation") (OHA). Archaeological assessment means the combined background research and field study of a property evaluated as moderate to high on Archaeological Potential Maps approved by the Province that identify the presence of and interpretation of the archaeological resources on the property, and make recommendations for the mitigation of the impacts on the resources. Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a Provincially licensed archaeologist, in accordance with reporting guidelines established by the Provincial Government and must address the entire area of the development application. (ROP). Archaeological potential means the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (OP). Built heritage resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions. (ROP). 113 Page 467 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by included on local, Regional, Provincial and/or Federal registers. (OP). Community Character refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image, identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community character is intended to foster community pride. (OP). Conserve/conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. (ROP). Conserve/Conserved/Conservation means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a heritage conservation plan, archeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. (OP). Compatibility/Compatible means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly interpreted to mean "the same as" or even as "being similar to". (OP). Contiguous means lands that are situated in sufficiently close proximity such that development or site alteration could reasonably be expected to produce one or more of the following impacts: alterations to existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes; clearing of existing vegetation; erosion and sedimentation; or producing a substantial disruption of existing natural linkages or the habitat of a significant species. (ROP). Culture/Cultural is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. (OP). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment means a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of 114 Page 468 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended. (ROP). Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. (ROP). Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities. (OP). Cultural heritage resources are the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: • buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); • cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); • structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); • monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); • archaeological resources; • cemeteries; • scenic roads; • vistas/viewsheds; • culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); • movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and • cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts). (ROP). Cultural Heritage Resources means includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. (OP). 115 Page 469 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act. (ROP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, the construction of buildings and structures or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that substantially increases the size or usability of the site, requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; and, b) works subject to the Drainage Act. (OP) Heritage Attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g., significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). (PPS). Heritage Corridors means streets or multi -use pathways which because of their unique structural, topographic and visual characteristics, as well as abutting vegetation, built environment and cultural landscape, historical significance or location within a Heritage Conservation District are recognized as a cultural heritage resource and are intended to be conserved. (OP). Heritage Attributes means the principle features or elements that contribute to a cultural heritage resource's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a cultural heritage resource. (OP). Heritage Conservation District means a geographic area primarily made up of a group of buildings, streets and open spaces which collectively contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the area. (OP). Heritage Conservation District Plan means a document that provides policies and guidelines to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage values of the district. The document includes a statement of objectives, a statement of the district's cultural heritage value or interest, a description of the district's heritage attributes, policies, guidelines and procedures for achieving stated objectives and managing future change, and a description of external alterations or classes of external alterations that are of minor nature that an owner can carry out without obtaining a permit. (OP). Heritage Conservation Plan means a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment but is typically a separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include descriptions of repairs, stabilization and preservation activities as well as long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures. (OP). 