Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK Agenda - 2023-06-06
Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, June 6, 2023, 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair - J. Haalboom Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 3.1 Item 4.2 - Chris Uchiyama, LHC Heritage; Joe Mancini, The Working Centre; and, Adrianne Bobechko, Perimeter Development Corp. 3.2 Item 4.4 - Beth Hanson 3.3 Item 4.5 - Kanika Kaushal, McCallum Sather 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Notice of Intention to Designate 97 Victoria 10m 3 Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2023-223 4.2 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-008 - 10m 22 97 Victoria Street North - Proposed Third - Storey Addition and Existing Building Alterations, DSD -2023-222 4.3 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 - 10m 191 369 Frederick Street - Proposed Alterations and Addition to the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home, DSD -2023-221 4.4 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-009 - 10m 261 883 Doon Village Road - Demolition of Rear Addition, Alteration to Rear Window and Door, and Construction of New Addition, DSD -2023- 245 4.5 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment -137 and 15 m 290 149 (ween Street South, DSD -2023-224 4.6 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Award Nominations 20 m 294 Summary, DSD -2023-248 and ADDENDUM REPORT DSD -2023-275 Please be advised that addendum report Development Services Department report DSD -2023-275, including an additional nomination for the Committee's consideration for the 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Awards, specifically the property municipally addressed as 1 Queen Street North. 4.7 Bill 23 - City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage 45 m 394 Register Review, DSD -2023-225 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 507 6. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Administrator Page 2 of 507 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-223 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 97 Victoria Street North 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 97 Victoria Street North 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 97 Victoria Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 97 Victoria Street North meets the criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 ( amended by 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant 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 meeting, consulting and collaborating with the owner regarding 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 to 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 97 Victoria Street North is located on the south side of Victoria Street North near the intersection of Victoria Street North and Weber Street West. The building was built circa 1927 in the Industrial Vernacular style of architecture and is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 507 City's Municipal Heritage Register. Additionally, it is also located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. 68 �y ti 294 U T1- 282 MT HOPE HURON BARK �1 283 G� too 70 64 ��.�r�E �1.-✓ is r''"�~r' •J �,A•. 60 ' 9i1 X123 �lfia -y 1't6 115 r r, EN TRE fi12+y. r" .n rG s_isei a64r Figure 1: Location Map for 97 Victoria Street North. The submission and approval of a 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 2022 for 83-97 Victoria Street North. Since 83 Victoria Street North has no heritage status, only 97 Victoria Street North was assessed in the HIA. The HIA dated December 2, 2022, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology was submitted to the City in support of these applications and was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its January 3, 2023, meeting. These applications related to the retention of the existing structures at 83 and 97 Victoria Street North, adding a third storey to the to the existing structure at 97 Victoria Street North, and also a one -storey addition attached towards the rear of the existing building. More information on the proposed changes and redevelopment are outlined in Staff Report DSD -2023-222 titled 97 Victoria Street North Proposed Third -storey Addition and Existing Building Alterations, also on the June 6, 2023 Heritage Kitchener Agenda. The draft HIA confirmed that the existing building at 97 Victoria Street North meet designation criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by 569/22) and would be eligible for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the existing building was made a condition of the site plan approval for the proposed development. 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 Page 4 of 507 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 97 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative and contextual values. It satisfies 4 out of the 9 criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06. The evaluation, as included in the HIA, has been summarized in the Table below (Table 1). Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property or physical valuebecause i. is a rare, unique, representative, YLs The property is a representative example of or early example of a style, type, a building developed using the industrial expression, material, or vernacular architectural style, construction method, The building on the Property was erected c. 1927 to serve an industrial purpose for the Mitchell Button Company who occupied the site for over four decades. Although the Property is a later addition to Kitchener's Warehouse District CHL, it nonetheless is a representative example of Kitchener's early 201h century industrial core, The Property's symmetry, decorative parapet over its primary farad e. shallow buttressing, and rectangular shape are representative aspects tha# reflect this building style. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Despite being a representative example of the industrial architectural style that was common in Kitchener in the early 201h century, the building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. iii_ demonstrates a high degree of No The property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. It was constructed using common building methods at the time of construction. Page 5 of 507 Page 6 of 507 Criteria met JU-Stification propertyCriteria 2. The associative value because it, L has direct associations with a Yes The Property has direct associations with theme, event, belief, person, Walter Mitchell and his company called the activity, organization, or 'Mitchell Button Company'which operated institution that is significant to a within Kitchener for nearly 55 years. B community, direct extension of the Property's manufacturing use, the Property is directly connected with the theme of the City's industrial expansion that occurred throughout the early 201" century, ii, yields. or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or comm unity or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or artist, guilder, designer or theorist who i theorist who is significant to a significant to the community. The industrial community. vernacular building was built using common materials and methods at the time of construction_ The Property's architect andlor general contractor are unknown - 3. Theproperty value because it, L is important in defining, `fes The Property is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, and supporting the character of character of an area, the area. The Property is a former industrial building that contributes to the City's 'Warehouse District' CHL. This area is defined by its industrial commercial development that occurred during the early 2011century and the concurrently built industrial vernacular structures. Because the Property was developed as an industrial building that was architecturally similar to other industrial properties within Page 6 of 507 Criteria Criteria met Jiust if icati on the Warehouse District, it helps to define its neighbourhood. in addition, the Property acts as a visual gateway into the Warehouse District because of its position at the edge of the district. ii. is physical„ functionally, visually, Yes The Property is functionally and historically or historically linked to its linked to its immediate surroundings. surroundings, or In addition to its presence among the greater Warehouse District DHL that creates a link, the Property is directly adjacent to the City's primary rail junction. This connection is important because the Warehouse District's growth and development is connected to the ability for manufactured goods to be transported via the railway. Accordingly, the Property is directly connected to the neighbouring railway. In addition, the Property is among the first within the Warehouse District CHL that is seen by eastbound rail and vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is a symbolic gateway into itchener's Warehouse G+istrict, iii, is a landmark- No The Property is not a landmark. The MCM defines `landmark' as ..,a recog niza ble natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment, it may mark an event or deveiopment, it may be conspicuous... The Property does not meet this criterion.. Table 1 — Cultural Heritage Evaluation as included in the draft HIA. Design/Physical Value The existing building is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style and is in good condition (Fig. 2 & 3). The existing building is a two-storey "L" shaped building on a concrete foundation with symmetrical design and features the following- • The building has a flat roof and symmetrical design on a concrete foundation-, Page 7 of 507 • The front fagade has a shaped parapet with brick columns and six -over -six original windows with brick headers and concrete sills; • The sides of the building have been divided into 9 bays with 3 windows on each floor of the bay and shallow buttressing between the windows. ; • The red, yellow and beige brick construction. The difference in brick is due to two additions that were added after the original construction. The first addition, comprising of yellow brick, is attached to the east section of the building's rear elevation. This addition matches the two-storey height and rhythm of the existing structure, dividing the rear elevation into three bays (Fig. 4). Another addition was added to the building's southeast elevation, this time situated towards the westmost section. This addition is also two storeys in height and shares the matching fenestration pattern of the original building, but it is of a different colour (beige) and is not arranged into bays using shallow buttresses (Fig. 5). A third, single storey concrete was also constructed, which gave the existing building it's current "L" shape. • Except for the windows on the front fagade, all other windows on the building are not original. Moreover, the window openings have been somewhat infilled and clad with vertical siding. However, the window openings still have the flat -headed soldier brick course along with the concrete sills. In addition to these features, this building has been recognized as a contributing industrial property that supports the character of the City's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. Furthermore, this building acts as a visual gateway into the Warehouse District due to its position at the edge of the district. Figure 2: East (side) facade of 97 Victoria Street North. Page 8 of 507 Figure 3. Front Facade of 97 Victoria Street North t Figure 4: First Addition towards the rear of the property 1. k ' Source: Draft HIA Page 9 of 507 Figure 5: Second Addition towards the side -rear of the original building (no buttresses on the section after the chimney) Source: Draft HIA Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, original use and present owner. William E. Mitchell of the Mitchell Button Company had been operating his company from 21 Gaukel Street until the acquisition of this property on 14 April 1927. Photographic evidence and tenancy documentation found in the city directories suggests that Mitchell had the structure on the subject property shortly after taking lot ownership from M.B. Shantz — real estate broker. This property was given to Shantz by Charles A. Kern — who also granted portion of this property to Ernest Denton on July 29, 1924. Per the registry, it appears as though Mitchell, along with the Canada Permanent Trust Company, retained ownership of the Property and leased it to the Mitchell Button Company for $5,400.00 yearly. In 1967, the Mitchell Button Company would retain ownership of the Company. William's son took over the Company in 1915 but the Mitchell Button Company operated out of this site for 41 years. The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre's Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares store and St. John's Kitchen. This building is also historically important as it was part of the buildings that were built at a time when Kitchener was undergoing rapid industrial development. Many of these industrial buildings — such as the Michael Button Company Building and the Kaufaman Rubber Company Building were built between 1910 and 1930s in response to Kitchener's emerging economy. Contextual Value Page 10 of 507 The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district. The building is historically linked to its surroundings within the warehouse district. The Warehouse District is defined by the industrial commercial development that occurred during the early 20th century and the concurrent built industrial vernacular structures. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of this building are: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o Two-storey height; o Symmetrical northwest (primary) fagade; o Flat rood with shaped parapet on the northwest (primary fagade); o Shallow buttresses that define distinct bays along each of the building's elevations; o Brick construction comprising of red, yellow, and beige brick; o Original window openings with solider course brick headers and concrete sills; o Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade; and o Chimney set in stretcher boded, yellow brick with concrete banding. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District; and o The link to the surrounding Warehouse District. Some of the proposed changes by the applicant do modify the heritage attributes of the building. However, the draft HIA does suggest mitigation measures to ensure minimal adverse impact to the cultural heritage value of the buildings including: - That the project team, in consultation with the City of Kitchener, review alternatives for replacement of the original windows on the front fagade. o The windows need to be replaced so that the building can meet net -zero building requirements. Staff is working with the applicant to review alternative window design for the front fagade so that an appropriate window replacement style can be chosen. All other windows are not original and are proposed to be replaced. - That a Conservation Plan (CP) be prepared by a qualified heritage professional to minimize the potential for unintended impacts resulting from project consultation. o The submission and approval of a CP has been made a condition of final site plan approval. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 11 of 507 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, 2022 - DSD -2023-222. HPA-2022-IV-008 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Statement of Significance for 97 Victoria Street North Page 12 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 97 VICTORIA STREET NORTH X778&it'" �126n FZ sl � P Sj l v i u i � MT HOPE HURON PARK s jam. ��ir•�`` � r -i� 64 � f - �, .. N. 111 yr• �� t 228'. PRG ,y 42 Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value Municipal Address: 97 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Plan 374 Year Built: c. 1927 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: Mitchell Button Company Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good � 1 ��ti 115 it18 �k J'�r411U . R f.. SI,X& 555 []Social Value ®Economic Value El Environmental Value Page 13 of 507 Descriotion of Cultural Heritaee Resource 97 Victoria Street North is a two storey early -201h century brick building constructed in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.24 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Victoria Street North between Duke Street West and Weber Street West in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former industrial building. Heritage Value 97 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design, historical, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The house is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: • flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; • 3 by 9 bays; • red, yellow and beige brick Construction; • shallow buttressing between the windows; • original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; and, • Groups of three 6/6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. In addition to these features, this building has been recognized as a contributing industrial property that supports the character of the City's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. Furthermore, this building acts as a visual gateway into the Warehouse District due to its position at the edge of the district. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, original use and present owner. Walter Mitchell began manufacturing ivory buttons in 1914 (Moyer, 1979). W.E. Mitchell, Walter's son, took over the company in 1915 (Moyer, 1979). The company was known as the Mitchell Button Company. Dwindling supplies and foreign competition shifted the business from ivory to plastic under the direction of Lloyd G.E. Mitchell in 1945 (Moyer, 1979). The company started on Frederick Street in 1915, moved to Gaukel Street for a short period and then to the Victoria Street site around 1921 for 50 years (KW Record, 1958; KW Record, 1970). The company name changed to Mitchell Plastics. Marshall Ariss joined the company in 1955 and lead the change from plastic buttons to plastic components for industries including IBM, Otis Elevator, International Harvester, Greb and Leigh (Moyer, 1979). Ariss is associated with the early plastics industry and Page 14 of 507 has been honoured with membership in the Plastic Pioneers Club of Canada (Moyer, 1979). The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre's Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares store and St. John's Kitchen. This building is also historically important as it was part of the buildings that were built at a time when Kitchener was undergoing rapid industrial development. Many of these industrial buildings — such as the Michael Button Company Building and the Kaufaman Rubber Company Building were built between 1910 and 1930s in response to Kitchener's emerging economy. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district. The building is historically linked to its surroundings within the warehouse district. The Warehouse District is defined by the industrial commercial development that occurred during the early 20th century and the concurrent built industrial vernacular structures. Economic Value The building has economic value as a contributing property to a group of buildings that were built during Kitchener's economic boom that was taking place in the early 20th century. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of this building are: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o Two-storey height; o Symmetrical northwest (primary) facade; o Flat rood with shaped parapet on the northwest (primary fagade); o Shallow buttresses that define distinct bays along each of the building's elevations; o Brick construction comprising of read, yellow, and beige brick; o Original window openings with solider course brick headers and concrete sills; o Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade; and o Chimney set in stretcher boded, yellow brick with concrete banding. Page 15 of 507 • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District-, and o The link to the surrounding Warehouse District. References Kolaritsch, D., & J. Campbell. (1984/85). 97 Victoria Street North - Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. LACAC: Kitchener, ON. The Working Centre. (2014). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.theworkingcentre.org/about- on February 3, 2014. Daub, B. (2022) Heritage Impact Assessment -97 Victoria Street North, Kingston, ON e. ~ yam' r'F � •. I II Page 16 of 507 Page 17 of 507 V City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 97 Victoria Street North Period: Field Team Initials: GZ/ER Description: Date: August 29, 2012 Page 19 of 507 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ material or method of ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ noteworthy? Notes Page 19 of 507 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N street, neighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ noteworthy? Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N to its surroundings? Page 19 of 507 Page 20 of 507 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SUBCOMMITTEE CONTEXTUAL VALUE SIGNIFICANCE N/A N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Landmark Is this a particularly important associations with and/or contribute to the visual landmark within the region ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations ❑, city ❑ or neighbourhood N? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ Completeness Does this structure have other ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ original outbuildings, notable Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ landscaping or external features ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ that complete the site? ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ Notes Sub -Committee: warehouse district Page 20 of 507 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SUBCOMMITTEE INTEGRITY SIGNIFICANCE N/A N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Site Does the structure occupy its associations with and/or contribute to the original site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Alterations Does this building retain most of ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique its original materials and design ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ features? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ Is this a notable structure due to N Does this property meet the definition of a significant sympathetic alterations that have ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Notes Page 20 of 507 FIELD TEAM EVALUATION HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N organization or institution that is significant or unique within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource or cultural heritage landscape, as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N A property or structure valued for the important contribution it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people? Notes Sub -Committee: original use and working centre Page 20 of 507 HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE SIGNIFICANCE N/A Unknown No Yes N/A Unknown No Yes Page 21 of 507 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 9, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-222 SUBJECT: H PA -2022 -IV -008 97 Victoria Street North Proposed Third -storey Addition and Existing Building Alterations RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 30 (2) and Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-008 be approved to permit building alterations, a third storey addition and a one -storey rear addition to the subject property municipally addressed as 97 Victoria Street North, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final building permit be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the proposed window replacements for original front facade windows of the existing building be approved by Heritage Planning staff prior to installation. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed alterations a third storey addition, and a one -storey rear addition to 97 Victoria Street North. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed work will not have an adverse negative impact on the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and is in keeping with provincial standards and guidelines. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 22 of 507 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-008 proposes alterations to the existing building at 97 Victoria Street North, as well as a third storey addition and a one -storey rear addition. The existing property is in the process of being designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The alterations include window replacements of all the windows of the existing building in order to meet net -zero building requirements. Only the front fagade windows have been identified as a heritage attribute for the building. The third storey will accommodate residential units and the one -storey addition will have a dining hall and outreach area. These modifications are necessary to adaptively re -use the building as affordable housing by The Working Centre. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note that the proposed alterations will not have an adverse negative impact on the heritage attributes of the building and that the additions will be compatible but distinguishable from the existing building. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2023-IV-008 (Attachment A) seeking permission for the alterations and adding a third storey to the subject property municipally addressed as 97 Victoria Street North (Fig. 1). The subject property is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value and is in the process of being designated under Part IV of the OHA. \1W jI / 2 ra`puQsS� 12 a$ pyP�1 �I ,y FJT HDPE HURON PARK .' \ 16D93 41, i 1, lam~ 50 � fix"•.''-, 240 CITY C�IWI.IERCIAL G:}RE ,`:may F 247'1 `.- .1 " �. .,1 �.; •r 67 r,.. 1`$� ..+. ?2751 71'„ 7A i �pi. 77 1 241\' / �t 234 .:q" „1'� ` b4, 'Ss T" p .\� ,'' 4 ri t .nd.+sn • ,�� 3 326 � — r ' -021 t11r" t t - Figure 1: Location Map of 97 Victoria Street North. The submission and approval of a 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 2022 for 83-97 Victoria Street North. Since 83 Victoria Street North has no heritage status, only 97 Victoria Street North was assessed in the HIA. The HIA dated December 2, 2022, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology was submitted to the City in support of these applications and was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its January 3, 2023 meeting. These applications related to the retention of the existing structures at 83 and 97 Victoria Street North, adding a third storey Page 23 of 507 to the to the existing structure at 97 Victoria Street North, and also a one -storey addition attached towards the rear of the existing building. The proposed development includes 44 affordable rental housing units and relocating the St. John's Kitchen to a new one -storey dining hall and community clinic on-site for counselling and recreation. A severance application to divide the site for financing purposed was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on January 17, 2023. The development proposal has received conditional site plan approval, subject to several conditions, including final approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment by the Director of Planning, and that 97 Victoria Street North be designated under Part IV of the OHA. Since the building will be designated under Part IV of the OHA, Section 30 (2) of the OHA gives municipalities interim control over alteration, demolition or removal. This heritage permit application and report accompanies the Notice of Intention to Designate 97 Victoria Street North under Part IV of the OHA, also on the Heritage Kitchener Agenda. REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Victoria Street North near the intersection of Victoria Street North. It was built c. 1927 in the Industrial Vernacular style of architecture (Fig.2 & 3). It is presently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. It is also located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The subject property is also located adjacent to 70 Francis Street South, which is also listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. This building has been identified for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Figure 2: Front fagade of 97 Victoria Street North. Page 24 of 507 Figure 3: Front and East fagade of 97 Victoria Street North. According to the draft HIA, the heritage attributes of this building include: • All elements related the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o Two-storey height; o Symmetrical northwest (primary) facade; o Flat roof with shaped parapet on the northwest (primary) facade; o Shallow buttresses that define distinct bays along each of the building's elevations; o Brick construction comprising of red, yellow and beige brick; o Original window openings with soldier course brick headers and concrete sills; o Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade; and o Chimney set in stretcher bonded, yellow brick with concrete banding. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street streetscape and Warehouse District; and o The link to the surrounding Warehouse District. Site Plan Application for the Proposed Development As mentioned above, a Site Plan application was submitted for the proposed development in November 2022, along with an HIA in support of this application (Fig. 4). The site plan application received condition approval on February 9, 2023. As part of the final approval for the site, a number of heritage conditions have been included, with the designation of this property and obtaining a heritage permit for the proposed development being two of them. Page 25 of 507 YMCMAsrNEEr"omni Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan for 83-97 Victoria Street North. Draft Heritage Impact Assessment for 97 Victoria Street North The draft HIA (Attachment B) that was submitted in support of this application makes the following conclusions and recommendations: - That the building meets criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 amended by 569/22) for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. - That the project team, in consultation with the City of Kitchener, review alternatives for replacement of the original windows on the front facade. - That a Conservation Plan (CP) be prepared by a qualified heritage professional to minimize the potential for unintended impacts resulting from project consultation. Page 26 of 507 - The proposed development will not have an impact on either 70 Francis Street North or the Warehouse District CHL. The HIA is still in its draft stage and has not yet been approved by the Director of Planning. Proposed Window Alterations for the Building Several alterations are proposed for the building, including replacing all the existing windows with new metal windows (Fig 5 & 6). Apart from the six -over -six windows on the front fagade, none of the windows are original, and are also not listed as heritage attributes of the building. The windows are being replaced for two reasons: 1. In order to meet net -zero building standards. 2. To allow for maximum capacity per residential units. Also, an additional consideration was the ceiling height within the building. In order to update the building's systems to accommodate the proposed residential units, the ceiling must be dropped. After considering several window alternatives, it was ultimately decided to divide the extant windows into two bays. WINDOW 3 O A Most Energy I I:.: Efficient. A,B Figure 5: Architect drawing detailing window specifications with respect to building ceiling height. Figure 6: Rendering showing the proposed window replacement. Page 27 of 507 However, it should be noted that although the configuration of the windows is changing, these windows will be inset into the existing window openings found along each elevation. The applicant is also proposing to replace the original front fagade buildings and is still considering alternatives that would be an appropriate replacement for these windows in terms of style and material while still achieving net -zero requirements. Proposed Third Storey Addition A third storey addition is also being proposed for the existing building (Fig. 7). The proposed addition will be similar in size and height (3.8 m) to the existing two -storeys (height of the first storey is 3.7m and 4.1 m of the second storey). This addition is proposed to be clad in metal panelling and will have a similar fenestration pattern as the two other storeys. In order to retain the existing building's parapet, the front elevation of the elevation is narrowly setback. According to the HIA, to create a visual budder between the existing building and the new third storey, a narrow metal band circumnavigates the connection between the second and third storeys. Lastly, this addition will wrap around the existing chimney. It.. Figure 7: Rendering of the proposed third storey addition. Proposed One -Storey Addition on the Southwest Corner The current outreach wing located on the southwest corner of the building towards the rear of the property is proposed to be demolished. It will be replaced with a newer, larger southwest wing to be used as a dining hall and outreach area. This primary fagade of this addition will include a curtain wall with metal panelling with exposed mass timber framing on the interior. The rear fagade of this addition will be clad in masonry. Page 28 of 507 Figure 8: Rendering showing the proposed one -storey addition towards the rear of the building. The proposed alterations and addition meets the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties", especially: • Respect for original location — do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes cultural heritage value considerably. • Respect for historical material — repair/conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built heritage resource. • Respect for original fabric — repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity. • Legibility — new work should be distinguished from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. • Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. The proposed alterations and addition meet Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada, especially: • Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character -defining elements. • Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. • Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character - defining elements. • Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. • Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Page 29 of 507 Heritage Planninq Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 97 Victoria Street North is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. The building is in the process of being designated under Part IV of the OHA. • The proposed development includes the replacement of all windows to meet net -zero building standards, as well as the addition of a third storey and a one -storey addition towards the rear of the building. • These changes are necessary to adaptively re -use the building as an affordable housing project. • The windows on the front fagade have been identified as heritage attributes and are proposed to be replaced. Staff are currently working with the applicant to review alternatives so the final windows are appropriate replacements in design and style. • The additions are distinguishable but compatible with the existing building. • The proposed alteration and additions will not have an adverse negative impact on the character defining elements of the building. • The proposed alteration and additions are generally consistent with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for Historical Places in Canada. • The proposed alteration and additions will not adversely impact the reasons for designation of the property not the Victoria Street streetscape and the Warehouse District CHL. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit will be needed for the proposed alterations and addition. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Page 30 of 507 • Notice of Intention to Designate 97 Victoria Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act — DSD -2023-223 • Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 83-97 Victoria Street North — DSD -2023-049 • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-008 Attachment B — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 97 Victoria St. N Page 31 of 507 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .L P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 MNER 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(ukitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry • Repointing of brick Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2023 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2023 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 25, 2022 January 3, 2023 December 30, 2022 February 7, 2023 January 27, 2023 March 7, 2023 February 24, 2023 April 4, 2023 March 24, 2023 May 2, 2023 April 28, 2023 June 6, 2023 - No July Meeting June 23, 2023 August 1, 2023 July 28, 2023 September 5, 2023 August 25, 2023 October 3, 2023 September 29, 2023 November 7, 2023 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials means of attachment (the means of attachment should be historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: , methods of construction, colours and arranged to anchor into joints between • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www. historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .L P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 MNER 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Signage ® Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 97 Victoria Street North Legal Description (if know): Lots 69, 70 & 71, PART OF LOT 126, REGISTERD PLAN 374 Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial © Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes x❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: K -W WORKING CENTRE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED Address City/Prop Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name:Adrianne Bobechko Company: Perimeter Development corporation Address: 220 - 119 King St W City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, ON Phone: 519-745-3800 Email: abobechko@perimeterdevelopment.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. The proposal seeks to remove the extant rear concrete block addition (not a heritage attribute) and construct a new third storey addition and one storey addition along the rear of the property. The interior layout of the building will be altered to provide the maximum capacity of residential units and windows will be replaced. (ndriitinnA material attarherJ) 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: The proposal seeks to retain and enhance, to the fullest extent possible, the heritage attributes of the property. (See HIA for additional information) Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): The proposed work has been informed by an understanding of the heritage property --its significance, setting and context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research and assessment. The proposed alteration see s to follow a minimal intervention approach retaining, to the extent possible, the key attributes of the property The addition is compatible with and s, lbordinate to the existing heritage b, lilding (see HIA for additional information) 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: July 1, 2023 Expected completion date: July 2024 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 12 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? 13 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Garett Stevenson d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? 13 Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number Site Plan in process Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: low— Date: April 26, 2023 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We KW Working Centre for the unemployed c/o Joe Mancini owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Perimeter Development Corporation c/o Adrianne Bobechko to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: April 26, 2023 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage DRAFT REPORT: 4.. -� LHC I Heritage u-_�� Planning and Archaeology w — gY -- _ - I&I LEI Kingston I Toronto _ = Ottawa Huntsville 837 Princess Street, Suite 400 Kingston, ON K7L 1 G8 Phone: 613-507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 E-mail: info@lhcheritage.com December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 This page has been left blank deliberately Page 43 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Report prepared for: Nikita Thompson Perimeter Development 119 King Street West, Suite 220 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1A7 Report prepared by: Ben Daub, MA, BAT Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA Reviewed by: Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Benjamin Holthof, MPI, MMA, CAHP, MCIP, RPP Marcus Letourneaul, PhD, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Project #LHC0333 Page 44 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of `Owners'. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only the Owners and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Owners and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the property for cultural heritage value or interest. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct an evaluation using Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to archives were limited. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this HIA. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. iv Page 45 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results as well as limitations. LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of The Working Centre, to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North in the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes for the Property are provided in Section 6 of this HIA. This HIA was prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and its surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MCM's Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. In LHC's professional opinion, the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the Property's two storey height and six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored. It was determined that Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred alternative. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. The City of Kitchener may require a Conservation Plan (CP) to guide project work. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plans. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). Page 46 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rightof Use............................................................................................................................... iv ReportLimitations...................................................................................................................... iv ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................v 1 Introduction to the Property................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Property Location......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Property Owner............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Property Description.................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Property Heritage Status.............................................................................................. 2 2 Study Approach.................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2020) ................. 6 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review............................................................................................. 9 2.3 Historic Research......................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Site Visit......................................................................................................................10 2.5 Impact Assessment.....................................................................................................10 3 Policy Framework..............................................................................................................12 3.1 Provincial Planning Context........................................................................................12 3.1.1 The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.................................................................12 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020)......................................................................12 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18...........................................................13 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005...................................................................14 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) ............15 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25...................................................................16 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary.................................................................16 3.2 Regional Planning Context..........................................................................................16 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) .........................................16 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) ....................20 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary..................................................................21 3.3 Local Planning Context...............................................................................................21 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014)...................................................................21 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) .................................26 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual...............................................................29 3.3.4 City of Kitchener Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape ...................... 30 A Page 47 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3.3.5 Local Planning Context Summary........................................................................31 4 Research and Analysis......................................................................................................33 4.1 Early Indigenous History.............................................................................................33 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE)............................................................................33 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE).........................................................................33 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE — CE 1650)............................................................33 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context..............................................34 4.3 Region of Waterloo.....................................................................................................37 4.4 City of Kitchener.........................................................................................................37 4.5 Property History..........................................................................................................38 Pre-1900............................................................................................................................... 38 1901-1950.............................................................................................................................39 1951-2000.............................................................................................................................40 2001-present.........................................................................................................................40 4.5.1 97 Victoria Street North Property Ownership........................................................40 4.5.2 97 Victoria Street North Property Tenancy and Land Use....................................42 4.5.3 The Working Centre.............................................................................................43 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions....................................................................................53 5.1 97 Victoria Street North Exterior..................................................................................53 5.2 97 Victoria Street North Interior...................................................................................57 5.2.1 Worth a Second Look (First Storey).....................................................................57 5.2.2 St. John's Kitchen and Safe Supply Clinic (Second Storey).................................61 5.2.3 Community Outreach (Rear Wing Addition).........................................................64 5.3 Surrounding Context...................................................................................................64 5.4 Adjacent Heritage Properties......................................................................................65 6 Evaluation..........................................................................................................................67 6.