The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2023-116 - Notice of Intention to Designate - 369 Frederick StStaff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: April 4, 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: March 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-116 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council publish a Notice of Intention to designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 369 Frederick Street meets all three criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act regulation 9/06 and has been confirmed to be a significance cultural heritage resource. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, consulting and collaborating with the owner regarding implementation of the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and consultation with Heritage Kitchener, In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the owner and Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper. This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street is located on the south side of Frederick Street near the intersection of Frederick Street and East Avenue (Fig. 1). Built in 1993 in the International Modern Style of architecture, this building is included on the Inventory of Historic Buildings in Kitchener. The existing building is also known as the A.R. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 46 of 122 Goudie Eventide Home and is currently being used as a long-term care home by PeopleCare Inc. (Fig. 2). 105 -Cs� 302 95 _ yy tas tai y 103 .ci 110 354 los 350 Ffadedck Mall 6 a4, ass 107 ST 342 /. ` 1 375 t^\ 115 355 t A r \ 119 349 t A 1 324 1$ 320. 5 \., 122 318.. .314.' 329' 12 t \ 301 4R��¢AG317.325 11 t1 321 y cErinznL FREocrzlen .311 �y 25 y 304 14 21 IPA 305 i8 - Y� 30 `.-_ -- -- —` s 301 �F,p 22 2s ;4 '97, `t B 24 31 34 25 9� 2 is 22: .5 42 . g 27 32 41 48 12 _ - 31. - 39 16 37 ' - 45 54 42 20 41 4s 5s 220 �' 24 43 46 5b 216:. 4S, 28 . 45 - 50 - 53Si 210 t, 47 ..�.t RAP 74 2ne Figure 1: Location Map of 369 Frederick Street area I 240 234 230 226 yq Q{Lt- 231 G fuo. Figure 2: Front elevation of the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home Page 47 of 122 The submission and approval of a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of a proposed Site Plan, Severance of Land, and Minor Variance applications that were submitted to the City in 2017. The scoped HIA dated March 16, 2017 and updated May 8, 2017, was submitted to the City in support of these application and was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its May 2, 2017 meeting. These applications related to the construction of a five (5) — storey Retirement Home and a three (3) -storey addition to the existing building. The proposed changes also included modifying the entrance canopy by decreasing its current size, as well as removing a section of the curtain wall on the northern elevation to facilitate the installation of a service elevator. The scoped HIA did receive approval from the Director of Planning on October 11, 2017. In March 2021, the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care awarded an additional 80 long- term care beds to Peoplecare Inc. As a result, the maximum building height needed to be increased, prompting the need for a Stamp Plan `A' application and the request for a revised HIA. An updated HIA dated May 3, 2022, was submitted to the City. Since the updated HIA included minor changes, and with time constraints associated with processing Stamp Plan `A' applications, the revised HIA could not be circulated to Heritage Kitchener again. The HIA concluded that the subject property is a significant cultural heritage resource that meets all three criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (Since the applications were submitted prior to the changes enacted by Bill 23, the property has been assessed according to O. Reg. 9/06) with the proposed modifications having no effect on its heritage value. As a result, heritage planning staff provided comments as part of the stamp plan A application requesting that the property by designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve its cultural heritage value and heritage attributes. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give our City its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognized the promotes awareness, it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. The property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. The existing building is comprised broadly of three elements — a free standing canopy which leads to the administration and reception area, which then leads to the three-storey residential wing situated perpendicularly to the administration and reception area (Fig. 3). Page 48 of 122 admin. receptian, common ,! k. , "' ,Ia� Wing Figure 3: Plan view of 369 Frederick Street Design/ Physical Value . Source: Draft HIA The existing building was designed by Montgomery and Sisam Architects in the `International Style' of modernist architecture for the Salvation Army in 1991 and was constructed in 1993. It has been featured in the Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996 and described as having "a crisp stucco and glass exterior (that) pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects in Canada since the 1950s. The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms looks toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry." According to the HIA, the existing building is made of curtain walls with a fairly smooth acrylic rendering in a medium grey colour. There are yellow panels and red -painted shed roofs with pre -finished, red metal flashing and downspouts which contrasts nicely with the grey. The glazing is comprised of punched windows, with curtain wall section that incorporate the yellow panels (Fig. 4). Furthermore, from a design perspective, the building has `pure, simple geometric, clean lines' and is in impeccable condition even after 24 years with little to no alterations to the original structure. Page 49 of 122 Figure 4: View of the entry canopy with the yellow panels. Even though the International Style of modernist architecture is usually considered from the 1940s to the 1960s, the existing building exhibits many of the design features of that style. For a modern building to be considered of heritage significance, it must satisfy many criteria, including but not limited to whether it is representative of the modern aesthetic, does it contribute to the historical development of Kitchener and whether it contributes to community identity. This building satisfies all of these criteria through its historical and contextual value. The existing building was designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects, an award-winning architecture firm based in Toronto who specialize in healthcare and sustainable design. The heritage attributes that were identified as part of the HIA include: - The scale and irregular massing of the one and three-storey building; - The entry canopy; - The acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls; - The glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections; - The pre -finished metal shed roofs of the administration wing and entry canopy; and - The clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing, filling the space with light and marrying the indoors with the outdoors. Page 50 of 122 Historical/Associative Value The subject property has significant historical value. Historically, this building sits on a site which has a history of long-term care homes since 1869, starting with the House of Industry and Refuge. The original House of Industry and Refuge was built after the passing of the 1867 Municipal Act which required all municipalities to provide support for residents requiring assistance'. The House was in use from 1869 when unwed mothers and poor homeless children were first admitted on June 15, 1869. Since then, this site continued to evolve, transitioning from a `poor house' to an `old -aged home' in 1947. The existing building represents a symbol of continuum of a pattern of social, political, cultural, and economic status of the community, contributing to our understanding of Kitchener's history and development. It also has its associations with Arthur R. Goudie, who was a department store founder and a major donor for the construction of this building, and the Salvation Army. Contextual Value This building has contextual value as it is the fourth building in succession of care homes on the site since 1869, yields information that contributes to the understanding of the community, and it is physically, functionally, and historically linked to its surroundings. A complete Statement of Significance (Attachment A) including the list of heritage attributes will form part of the Designation By-law. Some of the changes proposed by the applicant do modify some heritage attributes, such as the entry canopy and one section of the northern curtain wall to accommodate a new elevator (Fig. 5 &6). These changes have already been approved as part of the previous site plan application that was submitted in 2017. However, the HIA has concluded that these modifications result in a moderate, but acceptable negative impact on the heritage attributes, and that these modifications do not affect the designation criteria of the building (Attachment B). Staff are generally in agreement with this assessment and are of the opinion that notwithstanding these minor alterations, the building should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act due to its otherwise significant design, historical and contextual value . Page 51 of 122 w v a m nv C4NOFY S"MTEH€D AT BOTH ENDS BY Sm TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVE 3 ADDITION OVERHANGS REYAIN THE SAME del'. Figure 5- Plan view of the proposed alterations to the canopy. Source- Draft HIA fi N NJ Lz new curtain wall �-� to match existing 3M Lz C N curtain wall forwardmoves �'� I'll !� Section of curtain wall removed NEW 3320 100 64a _ . - - --2720 EXISTING EDGE of EXIST. SLAB {DOTTED} 292 2940 190 rf PROPOSED' 2 � STING` A202 A601 I E L. ' ATO R 11 i0 ELEVATOR Ei I 2 KI r, IF Figure 6: Proposed changes to the northern curtain wall. Source: Draft HIA The Stamp Plan `A' application has received conditional approval and one of the conditions required to be fulfilled prior to final site plan approval is the designation of this building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the heritage attributes identified in the HIA dated May 3, 2022, prepared by CHC Limited. In order to satisfy this condition, it is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 369 Frederick Street. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 52 of 122 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT and COLLABORATE — Heritage Planning staff have consulted and collaborated with the applicant and owner regarding implementation of the recommendations of the HIA, including designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner has confirmed their support for designation subject to consideration by Heritage Kitchener and Council. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving notice of its intention to designate a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the owner has the right of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: - Ontario Heritage Act, 2021 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Statement of Significance for 369 Frederick Street Attachment B — Scoped HIA for 369 Frederick Street Page 53 of 122 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 369 FREDERICK STREET 83 -. ,V too M1OS �ry 362 s9 106 99v y 103 - 110 354 4F i t65 fe 3s6 _ raa«i�x mail 95 r 167�j, 3411 � ST 342 Y \ 375 177 336 115 355 \ \ G Y y y 1i9 345 i0 32032 \ --moi 5 g \ \ Q 122 714 328 12 \ Qb��w��3zt. 325_ 11 14 317.� Yvv CENTRAL FREDERICK 311_ 14 26 309 305 24 s 31 3 31 25 94 Yyyy t � 28 35 _ 42 6 27 32 414x 12 31. 