116 Page 470 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment means a document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate. (OP). Identify/Identified (in regard to cultural heritage landscapes) means designate for the purposes of the Regional Official Plan. (OP). Municipal Heritage Register means a register maintained by the City of Kitchener, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, which includes protected heritage properties and properties listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. (OP). Property means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon. (OHA). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;. property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (OP). Qualified Person for the purposes of cultural heritage resources, means an individual including a professional engineer, architect, archaeologist, etc., having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (OP). Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS). 117 Page 471 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX C City Directory Records Sources: 1927-1929: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory. Vernon and Sons Publishing. Hamilton, On. 1929-1938: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Miscellaneous, Alphabetical, Street and Business Directory. Vernon and Sons Publishing. Hamilton, On. 1939-1947: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. 1948-1966: Kitchener -Waterloo City Directories Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. 1967-76: Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, ON. 1977-2014: Cities of Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. Address.. 1926-1927 City Directory N/A N/A 1928-1929 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Cc Ltd 1929 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Cc Ltd • i City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell, Button Cc Ltd 1931 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1932 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc 1933 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc •4 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 118 Page 472 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• Woeller Upholstering Cc 1935 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc 1936 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Co 1938 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Co •40 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Vacant 1941 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Vacant 1942 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1943 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd •44 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1945 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1946Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1947 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Cc Ltd •4: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Cc Ltd •4• City Directory 119 Page 473 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1950 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1951 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1960 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1963 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1964Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd 1965 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd 1967 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.• City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics Ltd 1970 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant 1971 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant 1972 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre 1973 City Directory 120 Page 474 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre 1974 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre Directory1975-1976 City 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre Moir Press Schattens Canada Ltd 1977 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Project Release Project Coming Together Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Vacant Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1978 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Resource Centre Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1979 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Eulenberg Audio Developments 121 Page 475 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:0 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Sound Audio Symposium Ont Ltd Warehouse Between the lines Publishing Co Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1981 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Vacant Schattens Canada Ltd Sound Audio Symposium Ont Ltd Warehouse Between the lines Publishing Co Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1982 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent de Paul Crown Acoustics Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1983 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent de Paul Crown Acoustics Ltd 122 Page 476 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •. Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:4 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tandy Crown Ltd Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1985 City Directory129 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1987 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 129 An inventory of Kitchener's industrial buildings entitled "An Inventory of Industrial Buildings of Architectural/Historical Significance in the City of Kitchener" compiled by James Campbell, Malcolm Horne, and Diane Kolaritsch identified that a company called A & G Mechanical Contractors Ltd. owned the Property; however, no evidence suggests that they occupied the lot. 123 Page 477 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• •:• City Directory Society of St Vincent de Paul 97 Victoria Street North Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets 1990 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets 1991 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography 124 Page 478 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 1995 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets 1997 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo Elsworthy Cabinets 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 000 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop 125 Page 479 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 2001 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North No Return St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 2002 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography 2003 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow ;9!7ictoria Mode Photography ictoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography ®r. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2007 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography 126 Page 480 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 00: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 00• City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 2010 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project St John's Kitchen The Working Centre logo Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project NL St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2012 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2013 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mode Photography Psychiatric Outreach Project 127 Page 481 of 511 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2014 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mode Photography Psychiatric Outreach Project los�� St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 128 Page 482 of 511 Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N 0 a m T LO O cY) co N c6 M E E X � X 0 O O m ca ca � 0 0 C Q N N O X J J J J J X O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O fl- O O O CO M Ln N N M N X X > L O(� L0 U V m T cu C6 C O ca N L cu J L L L L CL .c O Q O Q N N U) H (n 2 (n w L > > > ^, W L L fn fn fn cuNOo 0_x =3_COY � m of W cu W �C�xx� W cu OO N C6 L� m L ,V L i L cu L L -E L L �_ cu C ``Q^^_ VJ co co N�N0 Y. ccL G rrCL VJ NNN LAS ''Q^^_ VJ NNS w T 2 LO LO O O d7 d7 L L O L♦ " r r L C4 E E fn fn E cu U O O Q Q L CO 00 Z N Z N O O O M Mm m — O Ln M LO O N N M M N N N i� in N N 0) cu E E E E Q C Q(D >� U� O C) >- > M N M O 0 M N M LL m Ln O O N O O N N N Z 00 0 � N Z— Z N N O N N N cu cu O 0 0 cu L y0 L yO) L L m 2 2 0 .2� CD w N N w 1l- Il- r r a) T- T" T N N N m T LO O cY) co N c6 Cl) Cl) Cl) O U J U O 0- LO 0 co N c6 m � X SO C X U) c6 J X X c6 J X X c6 J X X c6 J p LO Q X E o Q X E p Lr) Q X E U) c6 J O O O O O O O O O O O O X X �M cO LO � mM N O 00 6 cA /3 i Q U) L L a) T C O E L O � Q U) L OR `V L Q cA L (ccn C E c6 2 � Q3 E W X T > (6 _ C-6 Q] Q E c6 2 j E W c6 E =3 (13 m J o o 0U) X i CD C-6 c6 CL U) L o L U 2 U) c E in ii cu CJ C6 Q U) L m �° cu v, U` 06 C6 n in L m � E c T- 77D0 � c6 E w X 'E Q cin X L 0 � 'E Q LM L L L L Q) OD Q] -0 U O) 0')-0 c6 2: O W U LO O) Q] -0 U LO O) Q] -0 U LOQ) O) -0 E Cl) m 0) co m co r rn m CO M CO CO CO r Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) N E Q) 0 N M co LO N Cf) O) � E Q) 0 LO O) t E Q) 0 LO O) t E Q) Q) 0 LO O) In CO O) O) N E 0 CO O) O) N E N N 0 CO O) N 00 (3) a) a) Q) 0) 0) 0) c6 LO c6 c6 c6 CD 76- 0 0 .2: O 0 O 0 p .2� X X (n In p (n m CD (D r- w ti ti ti ti rn CV 1- N 00 00 r G) O w w to 00 04 Cl) Cl) M M CO) Cl) M M LO 0 co N c6 Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N O 0- LO 4- 0 LO co N (6 0 E E 0 0 cn cn N r- Op 7 7 N (O to (n N X X ca ca (B X X p J ca ca ca L o o o IT LO m Lo X o 0 0 Q J J M J M Q Q X J J J O O O O O O O Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O (0 f— N cu > o O O > O Lo 0 N p p N N X x 'L d •L•L c d •L L O G N N m C7 a:x O C� X O O _ _ _ Q L U H U L U = L U H U L U L U E N X X cu > O m > O c6 cu Lcu p L N J U �, T—U E N U cu 7 m L d L •L I L •L d •L y� to p V N E -0 0 O� 0 O� 0 /IL �/ 2 S N E •L � W U J L U a H U L U W U L U L cu U = 00 E LLcn H U' U U' ca c0 c0 c0 c0 N m m m m O N O N L L N O d7 O E E Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ NN cu N N N N X N- N N L 07 Q c0 07 Q c0 07 Q c0 07 Q c0Q L O L Q O L Q O 0) Q O N L N d7 m d7 m d7 m d7 m X X � m — — m — — 'IT 0) — — r 0) M r V' O 0) N LL N N N N cu N cu O 0 (n m U)(n m 2 X m 2 X X ca C� I- 00 00 00 a) a) O O M O T" w N w (U G1 ti w 00 CA CO) 00 CO) 00 CO) 00 le 00 le 00 O N O N N M N M T" (O M CO) M CO) co le le I le le LO 4- 0 LO co N (6 0- LO 0 S m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- / x 7cu / 0 x \ / e ± ± R e x s s 7 2 2 \ƒ 2 2 $ \ m q e e e® $ ± ± 0 f 7 0 $ $ 2 7 7 @ A\ 7 7 = 7 7 \ \ 7 E \ \ E 0 E \ E E C) E / E / \ / \ \ \ \ \ / / \ / t a n o / ƒ [ E 2 q E x o k o 0 a 2 0 0 / $/ $ X \ = O £ ® ƒ k m c o 2 2 \ o 0 2/ / � s g & § U) E 0 \ E $ » f - 7 m @ § c - _ @ .> / / \ E ± / _ f E % 2 2 O \ 0 2 \ R e \ \ E.2 .> § § $ G $ 2 § § $ % \ C $ ® u 3 3 uj o ƒ ƒ ƒ )® 7 2 E I a - % / % % o m .- . 