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation.............................................................................67 6.2 Additional Considerations...........................................................................................69 6.3 Summary of Evaluation...............................................................................................74 6.4 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.........................................74 6.4.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest..................................................74 6.4.2 Heritage Attributes...............................................................................................74 7 Description of the Proposed Development.........................................................................76 Vii Page 48 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7.1 Massing, Access, and Setbacks..................................................................................76 7.2 Architectural Design....................................................................................................78 7.3 Description of Alteration to Heritage Resources..........................................................84 8 Impact of Development on Heritage Attributes...................................................................85 8.1 Potential Impacts to 97 Victoria Street North...............................................................85 8.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Property at 70 Francis Street North..............................88 8.3 Potential Impacts to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape..................90 8.4 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles...........................................92 8.4.1 Standard and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada .......92 8.4.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties ......................95 8.5 Summary of Potential Impacts....................................................................................96 9 Considered Mitigation and Conservation Strategies...........................................................97 9.1 Considered Options....................................................................................................97 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use..........................................................97 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use.......................................................97 9.1.3 Option 3: Retention of Entire Structure and Integration into Proposed Development 97 9.1.4 Option 4: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop.........................................97 9.2 Preferred Option.........................................................................................................98 9.3 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................98 10 Conclusion and Recommendations..............................................................................100 11 Signatures..........................................................................................................................101 References.............................................................................................................................102 Policy and Legislation Resources........................................................................................102 MappingResources.............................................................................................................104 ArchivalResources..............................................................................................................108 AdditionalResources...........................................................................................................108 Appendix A Project Personnel.................................................................................................111 AppendixB Glossary...............................................................................................................113 Appendix C City Directory Records.........................................................................................118 Appendix D Land Registry Records........................................................................................129 viii Page 49 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Property Location........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Current Conditions...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Warehouse District....................................................32 Figure 4: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 1821 ...................35 Figure5: Haldimand Tract.........................................................................................................36 Figure 6: 1853-1854, 1856, 1861, 1879, and 1912 historic maps showing the Property ............ 47 Figure 7: 1875 birds eye view showing the Property.................................................................48 Figure 8: 1904, 1925, and 1947 fire insurance plans showing the Property...............................49 Figure 9: 1916, 1923, 1929, 1936, 1938, 1956 topographic maps showing the Property ........... 50 Figure 10: 1930, 1945, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2017, 2021 aerial photographs showing the Property....................................................................................................................................51 Figure 11: 1963, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1994, 1998 topographic maps showing the Property ......... 52 Figure 12: Current Worth a Second Look floor plan (first floor)..................................................58 Figure 13: Current St. John's Kitchen floor plan (second floor)..................................................62 Figure 14: Rendering looking east showing the third -storey addition to the Property.................77 Figure 15: Rendering looking east showing the single -storey southwest wing addition to the Property....................................................................................................................................77 Figure 16: Site plan showing the proposed redevelopment.......................................................78 Figure 17: Architect's window drafts..........................................................................................80 Figure 18: Rendering of the northwest and northeast elevations showing the proposed windows .................................................................................................................................................81 Figure 19: Rendering of the northwest and southwest elevations showing the proposed windows .................................................................................................................................................81 Figure 20: Floor plan of the proposed southwest wing..............................................................82 Figure 21: Axonometric rendering of the proposed development showing the southwest wing's slopedroof................................................................................................................................82 Figure 22: Internal rendering looking northeast within the proposed southwest wing ................83 Figure 23: Internal rendering looking west within the proposed southwest wing ........................83 Figure 24: View of the proposed entrance on the southwest elevation......................................84 ix Page 50 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Water Street House at 115 Water Street North...........................................................45 Photo 2: Detail showing transition between original building at 115 Water Street North (right) and two-storey addition (left) constructed in 2020............................................................................46 Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition.....................................................................................................................................46 Photo 4: View south showing the Property's northwest (primary) and northeast elevations ....... 54 Photo 5: View west showing the Property's northeast elevation................................................55 Photo 6: Panoramic view northwest showing the Property's southeast elevation ......................55 Photo 7: View northeast showing the Property's southwest elevation........................................56 Photo 8: View northwest of the Property's southeast elevation. The addition on the right follows the same rhythm of bays and buttresses found along the other elevations. The addition to the left is void of buttresses and is a distinctly different colour..............................................................56 Photo 9: View north showing the single storey addition that branches off the southwest elevation ofthe previous addition.............................................................................................................57 Photo 10: View north upon entering the first storey of the building............................................58 Photo 11: View southeast showing the building's structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems..................................................................................................................................... 59 Photo 12: View southwest showing material use towards the rear of the first floor....................59 Photo 13: View showing the material use towards the rear of the first floor...............................60 Photo 14: View showing a tiled floor area..................................................................................60 Photo 15: View showing painted brick walls..............................................................................61 Photo 16: View southeast showing the foyer and stairs.............................................................62 Photo 17: View northwest showing the staircase providing second floor access .......................63 Photo 18: Panoramic view showing the second floor of the building..........................................63 Photo 19: View showing St. John's kitchen (right) and an open hallway (left)............................64 Photo 20: View north showing 70 Francis Street North's primary elevation...............................66 Photo 21: View northwest showing 70 Francis Street North's southeast and northeast elevations .................................................................................................................................................66 x Page 51 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements... 6 Table 2: Relevant Policies in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Official Plan ...................17 Table 3: Relevant Policies in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan..............................................21 Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 Permitted Uses............................................................................27 Table 5: Additional By-law Provisions that Apply to the Property...............................................28 Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual..............29 Table 7: Pertinent guidelines from Section 5.2.7, 5.3.1, and 5.4.4 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual......................................................................................................................................30 Table 8: Warehouse District Values..........................................................................................30 Table 9: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation for 97 Victoria Street North....................................................67 Table 10: Comparative Examples of Industrial Vernacular Architecture in Kitchener's Warehouse District.......................................................................................................................................70 Table 11: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 97 Victoria Street North..85 Table 12: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 70 Francis Street North..88 Table 13: Impact assessment for city's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape ......... 