39 16 37 45 54 42 za - � 41. xa6 Q ;F as as a9 216 ss 24 20 45 56 PN4.1 210. on 47 _. ..0N 116 Summary of Significance ❑ Design/Physical Value ❑ Historical Value ❑ Contextual Value Municipal Address: 369 Frederick Street 2W 234 230 226 at G 100 ❑ Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value 22 Legal Description: TCT GERMAN COMPANY SUB LT 3 PT LT 9 PL 414 PATK LTX 58R-20004 PTS 5 &6 Year Built: 1993 Architectural Style: International Style Original Owner: Salvation Army Original Use: Institutional - Long -Term Care Home Condition: Excellent Condition Page 54 of 122 Descriotion of Cultural Heritage Resource 369 Frederick Street is a late 20th century stucco clad institutional building built in the International Style of modernist architecture. The building is situated on a 2.6 acre of land located on the south side of Frederick Street between Frederick Street and East Avenue in the Central Frederick Neighborhood of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the 1993 A.R. Goudie Eventide Home building. Heritage Value 369 Frederick Stret is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The building is a notable example of the International Style of modernist architecture in Kitchener. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements since it was built in 1993. The building can broadly be divided into three main elements: the entrance canopy, the one -storey administration wing, and the three-storey residential wing perpendicular to the administration wing. The irregular plan of the building was done so to preserve the mature trees on site. The building features include: curtain walls made of smooth acrylic rendering in medium grey colour, yellow panels and red -painted shed roofs with pre -finished, red metal flashing, and curtain wall sections incorporating the yellow panels. Even though the International Style of modernist architecture is usually considered from the 1940s to the 1960s, the existing building exhibits many of the design features of that style. The existing building was designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects, an award-winning architecture firm based in Toronto who specialize in healthcare and sustainable design. The existing building is the forth building in a succession of buildings that have been built for long- term home care. Historical Value The subject property has significant historical value. Historically, this building sits on a site which has a history of long-term care homes since 1869, starting with the House of Industry and Refuge. The original House of Industry and Refuge was built after the passing of the 1867 Municipal Act which required all municipalities to provide support for residents 'requiring assistance'. In 1867, The County purchased a 141- acre farm from John Eby for $9,024. Then, advertisements were published for a contractor to plan and building the House from plans made by Joseph Hobson, County Engineer. Lewis Kribs was the successful contractor who was hired in 1868 for $8.908. Page 55 of 122 The House of Industry and Refuge opened in 1869, when it first admitted poor homeless children and unwed mothers, with the original building housing 100 people. The institution was originally intended to be self-sufficient by the residents contributing towards the farm and household chores. However, farming in a rapidly growing town of Berlin/Kitchener became increasingly problematic. Significant amounts of farmland ended up being lost, and to make up for those, three other farms were purchased, including the Shuh and Weber farms, and farming continued at the House until 1956. The House began transitioning in 1919 from a "poor house" to an "old aged home" in 1947 when the Ontario Home for the Aged Act mandated service for seniors. The House was then changed to "Waterloo County Home for the Aged". The buildings were expanded on and new buildings added over the course of its existence. In 1956, a new home for senior was built on Franklin Street (now the current site of Sunnyside Homes). This property was then sold to the Salvation Army, who in 1962 constructed another building on the property. To meet rising demands, another building was built in 1993, which is the current A.R. Goudie Eventide Home. The building built in 1962 was demolished in the 1990s, leaving the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home as the only building on the property for a long time. This building was named after Arthur R. Goudie, who was a department store owner, and had made a major donation towards the construction of this building. The building was then sold to its current owner, PeopleCare, in 2013 after the Salvation Army made the decision to withdraw its operations due to resourcing issues. Contextual Value This building has contextual value as it is the fourth building in succession of care homes on the site since 1869, yields information that contributes to the understanding of the community. It is also physically, functionally, and historically linked to its surroundings, existing on the original site of the House of Industry and Refuge. It also yields information that is important to the Kitchener's history, and how the city has developed. Other Values Cnr 1n1 \/nINIn The existing property has social value because of its original institutional use. The property has been a site of refuge and assistance since the original building of the House of Industry and Refuge was built. The property, along with the existing building has made significant social contribution to the City as a place that initially provided a place of care for residents of Berlin/Kitchener, and till today provides a space for long-term care and assistance of residents of Kitchener. Page 56 of 122 Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 369 Frederick Street resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the International Style of modernist architecture of the building, including: o The scale and irregular massing of the one and three-storey building; o The entry canopy; o The acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls; o The glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections; o The pre -finished metal shed roofs of the administration wing and entry canopy; and o The celestory form and glazing in the administration wing • Its contextual value as a building that has been on the site with a history of long-term care and assistance. References Scott, O. ( May 3, 2022) Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment in support of proposed Site Specific Zoning Conditions & Revised Site Plan —369 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON. CHC Limited. Page 57 of 122 Photographs Page 58 of 122 Detailing of the yellow panels and the red metal roofs Page 59 of 122 South (rear) fagade Source: Draft HIA for 369 Frederick Street Page 60 of 122 ff L West Fagade Yi s Source: Draft HIA for 369 Frederick Street mil • �r IIl f� East Facade Source: Draft HIA for 369 Frederick Street Page 61 of 122 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form 69 'Era S¢ Address /t Period Recorder Name ✓� Description rr • +� - v`O ✓ P S.. L. re V�1 Tr r"t rT'� �1 Photographs: Front Fugade ❑ Left Facade ❑ Right Facade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details a Setting ❑ Date 0 Design Or Physical Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, note or unique example of a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ "Yes 0 NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ particular architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes o"— NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Contextual Value Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or N/A. ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ / Yes v! NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ NIA ❑ scientific achievement? No ❑ Yes ❑ of the street,neighbouthood or area? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship NIA o Urdk ow W*`No o Yes o N/A o Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes o N/A ❑ andlor detail noteworthy? No ❑ Yes ❑ 310teworthy? integrity Site Alterations Condition Notes Does the structure occupy its original site? Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its original sire, movedfrom snottier site, eta. Does this building retain most of its original materials and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have taken place overtime? Is this building in good condition? Notes RECORDER Unknown ❑ No ❑ Unknown in No ❑ Unknown .01"No ❑ Unknown ❑ No o Yes pr/ Yes Yes ❑ Yes o/ EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N!A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No a Yes ❑ NIA o Unknown ❑ No n Yes ❑ Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual N/A ❑ Unknown l"No ❑ Yes ❑ I Page 62 of 122 Contextual Value RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity or character N/A o Unknownm"No a Yes ❑ NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ of the street,neighbouthood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping WA o Unknown ❑ No o Yes a-" N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ 310teworthy? integrity Site Alterations Condition Notes Does the structure occupy its original site? Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its original sire, movedfrom snottier site, eta. Does this building retain most of its original materials and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have taken place overtime? Is this building in good condition? N/A ❑ NIA ❑ NIA ❑ NIA ❑ RECORDER Unknown ❑ No ❑ Unknown in No ❑ Unknown .01"No ❑ Unknown ❑ No o Yes pr/ Yes Yes ❑ Yes o/ EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N!A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No a Yes ❑ NIA o Unknown ❑ No n Yes ❑ Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual N/A ❑ Unknown l"No ❑ Yes ❑ NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No a Yes ❑ link to its surroundings? Landmark is this a particularly important visual landmark within ❑ R N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes a/r NIA ❑ Unknown o No o Yes a the region, city or neighbourhood? ❑ C (1rrdfcaie degree of impart—) ❑ N Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A o Unknown ❑ No a Yes Et% NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes n notable landscaping at external features that complete the site? Nates I Page 62 of 122 integrity Site Alterations Condition Notes Does the structure occupy its original site? Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its original sire, movedfrom snottier site, eta. Does this building retain most of its original materials and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that have taken place overtime? Is this building in good condition? N/A ❑ NIA ❑ NIA ❑ NIA ❑ RECORDER Unknown ❑ No ❑ Unknown in No ❑ Unknown .01"No ❑ Unknown ❑ No o Yes pr/ Yes Yes ❑ Yes o/ EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE NIA ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N!A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No a Yes ❑ NIA o Unknown ❑ No n Yes ❑ I Page 62 of 122 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Historical or Associative Value & Significance RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with andlor Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes M/ Unknown o No ❑ Yes ❑ contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Evaluation Sub-comminee o Add to Heritage Register " ❑ High Priority for Designation o Heritage District Potential ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Photographs Required V/Iequest Permission to Access Property _ General Comments Is the original, previous or existing use significant? J Unknown ❑ No a Yes tT Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage No ❑ ❑ Yes Unknown 7 No ❑ ❑ Yes Unknown o resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Recommendation Heritage Kitchener Committee Recommendation ❑ Add to Heritage Register ❑ No Action - Keep on File Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? A property or structure valuedfor the important contribution it makes to our understanding of the history of a ptaee, an event, or a people? Notes 2 Page 63 of 122 FurtherACdonlFollow Up Rec er Add to Heritage Register ❑ High Priority for Designation o Heritage District Potential ❑ Additional Research Required Additional Photographs Required Setting ❑ All FaFades ❑ Details ❑ a Request Permission to Access Property Other Other Evaluation Sub-comminee o Add to Heritage Register " ❑ High Priority for Designation o Heritage District Potential ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Photographs Required V/Iequest Permission to Access Property _ General Comments * Date of Property Owner Notification Property Owner Name andAddress Recommendation Heritage Kitchener Committee Recommendation ❑ Add to Heritage Register ❑ No Action - Keep on File Council Decision ❑ Add to Heritage Register a No Action - Keep on File 2 Page 63 of 122 IS. 1 r Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) ........ 