2 \ w w \ \ \ \ § \ \ § 3 § & / / \ \ \ co 00 / q ƒ / � 2 2 0 0 _\ ' / / / Q R / \ / / \ \ 2 2 LO \ K % / c q q w c c » 3 @ » § j j ° / 0 » o = cu LL N C N � � K M ® 3 (0 / o e A o o w o e o m o w e o 0 0 w \ c & A A- m \ \ \ cu ° \ \ 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / 2 0 / \ \ a / / / / 2 I- J m q k I- 2 q q 2 2 2 2 2 o) 04 0 co w Iq le LO LO U) LO w w a) 0) m LO 0 S m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N O O_ LO O ti co (6 X x CB U U U N N N N N N N M N N (6 (B (B NF N (6 N (6 45 4 � N � O O O O LO O O O O O O Of X LL > E > E O O o 1- O O O O O O O Ln O (.0 O (D N Ltd OO N N 06 Lo U (6 E cl U),O J Q = O � T -O L N NLL > 06 Lj V 06 (n LL L. U) LL Q N W (n W L W W C LL > LL > LL L > FD U 0 U 0U) >_ 2 O2Q O� ° w 2 2O X r x En m N N NA♦♦ � _ J O (j N V) U N 'L ) Qi c U L N 1'L I..L LL LL LL U- _ ^, We 0 1' 1L I..L �L LL �L l 11L I..L W W cu N W W L L coa� cu =3 W L L > >cu O O W W S 00 O W W O O ' 00 O LOMLO O: Ln CF) L L n E E Ln O LO O O N N 7 7 7 C C > > > i+ O7 IT 07 N O co Z� Z � Q Q Q °Ln Z O Ln M O O O O Ln O O O O M M N M N N CO L L L 7 MQ co > 00 > CO O O Q O Q Q 7 t O � O O O O -,t-,tLO O O O O LO O Lo O L(7 N O O LO O O LO O N LO O O r— U) M Z— M Z— N— N N— N O N N N N N N U U 0) N _N� L � X L X X X E Q (B � X U o U o 0x X C� M M 00 00 1- 00 01 Iq w le CA 00 O w w w le LO a) Cil N M le T- T- N w 1- 1- O r O N N N CA CA Cf1 Q1 r r r r r r LO O ti co (6 0- LO 0 m m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- \ X d d / d e / / / $ » $ » 2 e $ » $ » 2 e 7 ? / \ 2 2 2\ 2 2\ \ 7 \ / \ 0 / E E / c \ c \ \ 0 \ 2 7 c 0 2 7> 0 2 7 2 7> 0 00 E o E/ E 0 E E / / \ ±00 cl L CN \ < % / § / § \ $ ) \ \ $ \ $ ƒ 2 ƒ ƒ R e a e a 2 2 2w 7 \ / -\ / / \ \ \ \ i / \ 7 \ / \ 3 3 a) U) % E \ % § £ \ cu / cuf / In 2 2 \ 7 \ _ E— 0 U) o g 2 & 0 a 6 e a x o \ / � E\ \ / a \ E\ / / » \ 3 o f 0 0° § o— -CE 0 0 E I 2/ R 2 O ±\ u± 2 E m m ° \ \ 0 0 # 0 # 0 # ? ƒ n \ L \ n \ r ? 2 \ 2 \ 2 \ < o \ $ \ $ < CO c CO c A A E E 2 E E 2 = 7 = CL / CL / / / CL % % 0 ° o % o $ 9 < b 0 m 0 0 g— 0 m 0 o g n o A m A e n o m e c A o e e e _ A o \ \ \ \ o U) k 0 ) \ = 7 k 2 2 O E c m \ 2 ƒ% -0 / q \ o CD k w w w k T- T- T- T- / CO) co � LO 0 m m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- 0- LO 0 m m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- ) � (0 o \ E ® E § \ \ 0 / k / 2 9 0 2 \ \ \ \ o d \ \ ƒ x C:) / �9 0 6 0 0 o e \ / - \ \ < ± $ q ± q � 2 m \_ § 2 m § S2 \ k k \ \ \ a E 2 E L E 2 E E\ 2 c ƒ E o E c ƒ E 0 $ c $ k \ 7 / > \ / > \_ / k mƒ � m ƒ \ ± m c k 2 C/) 2 \ 2 / 3 § 2 % / \ \ \ [%[= [\ c o o 0 E E n = E 2 0 0 £% o= E o O£ R\ q I a I o 2 2 2 E 2 2 > t- 2 k E F \ e®/ f O f 3 O d\$ $ 2 E@ _ 7 o$ 2 f o m%\ E 7 E/ 7 \ 2 E § g \\ 3 E 7[[ E E ± :R \_ \_ / / / \ § ƒ d / % \ / / o ° I / / m m 7 » § � \ \ 0) \ f 7 \ / LL # / 2 / k ¥ w \ 2 \ % & Q c & = & o n 2 7 § 2 / 7 / 7 / ? LL o % 2 e 2 / 2 /% 2/ 2 \ƒ$ x £ f _ 0 \ E m o 0E 0 0 2 \ 2 0 / � 2 \ $ co 1- $ I 2 1 - LO � q k 2 g k 04 04 04 04 q q LO 0 m m 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N O 0- LO 4- 0 0 rn W (6 LO c� 3 U r- LO O L LO M J N M X o J � Q O N In >� U O J J O LO d M O O 00 O O O O OO O O O O O O O O N a7 r - X c W c fn O W (B / u H O C CU Q W O O c cn (B c O E E N O O W N E d O J - N E ECL 'O c cu 'O 1=O -O V �_ _ -O J _ E N L Q O _ L O cu (ocu C- co (0 � — N ca ca of m s ca (n a) N c cn a) E E C E L O 2 c E L V_ > O > CU a) 0 cu(B =3 O O > a) 7 O N U d U U d O U d U > 0 m cl _ C-6 O N LU C c C-6 C: C-6 N . \ U co m U cu m U N(c6 L -_ -p N CU -0 N (C6 _ W W N d J u- E d J 15 E d J mcn CL cn O mcn W U) U > U > U U' m W m m C Q f m L ^L^ll W L c L E E � E � OQ Z r- LL co Q < W O co O) In co O) (O O) Il- N co O) N - N - r L L L ^L^ll W E E c n E N N LI- co O O O O)f-- O m co O m co O CO CO O m N Z — Z LL Z O X o _0 _m O _0) X Q E o CD r w rn rn v o LO o r N N LO LO w 0) 0) T- CO) CO) CO) M le LO 4- 0 0 rn W (6 0- LO 0 0') 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- m \ C) (5/ 0 2 / / k cu LO LO \ E R m/ 2 E o 3 R = -i 0 \ $ e \ » 2 \ \ \ \ \ / 7 a e f ) % k / 2 k 2 // 0 \ \\ E f 5 2 e± 0- $ C) \ C) E / ? 2 & m q m < ± C/) ƒ k § § § f 6 2 % m -J % % % = 2 c s 2 a % g E 0 a c a ( a % I O E S 2 0 o E\ E\ E\ O // u $ c $ 2 2 / \ 0 $ § § § 3 7 2 f 2 f 3 f 0 � 2 2 k x o 0 3 d / R </ S d 2 d 2 d // LL L/ $ 0 ± ± \ m § = m m E m f cu § \ \ / \ c a) a o cu E Fl \E E E I O U$ 2 L 0 C5 0/75 \ 2 0 m \ — ■ 0 0 \ > f 3 _ > > Co 7 = _ \ 2 f f 2 7 E x R 3 o / R ± 2 / » C) / / / » co ± o § \ 2 2 E § = 2 o = > \ \ CL k / CL LL C) � � ® � C) \ m � # \ n $ o — m # CO — n cu » » \ cu _ 2= cu » c 2 \ \ \ \ CO LL \ \ \ \ \ LL m— c E— m A E A A— w— ± @ @ ± % % 2 2 0 0 2 O O o 0 \ \ \ \ / LO le CD w a) a) le le Iq le le "T w co LO 0 0') 'IT ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J It U N O 0- LO 4- 0 N N Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 7, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: N/A DATE OF REPORT: January 20, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-053 SUBJECT: Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to inform the Heritage Kitchener Committee of the implications of More Homes Built Faster Act 2022 (Bill 23) on cultural heritage conservation and what the focus of the Committee and staff will be moving forward. • The key finding of this report is that heritage planning staff and the Committee will need to prioritize on the evaluation of non -designated properties of cultural heritage value at least for the next year and recommend whether these properties should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23) received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022. As part of this omnibus Bill, a number of changes were implemented to various pieces of legislation, including but not limited to, The Planning Act, The Development Charges Act, The Conservation Authorities Act, and The Ontario Heritage Act. REPORT: Heritage conservation in the City of Kitchener