90 Table 14: Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines........................................................93 Table 15: Compliance with the Eight Guiding Principles............................................................95 Xi Page 52 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of the The Working Centre (the "Proponent"), to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North (the "Property") in the City of Kitchener (the "City"), in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the "Region"). The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. This HIA is being prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism's (MCM) Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. 1.1 Property Location The Property is located at the address municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North and legally described as Plan 374 Lot 71. The Property is situated along the south edge of Victoria Street North and is located to the southwest of the Victoria Street North and Weber Street West junction, which is the intersection of two major arterial thoroughfares within the City. 1.2 Property Owner The Property is owned by The Working Centre located at 58 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 1V6, (519) 743-1151. 1.3 Property Description The Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North is located in Ward 10 in the City of Kitchener, in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario. The Property's legal description is Plan 374, Lot 71. The Property is located on the south side of Victoria Street North, south of Breithaupt Street, west of Weber Street West, north of Heit Lane, and east of Duke Street West (Figure 1). The section of Victoria Street North that the Property is situated alongside comprises a two-way street consisting of two eastbound and two southbound lanes. The Property is situated within the Innovation District of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre (Figure 2). The Property follows an "L" shaped plan and is approximately 1,215.5 m2 (0.12ha/0.30 acres) in size.' The site is currently occupied by a two-storey brick building fronting onto Victoria Street ' Information taken from City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017. Page 53 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 North. The building is generally rectangular in plan; however, there is a small, one -storey concrete block rear wing that branches off the southmost corner of the structure's southwest elevation. The Property's northwest (primary) and southeast elevations are narrowly setback from their respective property lines. The northeast and southwest side elevations are moderately setback, allowing for pedestrian traffic to access the building. The property is covered by engineered surfaces and has no landscaping. The property is zoned D-6 Arterial Commercial Zone and has two Special Use Provisions for Specific Lands (116U and 403U), one Special Regulation Provision[s] for Specific Lands (105R), and one Holding Provision[s] for Specific Lands (1 OH) under the City's By-law. See Section 3.3.2 for the definition and permitted uses associated with D-6 Zoning. 1.4 Property Heritage Status 97 Victoria Street North is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; the property was added 6 May 2014.2A Statement of Significance (SOS) was created for 97 Victoria Street North at the time. The SOS notes that the building was built c. 1927 and originally served as an industrial building housing the Mitchell Button Company. The document titled Statement of Significance 97 Victoria Street North includes a description of the Property, a statement of heritage value or interest, heritage attributes, photographs, and the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Evaluation Form. The statement of heritage value or interest and heritage attributes states, verbatim: Heritage Value or Interest The design value relates to the architecture of the building. The house is a unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; 3 by 9 bays; red, yellow and beige brick; shallow buttressing between the windows; original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; and groups of three 6/ 6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. The contextual values relate to the contribution that the building makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district. The building is historically linked to its surroundings within the warehouse district. The historic and associative value relate to the original owner, original use and present owner. Walter Mitchell began manufacturing ivory buttons in 1914 (Moyer, 1979). W.E. Mitchell, Walter's son, took over the company in 1915 (Moyer, 1979). The company was known as the Mitchell Button Company. Dwindling supplies and foreign competition shifted the business from ivory to plastic under the direction of Lloyd G. E. Mitchell in 1945 (Moyer, 1979). The company started on Frederick Street in 1915, moved to Gaukel Street for a short period and then to the Victoria Street site around 1921 for 50 years (KW Record, 1958; KW Record, 1970). The company name changed to Mitchell Plastics. 2 The City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register was last updated 24 October 2017. 2 Page 54 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Marshall Ariss joined the company in 1955 and lead the change from plastic buttons to plastic components for industries including IBM, Otis Elevator, International Harvester, Greb and Leigh (Moyer, 1979). Ariss is associated with the early plastics industry and has been honoured with membership in the Plastic Pioneers Club of Canada (Moyer, 1979). The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre's Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares store and St. John' s Kitchen. According to The Working Centre's website: " The Working Centre was established in the spring of 1982 as a response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. The Centre grew roots in the Kitchener downtown through the dedication of Joe and Stephanie Mancini, a young married couple who had just graduated from St. Jerome' s College at the University of Waterloo. They saw the potential for building a community of interest around responding to unemployment and poverty, developing social analysis and engaging in creative action." Heritage Attributes: The heritage value of 97 Victoria Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • Two storey height; • Flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade; • 3 by 9 bays; • Red, yellow and beige brick; • Shallow buttressing between the windows; • Original window openings with brick headers and concrete sills; • and groups of three 6/ 6 windows on the front fagade with brick headers and concrete sills. All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the warehouse district; and, • The link to the surrounding warehouse district.3 3 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," May 6, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1313095&searchid=l776bd8l-ecfc-4b97-a973-cc6bcblcf560&dbid=0, 2- 136-2-137 - 136-2-137 Page 55 of 507 NFiMAP KEY VI- N '� : dAe[r�� nk 1 � Cnnr+lnya c e° 5 r - a D14y a p'yk O F3 !,1 aklsain r :, Lrdr[xm„ Tofon[o ss kits "au ; 5 a r Guelph •. iASealn can to e � a workwb. hrtcl�ief -. �'.. ik.ikle C tiwu5r dale " �5`'s,i,yyow"e N. p ' '1tCrlOO 4S uw.txnn 57a''� v / Fim Ilton I F•,rkhHlloada J/ - Hevl FxN fyxd4Par µ.sl Rea ana Cd/hUery Oa%�,` 0-" IN5l:ir:if.rll�."_ nrarhaenr�r ! rAi++ARA London SCALE -1 + - P L" A N S U L PA a c t^c 1 arkrtasar,a CALF 1 :3, 000 000 \ ['orurnl=ia 32 a7 inm ;rr l3at drop I > "arms � � ® � °� - 4 �-• '- a n R+° q'illrnr•as ale ryrrrt. I - n ? �d"Fn, ■ L yr5'i• Y 4arur - .. L 52 n F' ra-f lv \ nN°5 awt S _.nn y il a q`s 5Y•i it d 5+ - bod4aPoa5�a,c PilsPa FWk.- s °r ,�aH Ir n[5 x.[15- �'S.uN" AY8rldpo gS.�f�n5 Alvk cFa �, syt Cl nivrnita nl Jarfi 'ilY};u1 a1- �w'eu{Y`' 41'aferlon A. tin v `"� - gndP^p°riR isy,wv 74 -� E 21, An-rnoF.rN Er l�u�yg� f 9g .o a'rld sao�, C' ell i„ rAr Ree.AS.•aarl Ea n n y c v a0,6 d°.ss f. ",���5 n4 °i'' _�I-,-iYY-°part`•�r,�,q�e FSA Palk Nlo, Aller a :, ,n pas5lr 6�irpprr5-ul�� ` - ! ms rr Ar` auk /� asr. - • B Ra, n Dunt res frsil 'h'[[LtdYr Palk F..n k. 3y5� Haslmn unl r, 93 051.11 10 Af ple I I Ile 4 iy W aI.K uI hSr-�* a M, r'�✓ ^e x 4;. rY / '4fn g11a- 4 P k P •..51e 55 _ -Gp �k�� 37 � f l��r o -`F Rrad kf Frla ROM � w RdW adds/tivi L R h�,c R-kSa-ar' jY[yr{Nrar' S • p'ja °¢ _ y RodmaY rv•y.t'9S� l;em etary r 30 4 -...�5p ' t;�5�5dn'.� Park 4 s n�� Cwrsa y f sir e�al t �N.-x J„ P.655 Pwk Qae°n C�� Lr y r r Pork 4 arN44 S iI h4i d,`. _ M1r. r[s._hn Or A 4 a 4a [ 9-m j '✓My, 3 p Park 4 i 2 A>•q �N t l• .,. �4a y5p� •• .fir i.14 F $ S ' R �e ry 9'rin Fra[Ittran'@1+If d J S r` Alava SID 4 �d5 rm Fa rsr La[uentim5 IMP. ¢ = sa Kitchener \F.vkrx- l� o ram Wak 28 `•'- Put Him Pnk Giorc Park Y w m.e. Rd se w o 0 1 2 Kilometers � Hn[ern a ter— �y TITLE Legend Location Plan CLIENT • Property Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. PREPARED LHC REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), DESIGNED JG (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS Community Pnrtinns of this document include intellectual nrnnertv of Fsri anti its lirensors and are uteri uen nder lirse a(lP n oolI ' r r 1,r � • i J s4 - r y w e .; 100r . 0 20 40 Meters I Legend Current Conditions, 97 Victoria Street CLIENT Property Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, DESIGNED JG USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community age O Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. 1HC FIGURE # 2 Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada's Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and MCM's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.4 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: 1) Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation, and evaluation—when necessary. 2) Understanding the setting, context, and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. 3) Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. The impact assessment is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, Information Sheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. A description of the proposed development or site alteration, measurement of development or site impact and consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods are included as part of planning for the cultural heritage resources The HIA includes recommendations for design and heritage conservation to guide interventions to the Property. 2.1 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference (2020) The City's HIA ToR require an assessment to determine potential impacts to cultural heritage resources by proposed development. An HIA prepared for the City: ...shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. Requirements of an HIA submitted to the City include the following items listed in Table 1. Table 1: City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference Requirements Requirement Location Present owner contact information for properties proposed Found in Section 1.2 of this HIA. for development and/or site alteration. A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from Found in Section 4 of this HIA. the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). A written description of the buildings, structures and Found in Section 5 of this HIA. landscape features on the subject properties including: 4 Canada's Historic Places, "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", 2010, 3; MCM, "Heritage Property Evaluation" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. 