1 1.1 Current owner contact information ............................................. 2 1.2 Site history................................................................ 3 1.3 Description of surrounding context and landscape features ......................... 12 1.4 Documentation of the heritage resource ........................................ 19 1.5 Proposed development and impacts ............................................ 29 1.6 Conservation - principles and mitigating measures ................................ 38 1.7 Proposed alterations justified and explained ..................................... 39 1.8 Recommendations......................................................... 40 1.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment .............. 40 2.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 40 3.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION .............................................. 41 REFERENCES......................................................................... 43 Appendix 1- Internal Memo - Pre -submission Consultation -Heritage, January 13, 2017 and November 25, 2021 Appendix 2 - Qualifications of the author All photographs taken by the author March 1, 2017 unless otherwise noted. CHC Limited PaR HT1 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT A Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment in support of proposed Site Plan, Severance of Land, and Minor Variances for 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON (HIA), dated May 8, 2017 was submitted to the City of Kitchener. In February 2019, Site Plan Approval was issued for a 148 -bed, 5 storey Retirement Home and a 192 -bed, 3 -storey addition to the Long -Term Care facility. In March 2021, the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care awarded Peoplecare an additional 80 long-term care beds. To accommodate the additional beds, the approved building addition to the Long-term Care facility needs to be modified. As a result, site-specific zoning considerations including increasing the maximum building height; thus, the need for this update to the original HIA. A Pre - Submission Consultation meeting on November 25,2021 (Appendix 1) determined that a revised Heritage Impact Assessment will be required to address the proposed site plan modifications as well as assess the proposed changes to the window spandrels. The property at 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. Information in the City's file shows this 1993 modern building, designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects, was featured in Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996.' The listing states, "The Salvation Army has been a consistent patron of modern architecture. Here the `crisp stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects built in Canada since the 1950s'. The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free- Figure 1 subject property location (yellow rectangle) - GRCA mapping (2015) ' Images ofProgress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996. Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, 1996 CHC Limited PaR� �T1122 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry." The subject property is also located adjacent to a protected heritage property - 362 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Further consultation with heritage staff scoped the HIA requirements to exclude the need for a Land Registry search and the need to address the adjacent protected heritage property.2 The subjectproperty is 1.7 ha (4.2 acres) in area and is located on the south side of Frederick Street, between Edna Street and East Avenue (Figures 1 & 2). Figure 2 369 Frederick Street environs - GRCA mapping (2015) 2 emails from, and telephone conversation with Sandra Parks, January 30, 2017 CHC Limited PaRVP 2Ti 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 1.1 Current Owner Contact Information peopleCare Inc 735 Bridge Street West Waterloo, ON N2V 2H1 attention: Wade Stever, wsteverkpeoplecare.ca 519 998-2394 1.2 Site 3 369 Frederick Street became the site of the "House of Industry and Refuge" in 1869. The House of Industry and Refuge was built based on the requirements of the 1867 Municipal Act which stated that all municipalities were to provide support for residents requiring assistance. In 1867, the County purchased a 141 -acre farm from John Eby for $9,024 ($64 per acre ), then advertised for a contractor to plan and construct the House from plans by Joseph Hobson, County Engineer. The contract was awarded to Lewis Kribs in 1868 for $8,908 when construction began. All of the work and resources to build the main building was done by members of the local community, many of whom were from or family members of the County Council.3 The House was in operation from 1869 when poor homeless children and unwed mothers were first admitted June 15, 1869. The original building housed 100.4 P figure 3 County Poor House, Berlin, Canadian Illustrated News, 23 March 1872. 3 historical case study of the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge (1869-1950), Social Innovation Research Group, Wilfrid Laurier University, http://waterloohouscofrefuge.ca/house/ 4 Region of Waterloo Archives CHC Limited PaP� �T1122 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Figure 4 House of Refuge and Industry, undated, c. 1890 -, http://waterloohouscofrefu2c.ca/house/ Figure 5 House of Refuge, Berlin, 1908 postcard - Kitchener Public Library CHC Limited PaR�6b �T1122 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Figure 6 House of Refuge, Kitchener - undated postcard (after 1916) - htti)://waterloohouscofrefuge.ca/house/ The institution was originally intended to be self sufficient by means of operating a farm. Residents were expected to contribute to farm and household tasks. The sale of farm goods was intended to cover the costs of the institution.' The practicality of a self-sufficient farm in the growing town of Berlin/Kitchener became increasingly problematic. Three other farms were purchased to replace the lost farmland from the Frederick Street location, including the Shuh and Weber farms. The Frederick Street facility looked after the chronically ill, while the destitute worked and lived on the farms.6 Farming continued at the House until 1956. The House began a transition in 1919 from "poor house" to an "old aged home" by 1947. In 1947 the Ontario Home for the AgedAct mandated services for seniors. The home's name was changed to "Waterloo County Home for the Aged".' The term "Industry" had been dropped from the title of the House at the beginning of the 20th century. ' Ibid County of Waterloo: House of Industry and Refuge Now the site of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home, Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted by James Howe on May 8, 2014 in Arts & Culture, Heritage, Kitchener https://kingandottawa.wordi)ress. com/2014/05/08/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/ 7 Auxiliary celebrates 50 years, Waterloo Region Record • 14 Oct 2014 • Valerie Hill, Record staff CHC Limited PaPy7b 2Ti 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener xj L v D�� -%�- v --moi �} � � � ��' �` � ''+� a" . • � t f 4 r - r 6,-t- ya KE LIFY h' 6 Figure 7 map of House of Refuge properties, 1924 - http://waterloohouscofrefu2c.ca/house/ CHC Limited PaPYA 2Ti 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Figure 8 Waterloo County Poor House, hospital & graveyard, 1932 - Mennonite Archives of Ontario Ernest Denton -1932 -CA MAO 1994-110 Figure 9 Waterloo County Home for the Aged, September 2, 1949 - Doris Lewis Rare Book Room, Waterloo Library The building was expanded over the course of its existence (Figures 6 & 9) until a new home for the aged building CHC Limited PaRy7� 2Ti 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 8 was built on Franklin Street in 1956, the current site of Sunnyside Home. In 1957, people residing at the House either stayed there, or depending on their reason for being at the House, were sent to an insane asylum in the area, such as the Orillia Insane Asylum. The following airphotos8 (Figures 10 - 12) show the evolution of the Home and its surroundings from 1945 to 1963. v I House of Iefug , 1945 Figure 10 University of Waterloo Figure 11 University of Waterloo s Digital Historical Air Photos of KW and Surrounding Area, University of Waterloo http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/lMd/project/ CHC Limited PaRy7b �Ti 22 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 9 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener �66!�14XN 0 -1" - Frederick Pima S ` Home for theA N a- `4 The House property was sold to the Salvation Army for the construction of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home in 1962 on the site of the 19t' century House of Industry and Refuge/Waterloo County Home for the Aged at 369 Frederick Street. The evolution of the property is portrayed in Figure 13, showing the various buildings from 1869 to the present. A Site Plan from the City of Kitchener files, dated 1991 (Figure 14), shows the location of the 1962 Waterloo County Home for the Aged (also seen in Figure 12) and the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home built for the Salvation Army in 1993. Both buildings occupied the property for a time until the 1962 Home was demolished in the 1990s. Figure 12 University of Waterloo rigure 13 Evolution of 369 rreclenck Street property: 1x69-19206, 19206-19J"/, 1962-1993 & 1993 -present CHC Limited A of 122 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 6= a tI13 SITE STATISTICS: TOTAL SITE AREA- 17,023 mz GROUND FLOOR AREA: EXIST ING-:904 ml Ito be demolished after proposed building Is completed) GROUND FLOOR AREA; 80 BED HOME -2336 m= GROSS FLOOR AREA- 5666 mz(also to include a basement) Lem -- ---- SECURM IEE 10 BUILDING HEIGHT -10.48 m LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PART OF LOT 9 PARKING -3S Spaces OF G. C.T. LOT 3 EXkSTING ASPHALT -308 m; 11P'RT OF PARK NEW ASPHALT- 2364 mz LOT 10 OF G. C- T. _- 0.15 m high CONCRETE CURBING O- EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN LOT 2 NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METFIES AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY .3048 SITE PLAN o m za so sa REVISED: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL NO. - 90/109/ PMC I-- —'. IA -1-1 GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY OF CAN. METPoC SCALE: 1: 'COO DATE: 51 at 13 CITY OF KITCHENER °�1Q'�1Y•Xj'BY 371 FREDERICK STREET PLANNING AND OEVELOPM€NT DEPT. 17 "•r c Figure 14 Site Plan, Governing Council of the Salvation Army of Canada, 371 Frederick Street, 91-02-13 City of Kitchener files The current building at 369 Frederick Street was designed by architects Montgomery and Sisam of Toronto and built in 1993 for the Salvation Army (Figures 15 & 16). It was named the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home for Arthur R. Goudie, a department store founder who made a significant donation towards the construction costs. 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener _ ar -^ 11 -A - ------ `_ - f Sl7E Fi�,u ;A.FL GOVDIE EVENTIDE HORfE FOB THE AGED 'VNE sALVATtOK AnMY KITCH?NaA 0WTARIO ane raw' buNi^gc ha^ee bean posi:ionetl 4 86 b"d far fhb -We and a8 the mlvanae -h vuirlpr P.'QV F. is earl inec! the pro. a:iy ir.. OA!ar that tae asxao 'a I.—ti— N If a4:Fafenl A --d verandah F aIX ON %. %.W3 .6 0n8 f -a4 ran rvnahi. operxio 1 qurarng U",2} a gurgle slur -Y Wldmg m and 9,M s' er ro deffi a W g atm. Aa &-1-9 wm'aeClid tit u pwpased Nil a foonax in, 1ho r—iona bt 11. andv_ed SpadW Gala 9-dn is P.Mdad p f,ian aS- 96 xisting bu Iding be Oevuw- . ;.::atibn a.^C 0-o1ay bnV nd A'. ffil.-I—Y b.W'V. Stall d YCned 31h th. lose o: apprardmz[vy Pr9Q am;. 11® bueltlmgs Imee"_ ahead m Izrking ie' 16 cars s Lldi..d adl_. m l ll _bds _dU:lrrp {ansVlw".ion.) Tha pmgl P.W.