has typically been guided through the policies and guidelines of The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), Official Plan, and principles and practices that have been formulated and advocated for over the years by heritage specialists. These include international charters and principles of practice established at national, provincial, and local levels. In addition to these codes, the Standards and Guidelines for the *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 493 of 511 Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is another important resource that is used by staff in conserving Kitchener's cultural heritage. The principles that underpin the Standards and Guidelines include: • employing research to understand historical places; • conducting integrated, long-term planning before conservation work begins: • finding viable uses for historic places; and • using a conservation approach that respects and sympathizes with the value of historic places. Although the Standards and Guidelines form the basis of good conservation practice in Canada, local heritage conservation efforts must also answer and balance the demands of many stakeholders. Achieving a balance among the complex and often conflicting range of social, cultural and economic values is central to the sustainable conservation of heritage resources and in achieving best practice solutions locally. In addition to the Standards and Guidelines, staff also rely on the OHA, and the policies and guidelines within the City of Kitchener's Official Plan, which guide development and inform the processes required for the City's cultural heritage conservation. Ontario Heritage Act The OHA is the legal framework that provides municipalities with the means to identify and protect cultural heritage resources and sets out procedures to manage change. The conservation tools included with the Ontario Heritage Act include: • Listing of non -designated property on the Municipal Heritage Register — These are properties which have been deemed to have cultural heritage significance but have not been formally and legally recognized as such. Through the City's 4 -step listing process, from 2007 to 2015 over 1000 properties were evaluated, resulting in Council formally listing 236 properties (also known as listed properties). • Designation under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act — These are properties which have been formally designated as having cultural heritage significance and value. As of the date of this report, the City has over 95 individually designated properties in Kitchener. The City has also designated over 1000 properties located in four (4) Heritage Conservation Districts. • Heritage Easements — The City has entered several heritage easements with property owners in applying a higher level of heritage protection to significant cultural heritage resources. • Heritage Permit Process - According to the Ontario Heritage Act, all properties designated under Part IV and V are subject a heritage permit to address changes on the property. The City first established a heritage permit process in 1990s and has since adapted the process to address changing expectations (e.g. - shortened processing timelines through delegated approval authority). In addition to the OHA, the City also relies on other legislation and initiatives to ensure ongoing conservation of Kitchener's cultural heritage resources. These include: • Property Standards - In 2008, Council prescribed the minimum standards for the maintenance of vacant designated property through the adoption of a property standards by-law. Page 494 of 511 • Heritage Tax Refund Program - Kitchener was one of the first municipalities in the Province to establish a heritage tax refund program in 2003. The program (enabled under The Municipal Act) offers a reduction in property tax to qualifying designated property owners. • Designated Heritage Property Grant Program - In 2002, the City established the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program to provide funding of half of eligible repair and restoration work for a maximum of $3,000 to property owners. City of Kitchener Official Plan Certain provisions under the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014) provide municipalities with the means to address conservation of cultural heritage resources, the most significant of these being the adoption of heritage policies in the Official Plan. These policies address the identification, protection and promotion of cultural heritage resources in Kitchener. The City of Kitchener's Official Plan includes policies that address requirements for Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Cultural Heritage Landscapes, and requesting of financial securities in the development process. All these tools together help staff in ongoing efforts to conserve, maintain, protect, and promote Kitchener's cultural heritage resources. More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, (Bill 23) On November 28, 2022, Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, received Royal Assent and was approved. This bill amended several key pieces of legislation related to heritage, natural heritage, and the land -use planning and development processes. Some statutes which were amended include the Conservation Authorities Act, Development Charges Act, Municipal Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Land Tribunal Act, and the Planning Act. The purported intent of Bill 23 is to increase housing supply in the province to support the objectives of the Ontario Housing