5 MCM, "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006 Page 58 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the Found in Section 6 of this HIA conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. Documentation of the subject properties to include: current Found in Section 5 of this HIA. photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or Found in Section 7 and Section development, its context, and how it will impact the 8 of this HIA. properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. Options shall be provided that explain how the significant Found in Section 9 of this HIA. cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, reservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, Page 59 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles Found in Section 8 of this HIA. and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be Found in Section 9 of this HIA. justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, Found in Section 9 of this HIA. describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. The qualifications and background of the person(s) Found in Appendix A of this HIA. completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature Found in the References cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and Section of this HIA referenced in the report. The summary statement should provide a full description Found in Section 10 of this HIA. of: • The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. • The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. Page 60 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Requirement Location • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. The consultant must write a recommendation as to Found in Section 6 of this HIA. whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 2.2 Legislative/Policy Review The HIA includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property. The impact assessment considers the proposed project against this framework. 2.3 Historic Research Historical research was undertaken to outline the history and development of the Property and its broader community context. Primary historic material, including air photos and mapping, were obtained from: Page 61 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 • Library and Archives Canada; • Department of National Defence; • Ancestry; • Waterloo Open Data; • University of Waterloo's Geospatial Centre's Historical Map Collection; and, • Kitchener Public Library. Secondary research was compiled from sources such as: historical atlases, local histories, architectural reference texts, available online sources, and previous assessments. All sources and persons contacted in the preparation of this report are listed as footnotes and in the report's reference list. 2.4 Site Visit A site visit was undertaken on 28 September 2022 by Lisa Coles and Christienne Uchiyama. The primary objective of the site visit was to document and gain an understanding of the Property and its surrounding context. The site visit included a documentation of the surrounding area, exterior views of the structure, and the structure's interior. 2.5 Impact Assessment r The MCM's Information Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans' outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or property alteration. The impacts include, but are not limited to: 1) Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2) Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3) Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4) Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5) Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6) A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 6 MCM, "Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Info Sheet #5" in Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006) 10 Page 62 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7) Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The HIA includes a consideration of direct and indirect adverse impacts on adjacent properties with known or potential cultural heritage value or interest in Section 8. 11 Page 63 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3 POLICY FRAMEWORK 3.1 Provincial Planning Context In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the Planning Act, the OHA, and the PPS. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. They also provide a legal framework through which minimum standards for heritage evaluation are established. What follows is an analysis of the applicable legislation and policy regarding the identification and evaluation of cultural heritage. 3.1.1 The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as ... the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.' Under Section 1 of The Planning Act: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter ... shall be consistent with [the PPS].8 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS which makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations concerning planning and development within the province. 3.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS provides further direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land in Ontario. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The Province deems cultural heritage and archaeological resources to provide important environmental, economic, and social benefits, and PPS directly addresses cultural heritage in Section 1.7.1 e and Section 2.6. ' Province of Ontario, "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13," July 1, 2022, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl3, Part 1 (2, d). 8 Province of Ontario, "Planning Act," Part I S.5. 12 Page 64 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Section 1.7 of the PPS regards long-term economic prosperity and promotes cultural heritage as a tool for economic prosperity. The relevant subsection states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 1.7.1e encouraging a sense of place, by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning, and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Section 2.6 of the PPS articulates provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology. Subsection's state: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.2 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 2.6.4 Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 2.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage with Indigenous communities and consider their interests when identifying, protecting and managing cultural heritage and archaeological resources.9 The definition of significance in the PPS states that criteria for determining significance for cultural heritage resources are determined by the Province under the authority of the OHA.90 The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations and recognizes that there are complex interrelationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. It is intended to be read in its entirety and relevant policies applied in each situation. A HIA may be required by a municipality in response to Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.3 to conserve built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property. 3.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18 The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of 9 Province of Ontario, "Provincial Policy Statement," 2020, 29. 10 Ibid. 51. 13 Page 65 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.11 Part 1 (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. The OHA and associated regulations establish the protection of cultural heritage resources as a key consideration in the land -use planning process, set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province, and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest. 12 O. Reg. 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06 (O. Reg. 10/06) outline criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance. Individual heritage properties are designated by municipalities under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may list a property on a municipal heritage register under Section 27, Part IV of the OHA. A municipality may designate heritage conservation districts under Section 41, Part V of the OHA. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. Amendments to the OHA were announced by the Province under Bill 108: More Homes, More Choices Act and came into effect on July 1, 2021. Previously, municipal council's decision to protect a property determined to be significant under the OHA was final with appeals being taken to the Conservation Review Board, who played an advisory role. With Bill 108 proclaimed, decisions are appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal for adjudication. Sections 33 and 34 Part IV and Section 42 Part V of the OHA require owners of designated heritage properties to obtain a permit or approval in writing from a municipality/municipal council to alter, demolish or remove a structure from a designated heritage property. These sections also enable a municipality to require an applicant to provide information or material that council considers it may need to decide which may include a HIA. 3.1.4 Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005 The Places to GrowAct guides growth in the province and was consolidated 1 June 2021. It is intended: a) to enable decisions about growth to be made in ways that sustain a robust economy, build strong communities and promote a healthy environment and a culture of conservation; b) to promote a rational and balanced approach to decisions about growth that builds on community priorities, strengths and opportunities and makes efficient use of infrastructure; c) to enable planning for growth in a manner that reflects a broad geographical perspective and is integrated across natural and municipal boundaries; 11 Province of Ontario, "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18," last modified October 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 12 Ibid. 14 Page 66 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 d) to ensure that a long-term vision and long-term goals guide decision-making about growth and provide for the co-ordination of growth policies among all levels of government. 13 This act is administered by the Ministry of Infrastructure and enables decision making across municipal and regional boundaries for more efficient governance in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area. 3.1.5 A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Property is located within the area regulated by A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) which came into effect on 16 May 2019 and was consolidated on 28 August 2020. In Section 1.2.1, the Growth Plan states that its policies are based on key principles, which includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Metis communities. 14 Section 4.1 Context, in the Growth Plan describes the area it covers as containing: ...a broad array of important hydrologic and natural heritage features and areas, a vibrant and diverse agricultural land base, irreplaceable cultural heritage resources, and valuable renewable and non-renewable resources." It describes cultural heritage resources as: The GGH also contains important cultural heritage resources that contribute to a sense of identity, support a vibrant tourism industry, and attract investment based on cultural amenities. Accommodating growth can put pressure on these resources through development and site alteration. It is necessary to plan in a way that protects and maximizes the benefits of these resources that make our communities unique and attractive places to live. 16 Policies specific to cultural heritage resources are outlined in Section 4.2.7, as follows: Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas; 2. Municipalities will work with stakeholders, as well as First Nations and Metis communities, in developing and implementing official plan policies and strategies for the identification, wise use and management of cultural heritage resources; and, 13 Province of Ontario, "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13," last modified April 19, 2021, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl3, 1. 14 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," last modified 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.odf, 6. 15 Ibid. 39. 16 Ibid. 39. 15 Page 67 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making." Amendment 1 to A Place to Grow aligns the definitions of A Place to Grow with PPS 2020. 3.1.6 Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 The Municipal Act was consolidated on 11 April 2022 and enables municipalities to be responsible and accountable governments with their jurisdiction.'