— as many Pr 'hn 4af4p lrbea a8 1bb ma Brpra:Y.a aMF W h- -114. lid. d tldd gs 0 a lutea s YnT 9aui n bo-nds gaatlan c ,.r Its it culcr d"i . aCrf ti4 bbCr.7i ;''-i.: �., and GMttinC 1M Mads :a cs�awd Orop-alt 811116 Main Figure 15 Site Plan, A. R. Goudie Eventide Home for the Aged, c. 1991 - Montgomery and Sisam Architects City of Kitchener files l A.R. Goodie Eventicle Home 1993 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Architect: Montgomery & Sisam The Salvation Army has been a consistent patron of modern architecture. Were the "crisp stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects built in Canada since the 1950s.- The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs.The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel, and timber, provides a sheltered verandah at the entry. LP Figure 16 from: Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, p 3 Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery It became a part of the peopleCare family in January 2013 when the Salvation Army, after much consideration Paap 7R 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener and deliberation, withdrew from its operations at the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home, citing resource issues.9 1.3 Description of surrounding context and landscape features 12 Surrounding Context Bordering the property on the east and south is the Frederick Street Plaza/Frederick Mall, opened August 24,1955, the City's first self-contained shopping centre, a $2 million project (Figures 17 & 18). The plaza was enclosed circa 1980. Figure 17 Frederick Mall looking west on Frederick Street Figure 18 Frederick Mall looking east from subject property 9 htti)://www.salvationarmv.ca/blog/2011/04/07/salvation-army-to-withdraw-from-operations-at-a-r-goudie-ev entide-home/ April 7, 2011 Paap 77 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 13 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener The subject property is across Frederick Street from 362 Frederick Street (Figure 19), a property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Ado. Known as Eby House, it was built in 1837. It is the oldest residential house in Berlin/Kitchener occupied by a single family. Built for John and Rebecca Eby, the farm house was occupied by them shortly after their marriage. Rebecca was the daughter of Samuel Bricker who was famous for getting a loan from friends and relatives in Pennsylvania to pay the mortgage on the Beasley Tract, which is now the lands occupied by Waterloo. He sold all of the farmland in 1869 when the House of Industry and Refuge was built across the street. John's daughter Magedeline became owner in 1887 and moved from Harriston with her husband Martin Dunham. Dr. Mabel Dunham was their daughter, the first professionally trained librarian in Ontario. One of Canada's most noted authors, B. Mabel Dunham, was always conscious of the value of history and enriched Canadian literature with her books: The Trail of the Conestoga; Toward Sodom; The Trail of the King's Men; Grand River and Kristh's Trees. Dunham was librarian of the Kitchener Public Library from 1908 until her retirement in 1944, the first trained librarian to be in charge of a public library in Ontario. She developed one of the first children's library departments in Ontario at the Kitchener Library." Figure 19 Eby House, 362 Frederick Street 10 It is the opinion ofHeritage Planning staff that the proposed planning applications will not negatively impact the adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street, and so will not require the HIA to assess potential impacts on it. Internal Memo, Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner to Andrew Pinnell, Planner re: Pre - Submission Consultation - Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan, 369 Frederick St. January 13, 2017 Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted on May 8, 2014 by James Howe, A walk though the heritage of Kitchener's Central Frederick neighbourhood http: //www.fredandlanc. ca/2014/05/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/ Paap 7R 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 14 Other properties adjacent include two six-plexes, now office -residential use, at the corner of East Avenue and Frederick Street (Figure 20) and single family residences on the north side of Frederick (Figure 21) and on East Avenue (Figure 22). Figure 20 office -residential six-plexes on Frederick Street, west side of subject property Figure 21 single family homes, north side of Frederick at Dunham Avenue (formerly East Avenue) Paap 7c) 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Ell` L I A,4 ............ rk 6: 1w lK 2N, k ImA Oey, p e 0 AFS Goud a Kitchen NO MATTER HAW LANG WINTER SPRING IS SURE TA FOLLOW - IT,FA It I; {� a� r' ! •�� -� TT q n l� ij -�• Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 17 Figure 26 central walkway bordered by mature trees which screen the building at 369 Frederick Street -Google Streetview The building is placed at the rear of the property, not for aesthetic or contextual reasons, but because the 1962 building occupied the grass and trees area and was retained until the 1993 building was constructed (Figures 13 & 14) . Until 1962 there was a building in the foreground occupying the street view. Figure 27 looking northeast from entry court Paap R9 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Ilk w yy ms's-. d•. ��. • 'r . Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 19 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 1.4 Documentation of the heritage resource The existing building (Figures 30 - 41), as noted earlier, was designed by Montgomery and Sisam Architects for the Salvation Army in 1991 and constructed in 1993. It has been described as having a .... crisp stucco and glass exterior (that) pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects built in Canada since the 1950s. The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free- standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry.' Figure 30 north (Frederick Street) facade Figure 31 south (rear) facade from Frederick Mall parking lot 12 Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, p Paap R4 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 20 Figure 32 west facade, residential wing Figure 33 east facade, service & residential 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 21 Figure 34 entrance canopy to reception and games room Figure 35 glazed common rooms wall, residential wing Figure 36 glazed stair tower Paap RR 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 22 CL min. reception,_. common r f Rev i f � res'I'de t t F 3 story l� 44 +L Figure 37 plan view - GRCA mapping The building is comprised of three elements (Figure 37), a free-standing canopy leading to the reception, administration and games room wing which is at a right angle to the 3 -storey residential wing. The canopy (Figure 38) is supported by massive concrete posts and a combination of steel I -beams, round and square tubular steel columns and beams. The pre -finished metal batten shed roof contrasts the grey, rendered walls of the building like the shed roof of the administration wing. The underside is tongue and groove wood. Paap R7 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 23 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Figure 38 entry canopy The 1 -storey administration wing has a clerestory (Figure 40) with large windows placed at the upper level on the east side to provide light and glazing throughout the lower walls on the west and part of the north side, providing views of the landscape (Figures 39 & 41). The ceiling exposes the metal batten roof and is supported by large concrete columns (Figure 40). Figure 39 view through canopy to entry court Figure 40 clerestory administration wing Paap RR 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 24 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Figure 41 view from administration to front landscape & Frederick Street The building is of curtain wall construction with a fairly smooth acrylic rendering in a medium grey colour. Yellow panels and red -painted shed roofs with pre -finished, red metal flashing and downspouts contrasts nicely with the grey. Glazing is comprised of punched windows, with curtain wall sections (Figures 34 & 35) that incorporate the yellow panels. A similar treatment is used for the stair tower (Figure 36). The east, west and south walls are plain (Figures 31 - 33) with simple punched windows. Issued for tender drawings of the building elevations (Figures 42, 43 & 44) are found on the next pages. 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 N o- . i V o-- o- o— o- a I N s� g i N v A x 3 K i 9 1 N i - I Rom F ® c � 5 � I ®oKim I I I a� I I FTq I IM Ey— r I 51 Q All" ®fl pp i g BB{ o -o r ' Em - tzi a f IN ` S_ - it J po — I k Y€ 31 EXI El® o - CIO N & a@ ;jai K z c x • D • �- ,a - 0 K 8 � -- ® _3 ® 71flJ 0 i A V 1A L® -.... ^ a C� i e a 1 N Is — im V 3 s 3 ) Ink 1 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 28 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Although the `International Style' of modernist architecture in Canada is usually considered to be from the 1940s through the 1960s, 369 Frederick Street exhibits many of the design features of that style, including: • uninterrupted surface volumes, • non -load bearing walls and internalized structure, • flat and angled roof lines, • sense of visual weightlessness with the use of pilotis and extensive glazing, • single unobstructed clear spans with unitary volumes, • volumes wrapped in textureless, unarticulated skin. For a modern building to be considered of heritage significance, it must satisfy several of the following conditions.13 Philosophy Does the project represent the philosophy of the modern movement? Design Does the design of the project reflect the most salient characteristics of the Modern aesthetic? Materials Is the material palette treated in a distinctively modern way? Construction Is the structure of the project particularly innovative or representative of Modern technology of construction? Alterations Does the project retain its most salient design features, or have alterations been sensitive to the original intentions of the design? Architect Was the project designed by an important and influential architect who made a significant contribution to the Modern Movement? Historic Significance Has the project contributed to the historical development of Kitchener? Influence Has the project influenced the development of architecture locally, nationally, or internationally? Awards Has the project received recognition through publication or awards? Context Does the project contribute to community identity? Application of Criteria Philosophically, the building provides an aesthetic that enhances the arts, architecture, and lifestyles of the machine age; it provides modern space filled with light and fresh air to promote health and vitality. From a design perspective, the building has pure, simple geometries, clean lines. It appears fresh and immaculate (even 24 years after its construction). Its interior volumes have a sense of visual weightlessness through suspension on pilotis and the use of extensive glazing. It sports flat roofs, unadorned finishes, and elegantly machined details. It is devoid of decoration. The interior and exterior of the administration wing become ambiguous with the opening up of the ground plan and the extensive use of glazing. The emphasis is on volume rather than mass and symmetry has been avoided, relieving static composition. The form of the building somewhat reflects and reveals its function. Materials used are synthetic, including acrylics, aluminum, concrete, glass, and steel. The building's structure expresses the elements that are structurally necessary with exterior walls being merely a skin to clad the envelope of the building rather than being load bearing. 