Supply Action Plan. Schedule 6 of Bill 23 amends the OHA and came into force and effect January 1, 2023. These amendments include but are not limited to; changes to a municipalities authority to use a municipal heritage register, additional prescribed criteria to designate a property, new timelines for the designation of listed properties, and the ability to amend or repeal a Heritage Conservation District By-law or Plan per a prescribed process. Ontario Regulation 569/22 (O. Reg. 569/22) has replaced Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg 9/06) and lays out the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Regulations to implement other policy changes are still being released. Implications of Bill 23 The changes proposed to the OHA due to Bill 23 and its corresponding implications have been summarized below (Table 1). Please note that not all changes to the OHA have been summarized, but the ones that would most impact the work staff do to conserve Kitchener's cultural heritage resources. Page 495 of 511 Table 1: Implications of Schedule 6 of OHA. Change Proposed Implications for cultural heritage conservation Accessibility to the Municipal Changes include having an accessible MHR online Heritage Register (MHR) which can be accessed by the public. This change (Section 27 of the OHA) should be implemented by July 1, 2023. Kitchener already posts the MHR online, but it will need to be routinely updated. Objection to listing of a non- According to the changes proposed by Bill 23, owners of designated property of properties that have been listed on the City's MHR as cultural heritage value or non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest. interest can now object to their properties being listed, (Section 27 of the OHA) regardless of when they were added. The City is still waiting on provincial direction regarding what criteria would need to be met to remove a property due to the owner's objection. Designation of listed Where previously properties could be put on the MHR properties within 2 years of for an unlimited period of time, changes proposed to the being included on the OHA due to Bill 23 include those properties on the MHR Municipal Heritage Register must now be designated under Part IV of the OHA within (Section 29 of the OHA) 2 years of being included on the MHR. For the City, it means that properties that were already on the Register when Bill 23 came into effect, those properties must now be designated within 2 years i.e. — by January 1, 2025. If they are not designated, they will be removed from the Register and cannot be re -listed for the next five (5) years. Limitations regarding issuing Under the changes proposed to the OHA, municipalities a Notice of Intention of will only be able to issue a NOID on properties which are Designate (NOID) for already on the MHR on the date when a municipality has properties not listed on the provided notice to the applicant of a Zoning By-law Register when certain Amendment, Official Plan Amendment Application, or Planning Applications are Draft Plan of Subdivision Application. submitted (Section 29 of the OHA) The council will not be able to give a NOID once 90 days have elapsed since the municipality has provided notice. Repeal or amendment of One of the changes proposed to the OHA is introducing Heritage Conservation provisions for the amendment or repeal of Heritage District bylaw and plans Conservation District bylaw and plans, which was (Section 39 of the OHA) previously not included within the OHA. Criteria for determining Changes have been introduced to the criteria for cultural heritage value or determining cultural heritage value for individual significance properties through Ontario Regulation 569/22, which will Page 496 of 511 Heritage Kitchener Committee and Staff Action Plan Obiective The City of Kitchener aims to conserve its cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use, and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes, and integrity are retained. To meet this objective while responding to the amendments introduced to the OHA through Bill 23, the City is looking to streamline its designation process. Through the work plan proposed in this report the City aims to evaluate and recognize listed properties that are most worthy of designation. With consideration to the number of listed properties, the time the process takes, and staff resources, Heritage Staff are looking to have at least 80 properties reviewed and a decision made to designate or not designate by January 1, 2025. Tasks The designation of an individual property under Section 29 of the OHA involves six steps, which are: • Identifying the property; • Researching and evaluating the property; • Listing the property on the MHR; • Serving a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID); • Passing and registering the heritage designating by-law; • Adding the property on the Municipal Heritage Register of Designated Properties; and • Including the property on the Provincial Register of Heritage Properties. The first step — identifying the property as a potential candidate for designation — has been completed forthe properties on the MHR of Non -designated Properties (also known as listed properties). Now further research and evaluation is required to determine if the listed properties meet the criteria of O. Reg 569/22 for designation. This is proposed to be the focus of the Heritage Kitchener Committee's work for the 2023-2024 time period and would require the joint efforts of all Committee members. Therefore, it is recommended that the