13 North York's ModernistArchitecture, Areprintof the 1997 CityofNorth York publication, PresentedbyE.R.A. Architects 2009, Prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North York Civic Centre on October 27, 2009 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 29 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener Little or no alterations have been made to the original structure. Founded in 1978, Montgomery Sisam Architects Inc. is a mid-sized architectural firm based in Toronto with a specialty in healthcare, education and sustainable design. Their numerous awards include a number of senior and long-term care homes. The body of work produced by the firm over nearly four decades is a comprehensive cross- section of Modern design. Historically, the building is the latest in a series of structures on this property specifically designed and built for the care of people in the City, starting with the 1869 House of Industry and Refuge. It is a symbol of a continuum of a pattern of cultural, social, political and economic status of the community, contributing to the identity of the municipality and its landscape. Its association with the major donor, A. R. Goudie14, and the Salvation Army is important to the City's history. The building has received recognition through the publication of Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996. The property's architectural features, massing, landscaping, and siting enhances the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Heritage Attributes The cultural heritage attributes of the property are: • the scale and irregular massing of the one and three-storey building, including the entry canopy; • the entry canopy in its entirety; • the acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls; the glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections; the pre -finished metal shed roofs of the administration wing and entry canopy; the clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing, filling the space with light and marrying the indoors with the outdoors. 1.5 Proposed development and impacts The subject lands are approximately 1.70 hectares (4.21 acres) in area with approximately 98 metres of frontage along Frederick Street to the north. The proposal is to sever part of the Frederick Street frontage from the area of the existing facility to facilitate the construction of a retirement home on the severed portion. Access to the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home and its proposed addition will be from Frederick on the new P -shaped lot. 14 ARTHUR RUSSEL GOUDIE, 1884-1960 was founder of one of western Ontario's largest family-owned department stores, Goudies, Ltd. He was among the firstin Canada to encourage employees to be shareholders. A charter member ofthe Ontario Pioneer Community Foundation, he donated the Dry Goods and Grocery Store to Doon Pioneer Village. A native ofHespeler, he began his career as an apprentice to the Forbes woollen mills. He later travelled for the Ontario Button Company. In 1909, he became manager and vice-president of Weseloh-Goudies, Ltd. When the store was destroyed by fire in 1918, Mr. Goudie rebuilt it as Goudies, Ltd. He served as Ontario and national president of the Ontario Retail Merchants Association. An active supporter ofmany community organizations, Goudie'sgenerosity made possible the building oftheA. R. Goudie Eventide Home in Kitchener. Waterloo Region Museum, Region Hall of Fame Paap c)4 22 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 0 M �'4 bA w M N x M ■ a rn c. A c CL a` ut - c 0 c O C a a m - ■ w a w a� a a \ FS a �.. 0 a� N M ■ F" M M M w M I'M J� Iiii - m i j�4glkl) d m 7 C O � d � m � n � _a o y C� l 4�-- I-, Lly J J M I M c c N c N 4 O � N a Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 37 The proposed addition wraps around the west side of the existing building, enclosing the current entry turning circle to create an internal courtyard. The canopied entrance, shortened on either end to accommodate the new drive and addition (Figure 54), remains the visual and main entry to the long-term care home. Materials are stucco (EIFS), like the existing. To differentiate it from the original, the colour will be a warmer and lighter tone. It is also differentiated by picking up the existing and proposed curtain wall vertical and horizontal lines as V -grooves in the EIFS. The building outline follows the contoured shape of the existing building and the topography of the site. The large glazed and solid curtain wall on the north side of the building will be relocated to the interior to facilitate the addition to the building and the curtain wall stair tower is modified by moving the wall slightly northward and adding a new piece to accommodate a new elevator (Figure 55). The northerly portion of the curtain wall remains visible. (Figure 46) as does the administration wing Blazed and solid curtain wall. TP W — A -M— m v szao Oso. sand soon CANOPY SHORTENED AT BOTH NDS_BY +I- s -won 7 TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVE 8',ADDi 'ION - �-> OVERHANGS REMAIN THE SAME Figure 54 existing canopy modified - Robert Dyck Architect curtain wall— IBM new curtain wall M xN moves to match _ 1 existingti-S. t— II — loss 2720 on of curtainwall removed 3320 ��l■ i f �I 1STIY r PROPOSEDI A202 A601 ELE OR I I , i. ELEVATOR 4El Figure 55 stair tower curtain wall modification - Robert Dyck Architect Pana 1119 of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 38 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener The new building, a retirement home, is located on the site of the 1962 retirement home (Figures 14 & 45) with its main entrance on the same axis as the 1869 and 1962 buildings. The proposed building is almost a mirror image in form and in the same location as the 1962 building. The new building is also in red brick with a cultured stone base. This building will effectively screen the existing building and its proposed addition from Frederick Street. Visitors to the long-term care home will pass by the new retirement home to the original entrance to the 1993 building. The following assessment of potential impact the proposed redevelopment or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resource(s) is based on the possible negative impacts as stated in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Potential Negative Impact Assessment Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage approximately 1/3 of the entry canopy is removed attributes or features - the glazed and solid stair tower curtain wall is modified Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, the alteration to the existing building is an with the historic fabric and appearance addition relates to, but differentiated from the historic fabric and is compatible with it Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage shadows created do not alter the appearance of attribute or change the viability of an associated natural heritage attributes, nor change the viability of feature or plantings, such as a garden plantings Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding the heritage resource, (the 1993 building), is not environment, context or a significant relationship isolated from its environment Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or views from the public realm of the building are vistas within, from, or of built and natural features screened by the proposed residential building and become private realm vs. public realm views A change in land use (such as rezoning a church to a no change in land use multi -unit residence) where the change in use negates the property's cultural heritage value Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters no alteration of drainage patterns soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource, including archaeological resources There is a moderate, but acceptable negative impact on the cultural heritage resource, and no impact to the adjacent cultural heritage resource from the proposed addition and new residential building. 1.6 Conservation - principles and mitigating measures The 1993 building is preserved in situ; its use remains as a residence for seniors. Methods of minimizing or avoiding negative impact on cultural heritage resources, noted by the Ministry of Culture, include but are not limited to the following: Alternative development approaches Four alternative development approaches were formulated and assessed (Figures 56 - 59). Pana 1 n'� of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener 39 on!! i ■■ !Y YY It Figure 56 Option 1 -Robert Dyck Architect Figure 57 Option -Robert Dyck Architect so ME H f on �ti i! !O Figure 58 Option -Robert Dyck Architect Figure 59 Option -Robert Dyck Architect From these alternatives and through discussion with City staff, a preferred option that met the criteria for both functionality and heritage conservation was selected (Figure 46). Isolating development and site alteration from the significant built and natural heritage features and vistas The built heritage features, with the exception of retaining the north -facing curtain wall as an interior feature, removing portions of the entry canopy, and a modification to the stair tower curtain wall, remain intact; views are changed from the public realm (in the winter months only) to the private realm (see Figure 26). Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting and materials Massing, setting and materials are harmonized with the existing building. Limiting height and density Height of the addition is consistent with the existing building. Density is substantially increased by making use of the open space, Allowing only compatible infill and additions Infill and the addition are compatible. Reversible alterations Not applicable. 1.7 Proposed alterations justified and explained The alterations are designed to provide a substantial number of new long-term care and seniors' residences, fulfilling an important need in the community. The loss of the ends of the entry canopy is partially offset by retaining most of the canopy and retaining its symmetry on the doorway as well as the overhangs at each end. Retention of the more visible portion of the stair tower curtain wall, albeit moved slightly north, somewhat compensates for the loss of a slightly smaller portion Pana 1 N of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 40 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener of the wall. The visible glazed and solid administration wing curtain wall at the main entrance is retained. 1.8 Recommendations The addition and new building, their locations on the site, and their landscape shall conform to the plans in this impact assessment. More specifically: • originally it was recommended that as much of the existing large glazed and solid panel curtain wall as possible should be salvaged to be used as an interior feature as a dividing wall between interior spaces - however, according to the project architect, it is not salvageable; • to ensure that the addition is a product of its own time, without a blurred distinction between old and new, and is physically and visually compatible with the 1993 building, the proposed cladding should be stucco (EIFS) carried to the foundation without a distinct base like the original and differentiated from the 1993 building with a warmer and lighter tone to be established at Site Plan Approval stage; • differentiation may also be accomplished by picking up the existing and proposed curtain wall vertical and horizontal lines as V -grooves in the EIFS, lending a more residential feel to the building; • new curtain wall sections at points of internal communal and circulation spaces should retain the dimensions and form of the originals, but the solid panels constructed in natural aluminum rather than the yellow of the original, again to not be a copy, but pay homage; • to suit the needs of the residents there is no air conditioning in the units, only in the hallways and common areas; therefore, windows must be operable with a restricted opening - details of the type and style of window on the north elevation should be deferred to the approval of the building elevations at Site Plan Approval; As some of the heritage attributes are to be modified, commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with text and images outlining the history of the property and photographs showing the 1993 building before the addition be placed in the reception area or some other public room. In order to promote the retention of historic information, copies of this report should be deposited with a local repository of historic material. Therefore, it is recommended that this report be deposited at the Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room. 1.9 Qualifications of the author completing the Heritage Impact Assessment See Appendix 2. 2.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS With respect to "the significance and heritage attributes of the subject property", the significance is limited to the existing building and the history of the property and its former occupants. Some of the heritage attributes are affected as is noted. None of the history is lost by the proposed development; rather, another chapter in the property's history of care -giving opens. Regarding "impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes ofthe subject properties and on the attributes of surrounding protected heritage property", although the site is proposed to house significantly more density, moderate negative impact on the heritage attributes of the heritage resource is expected. • As far as "what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches Pana 1 nr, of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 41 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener are recommended", if the conservation principles espoused in the recommendations above are adhered to, no other mitigating measures, additional alternative developments, or site alterations are recommended. • Respecting "clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate", the proposal generally meets the existing zoning by-laws and it conforms to the Conservation Principles in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Recommended mitigating measures are limited to deposit of this report at the Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room and implementation of the architectural and landscape architectural designs as found in this report. Additional alternative development or site alteration approaches are not necessary as the proposal meets policies and by- laws and has a moderate negative impact on the heritage resource, most of which can be successfully mitigated. 3.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION 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. hl addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PRS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.15 The PPS defines "built heritage resource" as one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political economic or military history and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local provincial or federal jurisdictions. The term "significant" means resources valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. "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. Ontario Regulation 9/06 `Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest' 16 states for a property to be considered of cultural heritage value or interest, it must meet one or more of the following criteria: have design value or physical value because it, • is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, • displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or • demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. have historical value or associative value because it, has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 15 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, InfoSheet#5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006 16 Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9106 `Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest' January 25, 2006 Pana 1 nR of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 42 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener • yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or • demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. have contextual value because it, • is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, • is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or • is a landmark. The potential built heritage resource and potentially significant heritage resource on this property is the 1993 A. R. Goudie Eventide Home. The home is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The house has design value or physical value. It is a representative example of a style, type, expression, material and construction method (the International Style of Modernism); it displays a high degree of style, craftsmanship and artistic merit (see paragraph 1.4, page 28). The property has historical value or associative value as it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, persons, activity, organization and institution that is significant to the community. It has the potential to yield information that would contribute to an understanding of the community or culture, and it demonstrates and reflects the work of an architectural firm and a former owner who are significant to the community. The Home retains its form, mass, outline, and materials, and is considered to have contextual value as it is the fourth building in a succession of care homes on this site since 1869. It is the opinion of this author that the building meets the criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This opinion is not compromised by the proposed modifications to the building if the recommendations of this report are carried out. This updated scoped heritage impact assessment is respectfully submitted by: CHC Limited 910, 411��- per: Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Pana 1 N of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 43 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener A. R. Goudie Eventide Home - sections/elevations, Montgomery and Sisam, March 21, 1991, issued for tender Auxiliary celebrates 50 years, Waterloo Region Record - 14 Oct 2014 - Valerie Hill, Record staff County of Waterloo: House of Industry and Refuge Now the site of the A. R. Goudie Eventide Home, Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted by James Howe on May 8, 2014 in Arts & Culture, Heritage, Kitchener https: Hkingandottawa.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kit chener/ Digital Historical Air Photos of KW and Surrounding Area, University of Waterloo http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/ Doris Lewis Rare Book Room, Waterloo Library historical case study of the Waterloo County House of Industry and Refuge (1869-1950), Social Innovation Research Group, Wilfrid Laurier University, http://waterloohouseofrefuge.ca/house/ Images ofProgress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996. Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, 1996 Internal Memo, Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner to Andrew Pinnell, Planner re: Pre -Submission Consultation - Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan, 369 Frederick St. January 13, 2017 Mennonite Archives of Ontario North York's Modernist Architecture, A reprint of the 1997 City of North York publication, Presented by E.R.A. Architects 2009, Prepared for the North York Modernist Architecture Forum held at North York Civic Centre on October 27, 2009 Parks Canada, Standard & Guidelines for the Conservation ofHistoric Places in Canada, www.pc.gc.ca 2003. Region of Waterloo Archives Salvation Army blog, Apri17, 2011 http://www.salvationanny.ca/blog/2011/04/07/salvation-anny-to-w thdraw-from-operations-at-a-r-goudie- eventide-home/ Self -guided walking tour: Made in Berlin. Matured in Kitchener. Posted on May 8, 2014 by James Howe, A walk though the heritage of Kitchener's Central Frederick neighbourhood http: //www. fredandlanc. ca/2014/05/self-guided-walking-tour-made-in-berlin-matured-in-kitchener/ Waterloo Region Museum, Region Hall of Fame Pana 1 QR of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Appendix 1 Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage InternalMemo R (ommunity Services Department www.kitchenerca Date: January 13, 2017 To: Andrew Pinnell, Planner From: Sandra Parks, Heritage Planner cc: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning Subject: Pre -Submission Consultation - Committee of Adjustment & Site Plan 369 Frederick St Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments in relation to the proposed addition to the existing Long Term Care Facility and new Retirement Home building at 369 Frederick Street, to be discussed at a Pre - Submission Consultation meeting on January 19, 2017. The property at 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. Correspondence with the owner in January 2015 requested permission to access the property to take exterior photographs of the building and evaluate the property for possible listing on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. A response was not received at that time. Information on file shows this 1993 modern building, designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects, was featured in Images of Progress: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region 1946-1996, by the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery. The listing states, "The Salvation Army has been a consistent patron of modern architecture. Here the "crisp stucco and glass exterior pays homage to the modern architectural expression of many Salvation Army projects built in Canada since the 1950s." The plan is irregular, to preserve the existing mature trees, but also in the modern tradition of bending the plan to suit spatial and functional needs. The residential wing is set furthest from Frederick Street. In front, a suite of public rooms look toward the entry court through glass walls. A free-standing entrance canopy in concrete, steel and timber provides a sheltered verandah at the entry." The subject property is also located adjacent to a protected heritage property - 362 Frederick Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy2.6.1 of the PPS states that signiticantbuiltheritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Policy 2.6.3 states that 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. 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. Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also address the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The Regional Official Plan contains policies that require the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The City's Official Plan contains policies that require development to have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage Pana 1 nc) of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Appendix 1 Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage 2 resources into development. These policies 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 Official Plan also 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. In considering the above, the City will require the submission of an HIA and a CP as part of complete planning applications. The HIA will need to assess the potential impact of the subject applications (CofA and SP) and the proposed development on the existing cultural heritage resources on the subject property. If an impact is identified, the HIA must recommend mitigative measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. These measures should be reflected in the planning applications and the design of the development proposal submitted to the City for consideration. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed planning applications will not negatively impact the adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street, and so will not require the HIA to assess potential impacts on it. Heritage Planning staff will avail themselves to review building elevations and provide input and comment to Urban Design and Development Review staff, as required, to ensure the design of the future Retirement Home building complements the adjacent protected heritage property, 362 Frederick Street. In keeping with Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of HIAs, the following key components will need to be addressed: a) historic research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of all cultural heritage resources; c) description of the proposed development; d) measurement of development impact to the existing cultural heritage resources on the subject property; e) identification of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) identification of preferred and recommended conservation, mitigation or avoidance measure(s), together with appropriate implementation and monitoring strategies; and g) concluding value and summary statements. Note that HIAs 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 Heritage Kitchener has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Approval of the HIA by the Director of Planning will be required prior to Site Plan Approval in Principle. A CP is required where a cultural heritage resource worthy of retention is identified and recommended in the HIA. In keeping with Ministryand Cityguidelines on the preparation of Conservation Plans, the following keycomponents will need to be addressed: 1. analysis of the cultural heritage resource, including documentation, identification of cultural heritage attributes, assessment of resource conditions and deficiencies; 2. short-, medium- and long-term maintenance and conservation measures including appropriate conservation principles and practices, qualifications of contractors and trades people that should be applied, and an implementation strategy; 3. security requirements, including measures to protect the resource during phases of construction or related development; and 4. cost estimates for short-term maintenance and mitigation measures to be used to determine sufficient monetary amounts for letters of credit or other securities as may be required. The submission of a CP may be waived by City staff in instances where an HIA does not recommend Listing or Designation of a cultural heritage resource, has been reviewed by City staff and is deemed acceptable. In summary, the Citywill require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and a Conservation Plan as part of complete planning applications. The terms of reference will be consistent with the City's generic terms of reference for HIAs and CPs. Contact Heritage Planning staff for copies. Pana 11 fl of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Appendix 1 Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage City of Kitchener PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM Project Address: 369 & 375 Frederick Street Date of Meeting: November 25, 2021 Application Type: Minor Variance Comments of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Victoria Grohn Email: victoria.arohn(a)kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 Date of Comments: November 18, 2021 ® 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 provide the following comments based on the pre -submission consultation application form signed September 23, 2021 and supporting documents including: cover letter prepared by Polocorp Inc. dated September 23, 2021; revised site plan prepared by SRM Architects dated September 15, 2021; elevations and angular plane prepared by SRM Architects; and shadow study prepared by SRM Architects. The proposal contemplates modifications to an approved Site Plan, including increasing the maximum building height from 15.3 metres to 18.5 metres; reducing the interior side yard setback from 9.91 metres to 6.1 metres; reducing the minimum required parking from 78 spaces to 70 spaces; and increasing the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 1.0 to 1.25 to accommodate an additional 80 long-term care beds. In addition, the applicant is contemplating changing the colour of the existing yellow spandrels to a new colour. The property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street is of cultural heritage value or interest, having been placed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by CHC Limited dated March 16, 2017 and updated May 8, 2017 was submitted in support of the previous Site Plan applications. The HIA identified the following heritage attributes of the property: • Scale and irregular massing of the one and three storey building, including the entry canopy; • Entry canopy in its entirety; • Acrylic stucco non -load bearing walls; • Glazed and solid panel curtain wall sections; • Pre -finished metal shed roof of the administration wing and entry canopy; and • Clerestory form and glazing in the administration wing filling the space with light and marrying the indoors with the outdoors. The HIA identified the previous development proposal had moderate, but acceptable, negative impacts on the cultural heritage resource, and recommended the following mitigating measures: • As much of the existing large glazed and solid panel curtain wall as possible should be salvaged to be used as an interior feature; • Proposed cladding should be stucco (EIFS) carried to the foundation with a warmer, lighter tone; and • New curtain wall sections at points of internal communal and circulation spaces should retain the dimensions and form of the originals, but the solid panels constructed in aluminum rather than the yellow of the original. Pana 111 of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Appendix 1 Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage 4 In addition, the HIA goes on to recommend that commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with text and images outlining the history of the property and photographs showing the 1993 building before the addition be placed in the reception area or other public room. A revised Heritage Impact Assessment will be required to address the proposed site plan modifications as well as assess the proposed changes to the window spandrels. Heritage Planning staff will review and approve elevations in conjunction with Urban Design staff. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Minor Variance Application: • Revised Heritage Impact Assessment addressing the changes to the development proposal • Elevation drawings • 3D massing model 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: N/A 4. Policies. Standards and Resources: N/A 5. Anticipated Fees: N/ A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Pana 1 1 9 of 122 CHC Limited May 3, 2022 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) University of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (BSA) University of Guelph, 1965 Professional Experience: 1965 - present President, CHC Limited, Guelph, ON 1977 - present President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, ON 1977- 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC 1975- 1981 Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, ON 1969- 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph 1975- 1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, ON 1964- 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, ON Historical Research, Heritage Planning and Conservation Experience and Expertise Current Professional and Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation (AHLP) - 1978 - Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CARP) - 1987 - Member: Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) - 1968 - (Emeritus 2016) Member: Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (FCSLA) - 1969 - (Fellow 1977, Life Member 2016) Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage): Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CARP), 2002 - 2003 Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, 1980 - 2002 Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987 - 2000 (Chair 1988 - 1990) Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985 - 1988 Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage): Merit Award 2016 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes National Award 2016 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Mike Wagner Award 2013 Heritage Award - Breithaupt Block, Kitchener, ON People's Choice Award 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON Award of Excellence 2012 Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award 2007 Excellence in Urban Design Awards, Heritage, Old Quebec Street, City of Guelph, ON Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award 1998 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award) Award 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award) Regional Merit 1990 CSLA Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa, National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON Selected Heritage Publications: 1 CHC Limited P age 22 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author 2 Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20 ' and 21 " Centuries. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998. Scott, Owen R. Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997. Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993. Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double -bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp. Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI -2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. (ACO) Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV -2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the ACO. Scott, Owen R. Heritage Conservation Education, Heritage Landscape Conservation, Momentum 1989, Icomos Canada, Ottawa, p.31. Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association, Toronto, 1989. 9 pp. Scott, Owen R. Landscape preservation - What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects - Ontario Chapter, vol. 4 no.3, 1987. Scott, Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review, May 1986. pp. 5-9. Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University, 1984. Scott, Owen R. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference (1983). 1983. 22 PP. Scott, Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203. Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp. Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing- Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978). Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Following is a representative listing of some of the heritage consultations undertaken by Owen R. Scott in his capacity as a principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., and principal of CHC Limited. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports & Heritage Impact Assessments - Bridges • Adams Bridge (Structure S20) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Southgate Township, ON • Belanger Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Casey Township, ON • Bridge 49 -WG Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington, ON • Bridge 420 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Blandford -Blenheim Township, ON • Bridge 425 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Blandford -Blenheim Township, ON • Bridge Street Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON • Holland Mills Road Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON • Irvine Street (Watt) Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington, ON • Oxford -Waterloo Bridge Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Wilmot Township, ON • Uno Park Road Bridge, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report & Heritage Impact Assessment, Harley Township, ON Heritage Master Plans and Landscape Plans • Alton Mill Landscape, Caledon, ON • Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan, Toronto, ON • Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON • Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCC/Ottawa, ON • Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON CHC Limited Pagai3y13422 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author • Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON • Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON • Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON • Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON • Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON • George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON • Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON • Greenwood Cemetery Master Plan, Owen Sound, ON • Hamilton Unified Family Courthouse Landscape Restoration Plan, Hamilton, ON • John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON • Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON • Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON • London Psychiatric Hospital Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan, London, ON • McKay / Varey House Landscape Restoration Plan, Markham (Unionville), ON • Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/ Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY • Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/IIuntsville, ON • Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re -use, Landscape Design, Brampton, ON • Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON • Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON • Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake, ON • Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON • Rockway Gardens Master Plan, Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener, ON • St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON • St. James