independent work of the Sub -Committees be incorporated with this work. Page 497 of 511 replace Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Attachment A). Furthermore, the property would have to satisfy one or more criteria included in O. Reg. 569/22 to be included as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value on the MHR. However, properties would have to satisfy two or more criteria to be eligible for designation under Part IV of the OHA. Change in criteria for Changes have also been introduced to the criteria for determining cultural heritage determining cultural heritage value for Heritage value or significance for Conservation Districts. According to these changes, at Heritage Conservation least 25% of the properties being considered within a Districts. Heritage Conservation District would have to satisfy two or more criteria of O. Reg. 569/22. Heritage Kitchener Committee and Staff Action Plan Obiective The City of Kitchener aims to conserve its cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use, and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes, and integrity are retained. To meet this objective while responding to the amendments introduced to the OHA through Bill 23, the City is looking to streamline its designation process. Through the work plan proposed in this report the City aims to evaluate and recognize listed properties that are most worthy of designation. With consideration to the number of listed properties, the time the process takes, and staff resources, Heritage Staff are looking to have at least 80 properties reviewed and a decision made to designate or not designate by January 1, 2025. Tasks The designation of an individual property under Section 29 of the OHA involves six steps, which are: • Identifying the property; • Researching and evaluating the property; • Listing the property on the MHR; • Serving a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID); • Passing and registering the heritage designating by-law; • Adding the property on the Municipal Heritage Register of Designated Properties; and • Including the property on the Provincial Register of Heritage Properties. The first step — identifying the property as a potential candidate for designation — has been completed forthe properties on the MHR of Non -designated Properties (also known as listed properties). Now further research and evaluation is required to determine if the listed properties meet the criteria of O. Reg 569/22 for designation. This is proposed to be the focus of the Heritage Kitchener Committee's work for the 2023-2024 time period and would require the joint efforts of all Committee members. Therefore, it is recommended that the independent work of the Sub -Committees be incorporated with this work. Page 497 of 511 At present there are approximately 230 properties on the Kitchener Municipal Register, which was last reviewed in 2017. With the limited timeframe and the number of properties to be reviewed, heritage planning staff propose that the focus of the work be on properties most worthy of designation, or which may face the most development pressure. It is the staff's recommendation that all properties within the Downtown core, and other strategic areas, be evaluated first. Previous work of the Sub -Committees is incorporated into this task. The Heritage Designation Sub -Committee has completed the assessment of 30 listed properties. This Committee will not be required to re-evaluate those properties, as staff will be overlooking further review for those properties. For the other listed properties, staff are requesting the committee's support in conducting evaluations to assess the cultural heritage significance of these properties and whether they should be considered for designation. To complete the assessments, Heritage Staff have updated and revised the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form. This form includes the criteria of O. Reg. 569/22 as well as additional criteria. This criterion also includes the research and suggestions of the Decolonizing the Heritage Process Sub -Committee. Through this reassessment of listed properties, staff see an opportunity to include additional criteria that contribute towards a more diverse and equity -driven evaluation of cultural heritage value. Staff have attached the draft updated evaluation form and are requesting the Committee's input regarding the updated evaluation form (Attachment B). This evaluation form will then be finalized and be used to assess the listed properties by Heritage Kitchener. Staff may also request aid or recommendations from the previous members of the Promoting Cultural Heritage Sub -Committee. This work could include informing property owners of the work the City and Committee will be undertaking within the next year, and educating and the promoting the benefits of designation as having the support and cooperation of the concerned property owners will be vital for completing the identified tasks and meeting the objective in the prescribed timeframe. Timing and Implementation Given the volume of work to be completed in the next two years, it is recommended that work commence as soon as possible. Heritage Staff aim to start conducting property evaluations using the new Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form in February of 2023, with the completed evaluations to be brought to the March 7, 2023, Heritage Kitchener Committee Meeting as examples. Heritage Staff request that the Committee begin assisting after this March meeting. It is proposed that five to ten properties be reviewed every month and brought to the following Heritage Kitchener Meeting for discussion and recommendation. A minimum of four should be reviewed every month to meet the objective of designating 80 properties by January 1, 2025. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 498 of 511 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, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Ontario Regulation 569/22 for determining cultural heritage value Attachment B — Draft Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form - 2023 Page 499 of 511 N v LO 4- 0 0 0 LO (D c� a 0 U O O fn L LL W H � z � O E 0 C) LL � N of O W Q m �D a ~Q U U Z a 0 W 0' a J p o 2 L7 o LUN O a' J 0 = N o U z z O U 0 O O LL U N O W Q N U Q 0 O N O Q W V = O) N N C) O Nri O f0 N 4 C- O = C o E O U U N N E U C O = O C _2) LL N O C j p 0 + N N LO 2 W }' _O �i d U N ! N Q .O .0 L O h R Q N h w Q a O) LL U J J () r N N v LO 4- 0 0 0 LO (D c� a 0) N Of b C7 I r N N N 0) co LO 0 N N cn 7 N 7 N 7 r C 7 E E O U m O C 0 U C D O N M V LO O O L D O N L O N C D O N N U N L i C O O N O Y O N O U N N O O N in C O E N O 7 0 U N N 7 > N ! U O O O O N 0 U .2 L O L T N Q O Q N t C 7 E E O U m O C 0 U C O) O 1— 00 O) 0) N Of 0 H �a N vi C) O O) N N 0) co LO 0 N N cn 7 U) 7 N 7 N N O) Lfl LO N 0 U Q N 0 O O) N N O 7 U O O N O O Q 7 Q N O N U O N Q N (7 C O C O U N O 7 O 7 O N O U N L H N N O) (fl LO N 0 N i O O C U) N E O U N O N U Q N m O N N O N 7 N N O) Lfl LO N 0 U Q N O V N O 7 U O O N O O Q 7 Q N O N U O N Q N C O U N O 7 O 7 O N O U N L H M El 7 7 U O .E 7 E E O U 1 C 7 E E O U m O C 0 U C D O D O L 1 v LO 0 N O LO N N (fl LO O) N ry X (7 a M V N N O Lfl N 7 N L U O LO C O U N O 7 O T (6 N L _ N O � N � N _0 O) N Lfl O Ln O (6 N Q ry O m m m -0 LO 4- 0 O LO Ca z v 0 U a) 0: a,o c v Ln T v v° i s m 41 aJ >1 d z 0 >1 d z O 'L U+ a 6 N 0: LL v v° i s z 41 >1 d z >1 d z U+ cn y 6 N 0: LL r�NN r 7 v ❑ u z r6 0 z ❑ u N ❑ y l0 � o O u aJ M J LL O v ::1 W 41 U O Q z z z c 4 t U (0 6 a L.L •— — lB a v7CL N L 0 to O O L 7 c Ll 7 O Q 0 � > > v v° i s z >1 d z >1 d z cn y N r�NN r ❑ ❑ ❑ z z z ❑ ❑ ❑ � o i 4i z z z v v (U 7 L 7 c 7 O � > > U 4-1 O C/7 U U a) +J N N L cn v OL N -0Q O O a) L O N LJ W 4= N to aJ to aJ CL a)O (U 7 t > ccr 'E aj c O c to dA :E c v U OA 4J M N U aJ aJ +J_ .a MCL N� l0 a -J roc l0 aJ n3 aJ 0 > N Ui7 N it L L L E L L (� Q} C C O a) +' U v 4 J O cn •� OL N N N U Q- O N >, L a) Q O +' L Q O C U i a) U aJ U u a t aJco E t aJ L t a) N -0 a) � � O � -0 W LO 0 0 LO (D 0) 0- LO 0 LO 0 LO (D 0) cU 0- ❑ z ❑ ❑ z ❑ z ❑ ❑ z ❑ z ❑ o ❑ z ❑ z ❑ 0 ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z z z z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z z z z o � a � .1 N �_ C •>_ aj i o v O m� > 1 o ai 0 On E .� Ln ai >` L .U U Q O oLn > O ai -07 aNJ U— O 7 lB p s +' v7 o O > co co4-1 ai � aj L O o a Oco > O C C 4-1 O L n U aJ on a_ O ai U 4�O N aj w 7 0 U +, co 6 O +' 7 N C co C c a o > C L Q p l0 > aJ 'N > +J o a a 0U N + •N � C a O v 'L LJ � CU v Z 'L N-0 LJ 7 v 'L C ap-� t p v 4-1 x l0 O O p Q O ¢a O 4-1 4-1 COC i C dA v Z Nai ,v •N -�4 t O p U i -�4 t C aJ C c�'i7 'L •� C U a O o t +J a N> a � n3 O am C n3 a +'t E -@ +J O w CU p a¢ t p +J t tJ t aJ t i c a _13) L a� f° N .CU O > +� O 3 L >` C ai +� p O 3 i aj 7 M W -0 L p >, 4J O 3 i ai + },� U QJ i c 3 a a ai ai a ai +� a ai L c Q C n3 ti .z v + a ^ O a O- O � 7 ° O cLo o " s N aJ Q n3 U i aj dA v O U S v ai 3 C p i a w U O m a ai 7 L O cn a aj Q p `^ �n t lB L t aJ Z t l0 aJ0 E c° H> +-1 O H O H > H +J s .� o Q Ln Q L.0 Q W a w° LO 0 LO 0 LO (D 0) cU 0- ❑ y z 3 0 ❑ z ❑ y z o ❑ z ❑ ❑ ar N y y ❑ ❑ z ❑ z ❑ ❑ � z ❑ ❑ o z z ❑ V7 U V7 L m O M U +J U 7 O 7 M > > M ❑ �� -6 M � v X > dAX 0 N >: c a N 1 o Cv i ou c ou o s 2 O � a � o L ❑ L � � L •ice+ Q _= O a Q L U Oco 4• O co "•U -0Q CL z C Ncu a N .� 3 a +J H Q a v o O .�. c 06 rn a Q C 3Qj c t LO 4- 0 m 0 LO (1) c� a ar ar N ❑ � z o ❑ = z ❑ ❑ 0 z ❑ 0 L ❑ 0 v ar � cc z .� a +J L •L O a O � C �.. c t C E C E o i ago O 4, a) M 4J 4W L l0 O Q m L U C LO 4- 0 m 0 LO (1) c� a LO 4- 0 ti 0 LO (1) c� a y x O O O O O O O z z z z z❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N F cd 0 z z z z z❑ In iG '� 4-J Ln dA _ c p p io co=5a a a O N t N a .O a O U 4- C 3 a= c N L N O +� N 4� +� N ° 4 N ro d o a O t w N o° a� v� O� v� o a c O co E o 'a oo +, O O v N aNJ N N r.. i* a�J D .O .v N to v � °cL � � � ^ � � 3 _ aj � C coo t to L O v7 (o � � p p N i i v y v J5 C E v a co O o° s 0 O 00 v o a CL 7 N O Q ° a M 'a U '+'- Q° v' o a u .O N 0 pip d�D ¢� ¢p i ate+ ,a +0+ � O o a c E 'a � V Ln O � to 0 * o v Q E V a0A uj a(i --.Z v� LO 4- 0 ti 0 LO (1) c� a \ k _ » � _ \ _ � U _ / _ a � / \ § yy y y \ k ° 2 � � U a g / 0 0 ƒ O o a � ° f � » y a f \ y / ° e / k $ 2 2 3 t /�& > §fes / 87 13 c s 2 $ / 01 c ZZ - � u \ c2a E E§ 4 ,« E = o o e a t e E a & 6\ 5 7 ? e u t% fl u m >— e E o— o E E > >, ! 2 t t 0 & 2 \ \ % § o � j \ e e G e> e e }, 2_§ 2 3 3» ��(11 � // /\/ 2E2± neo /+%// ) \ ƒ E / / \ e 7' e— \ ® ®/® ° ° \ f c= 25 �o E9e= �»= A CU 5 — c = c o j® [ \ 2ƒ�s2e 2 ° m ® ® ° sa ®E ' ° t \ «»Ea % _ 7 ° E / E R 5 4-1 \ & § 2 0 \ = E ® > e ® E \ 3 E / 2 2u \ / u z) , e 2& ,% 8\ 0 5 2 E 2 e S LO 0 m O LO ¢ 2 n � _0v C E co X W (o L V O Q O co v 0 z 0 0 L 0 4-- LU H(Q 0- 0 0 0- 0— m 0— m a) L U N a� ca a� 0 c o FE LO 0 rn 0 LO a> c� a U 4• a ❑ a O � s 41 ❑ O 0 0 L 0 4-- LU H(Q 0- 0 0 0- 0— m 0— m a) L U N a� ca a� 0 c o FE LO 0 rn 0 LO a> c� a Fol w LO 4- 0 0 LO (1) c� a LO 4- 0 O W I..L 0 Y ¢I 0 ww o G/1 zb o0u V o a�xx �x w o N � U A � u, a y a 0 P� o � 11 11 11 Hu k N M a f0 O Q1 O r N M a fD 1� O 01 r O N N N N M N a N N f0 N 1� N 01 N 01 N O M M LO 4- 0 O W I..L