Cemetery Master Plan, Toronto, ON • St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON • Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Meewasin Valley Authority, Saskatoon, SK • Whitehern Landscape Restoration Plan, Hamilton, ON • Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks Canada/Kitchener, ON Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHER), Cultural Heritage Inventories and Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluations o Belfountain Area Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Peel Region, ON o Chappell Estate / Riverside / Mississauga Public Garden Heritage Inventory, Mississauga, ON 0 8895 County Road 124 Cultural Heritage Opinion Report, Erin (Ospringe), ON o County of Waterloo Courthouse Building Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON o Cruickston Park Farm & Cruickston Hall - Cultural Heritage Resources Study, Cambridge, ON o Doon Valley Golf Course - Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources Inventory, Kitchener/Cambridge, ON o Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit (GO-ALRT) Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington, ON o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment, City of Mississauga, ON o Hespeler West Secondary Plan - Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON o Highway 400 to 404 Link Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Bradford, ON o Highway 401 to 407 Links Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Pickering/Ajax/Whitby/ Bowmanville, ON o Homer Watson House Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment, Tecumseh, ON o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON o Niska Road Cultural Heritage Landscape Addendum, City of Guelph, ON 0 154 Ontario Street, Historical - Associative Evaluation, Guelph, ON 0 35 Sheldon Avenue North, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON o 43 Sheldon Avenue North, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Kitchener, ON 0 Silvercreek (LaFarge Lands) Cultural Landscape Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON 0 53 Surrey Street East and 41, 43, 45 Wyndham Street South Cultural Heritage Evaluation Guelph, ON 0 Swift Current CPR Station Gardens condition report and feasibility study for rehabilitation/reuse, Swift Current, SK o University of Guelph, McNaughton Farm House, Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, Puslinch Township, ON CHC Limitedage 22 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author 4 University of Guelph, Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, Guelph, ON University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments, Guelph, ON 2007 Victoria Road South Heritage Evaluation, Guelph, ON Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo 69 Woolwich Street (with references to 59, 63-67, 75 Woolwich Street) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Guelph, ON Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessments (CHRIA/CHIA/HIS/HIA) and Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statements 0 33 Arkell Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 86 Arthur Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o William Barber House, 5155 Mississauga Road, Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 72 Beaumont Crescent Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON o 25 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 215 Broadway Street Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON o Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON o Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Cambridge, ON o 27-31 Cambridge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 58 Church Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Churchville Heritage Conservation District, Brampton, ON o City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 12724 Coleraine Drive Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, Caledon (Bolton), ON 0 12880 Coleraine Drive Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, Caledon (Bolton), ON o Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON o 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment (farmstead, house & barn), Guelph, ON 0 31-43 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 35 David Street (Phase II) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 75 Dublin Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o 24, 26, 28 and 32 Dundas Street East Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Cookeville), ON 0 1261 Dundas Street South Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 172 - 178 Elizabeth Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 19 Esandar Drive, Heritage Impact Assessment, Toronto, ON o 70 Fountain Street Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 14 Forbes Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 369 Frederick Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 42 Front Street South Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON o Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON o GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Kitchener, ON o Hancock Woodlands Heritage Impact Statement, City of Mississauga, ON 0 132 Hart's Lane, Hart Farm Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 9675, 9687, 9697 Keele Street Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Vaughan (Maple) ON 0 13165 Keele Street Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, King Township (King City), ON 0 151 King Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, Waterloo, ON o Kip Co. Lands Developments Ltd. Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment - Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District, City of Vaughan (Woodbridge) ON o 20415 Leslie Street Heritage Impact Assessment, East Gwillimbury, ON 0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 36-46 Main Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON 0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 19 - 37 Mill Street Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 2610, 2620 and 2630 Mississauga Road, Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON o 4067 Mississauga Road, Cultural Landscape Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON CHC Limited Pagai3ylfD22 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author 0 1142 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON 0 1245 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 15 Mont Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub at 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 6671 Ninth Line Heritage Impact Statement, Cordingley House Restoration & Renovation, Mississauga, ON o 266-280 Northumberland Street (The Gore) Heritage Impact Assessment, North Dumfries (Ayr), ON 0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Streetsville), ON o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 259 St. Andrew Street East Cultural Heritage Assessment, Fergus, ON 0 35 Sheldon Avenue, Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 43 Sheldon Avenue, Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o 2300 Speakman Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON 0 10431 The Gore Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Brampton, ON o Thorny -Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON o 7 Town Crier Lane, Heritage Impact Assessment, Markham, ON o University of Guelph, 3 - 7 Gordon Street Houses, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o University of Guelph, Harrison House, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o Victoria Park Proposed Washroom Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 927 Victoria Road South (barn) Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o 272-274 Victoria Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Mississauga, ON o 26 - 32 Water Street North Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge (Galt), ON o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON o 248-260 Woodbridge Avenue Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation District Conformity Report, Woodbridge Heritage Conservation District, City of Vaughan (Woodbridge) 0 35 Wright Street Cultural Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, Richmond Hill, ON 0 1123 York Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 14288 Yonge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Aurora, ON Heritage Conservation Plans o William Barber House, 5155 Mississauga Road, Heritage Conservation Plan, Mississauga, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan, for Infrastructure Ontario, Hamilton, ON o Harrop Barn Heritage Conservation Plan, Milton, ON 0 120 Huron Street Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON 0 324 Old Huron Road Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON 0 Sixth Line Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plan, Oakville, ON o 264 Woolwich Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON 0 14288 Yonge Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Aurora, ON 0 1123 York Road Heritage Conservation Plan, Guelph, ON Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans • Downtown Whitby Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Town of Whitby, ON • MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON • Queen Street East Heritage Conservation District Study, Toronto, ON • University of Toronto & Queen's Park Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventories/Studies • Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, City of Kitchener, ON • Cultural Heritage Landscape Inventory, City of Mississauga, ON • Cultural Heritage Resources Scoping Study, Township of Centre Wellington, ON CHC Limited Pagai3y13722 Appendix 2 Qualifications of the Author Peer Review, 0 o Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton, ON o Belvedere Terrace - Peer Review, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Parry Sound, ON o Forbes Estate Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review, Cambridge (Hespeler), ON o Heritage Square Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington (Fergus), ON o Little Folks Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington (Elora), ON o Potter Foundry and the Elora South Condos Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review for Township of Centre Wellington (Elora), ON 0 558 Welbanks Road, Quinte's Isle, miscellaneous heritage assessment documents, Prince Edward County, ON Expert Witness Experience • Oelbaum Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Eramosa Township, ON, 1988 • Roselawn Centre Conservation Review Board Hearing, Port Colborne, ON, 1993 • Halton Landfill, Joint Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearing, 1994 • OPA 129 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Richmond Hill, ON, 1996 • Diamond Property Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Aurora, ON, 1998 • Harbour View Investments Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Town of Caledon, ON, 1998 o Aurora South Landowners Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Aurora, ON, 2000 o Ballycroy Golf Course Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Palgrave, ON, 2002 o Doon Valley Golf Course Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Cambridge, ON, 2002 o Maple Grove Community Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, North York, ON, 2002 o Maryvale Crescent Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Richmond Hill, ON, 2003 o LaFarge Lands Ontario Municipal Board Mediation, Guelph, ON, 2007 o 255 Geddes Street, Elora, ON, heritage opinion evidence - Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2010 o Downey Trail Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2010 o Wilson Farmhouse Conservation Review Board Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2014 0 85 Victoria Street, Churchville Heritage Conservation District, Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Brampton, ON, 2016 o Haylock / Youngblood Development OMB Mediation Hearing, Centre Wellington, ON, 2018 o Riverbank Drive LPAT Mediation Hearing, Cambridge, ON, 2019 0 50 Brookside Drive Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing, Kitchener, ON, 2021 o 70 Fountain Street Skydeveo Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing, Guelph, ON, 2022 cHc CHC Limited Pagai3y11322