$ The Municipal Act authorizes powers and duties for providing good government and is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Amongst the many powers enabled by the Municipal Act is the power to create By-laws within the municipalities sphere of jurisdiction.19 Under Section 11 (3) lower and upper tier municipalities are given the power to pass by-laws on matters including culture and heritage.20 Enabling municipalities to adopt a by-law or a resolution by Council to protect heritage, which may include requirements for an HIA. 3.1.7 Provincial Planning Context Summary In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. Multiple layers of municipal legislation enable a municipality to require a HIA for alterations, demolition or removal of a building or structure from a listed or designated heritage property. These requirements support the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Ontario following provincial policy direction. 3.2 Regional Planning Context 3.2.1 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015) The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (WROP) was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board on 18 June 2015 and is currently under review. 21 The ROP sets out policies to guide growth and land use within the Region in keeping with provincial policy. Chapter 3 addresses cultural heritage policies, writing that: These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the 17 Province of Ontario, "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe," 2020, 47. 18 Province of Ontario, "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25," last modified April 11, 2022, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. 19Ibid. 11. 20 Ibid. 11(3). 21 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," last modified June 18, 2015,https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/land-use-planning.aspx 16 Page 68 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community .22 Policies related to the Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources, Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Archaeology, Heritage Planning Advisory Committees, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation, Promotion and Research, and Scenic Roads are outlined by the WROP. Policies most relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 2. Table 2: Relevant Policies in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Official Plan 22 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 69 of 507 Policy Policy Identification of Cultural Heritage Resources 3.G.1 The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 3.G.3 Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V or VI of the Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements or covenants registered against title; b) cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. Cultural Heritage Landscapes 3.G.5 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation. This guideline will outline the framework for identifying Cultural Heritage Landscapes, including Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest, and for documenting each individual landscape through a Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plan that includes: (a) a statement of significance; (b) a listing of the cultural heritage resources and attributes being conserved within the Cultural Heritage Landscape through the use of existing planning 22 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan," 2015, 48. 17 Page 69 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy tools, such as Heritage Act designations, listings on the Municipal Register, official plan policies, secondary plans and zoning bylaws; and (c) recommendations for additional conservation measures. 3.G.6 Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. 3.G.7 The Region will assist Area Municipalities with the preparation of Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation Plans for Cultural Heritage Landscapes of Regional interest. Archaeology 3.G.8 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Archaeological Master Plan, an associated Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline, and maps identifying archaeological resources and areas of archaeological potential. The Master Plan will provide detailed information on the variables used to determine areas of archaeological potential and define the archaeological review process. 3.G.9 During the review of development applications and/or site plans, the Region and/or Area Municipalities will require the owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Archaeological Implementation Guideline following the Ministry of Tourism and Culture's Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Archaeological Master Plan. 3.G.10 Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the Region or Area Municipality will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the Area Municipality; or b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G.13 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 18 Page 70 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 3.G.14 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.13 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.15 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.16 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.17 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.18 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 19 Page 71 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 3.G.19 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G.18, the conservation recommendations will: a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans; and b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.2.2 Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (2002) The Region of Waterloo Arts, Culture, and Heritage Master Plan (Master Plan) includes recommendations and implementation strategies for identification, protection, promotion, and investment cultural resources in the region. The Master Plan was created because: Arts, culture, and heritage initiatives make a significant contribution to the well- being and quality of life of the residents of Waterloo Region. They reflect and enhance the community's unique identity and diversity, contribute to economic vitality, and shape future growth. Accordingly, the Region of Waterloo, alone or in partnership, will identify, protect, promote, and invest in existing resources; implement strategies to support existing and additional arts, culture, and heritage initiatives; and ensure their long-term prosperity and sustainability.23 The goals of the Master Plan are to achieve the following: 24 1. Community Identity and Character Develop a stronger cultural heritage identity for the region, one that celebrates its diversity, the character of its multiple towns and cities and the differing traditions of their founders; its natural features; and the richness of its arts, culture and heritage assets. 2. Education and Awareness Build a stronger foundation for arts, culture, and heritage within the community. 3. Coordination and Partnership Formation Encourage a greater degree of collaboration across all sectors and disciplines. 4. Resources 23 Region of Waterloo, "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan," last modified October 2002, https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the-region/resources/Documents/artsmasterpIan.pdf, I. 24 Ibid. IV. 20 Page 72 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Support opportunities for the development and sustainability of existing arts, culture, and heritage organizations. 5. Accessibility Maximize accessibility to arts, culture, and heritage opportunities and information. The Master Plan provides guidance and direction for the region for protecting, identifying, and enhancing cultural heritage aspects for communities, and in serving as a primary document to help develop new policies and implementation strategies. 3.2.3 Regional Planning Context Summary The Region has acknowledged the identification and conservation of cultural heritage resources is an important element of the land use planning process. Cultural heritage resources are viewed as important drivers for the Region's cultural and economic growth. The Region requires the completion of an HIA for proposed work on a listed property and assessment of archaeological potential. If the property is of Regional interest, a copy of the HIA must be submitted to the Region for review. 3.3 Local Planning Context 3.3.1 City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) was approved with modifications by the Region on 19 November 2014 and was consolidated to 2019.25 The OP guides growth, land use, and environmental protection for the City to 2031.26 Section 12 addresses cultural heritage policies which are of historical, cultural, social, economic, environmental, and educational value to the City.27 Policies relevant to the Property and proposed development have been included below in Table 3. Table 3: Relevant Policies in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan Policy Policy Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 25 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," last modified October 29, 2019, httos://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN City of Kitchener Official Plan 2014.pdf, cover. 26 Ibid. 1-1. 27 Ibid. 12-1. 21 Page 73 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.C.1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Funeral. Burial and Cremation Services Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources which will include the following: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, d) heritage corridors. The list may also include cultural heritage resources identified in Federal, Provincial and Regional inventories and properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. 12.C.1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.C.1.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.C.1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.7. Properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest will be considered for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The cultural heritage value or interest associated with the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated based on the regulation in the Ontario Heritage Act which provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Archaeology W, Page 74 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy 12.C.1.17. During the review of development applications or applications for site alteration, The City and/or the Region will require an owner/applicant to submit an archaeological assessment conducted by a licensed archaeologist in accordance with any applicable Regional or Provincial Standards and Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Province, where archaeological resources and/or areas of archaeological potential have been identified in the Regional Archaeological Master Plan. 12.C.1.18. Where an archaeological assessment identifies a significant archaeological resource, the City and/or the Region and the Province will require the owner/applicant to conserve the significant archaeological resource in accordance with Ministry approvals by: a) ensuring the site remains undeveloped and, wherever appropriate, designated as open space by the City, or, b) removing the significant archaeological resource from the site by a licensed archaeologist, prior to site grading or construction. Conservation Measures 12.C.1.19. In addition to listing and designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City may use and adopt further measures to encourage the protection, maintenance and conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources including built heritage and significant cultural heritage landscapes and implement Cultural Heritage Resource Conservation Measures Policies in this Plan. These may include but are not limited to covenants and easements pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act; by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Planning Act (Zoning By- law, demolition control, site plan control, community improvement provisions, provisions in a subdivision agreement); and by-laws and agreements pursuant to the Municipal Act (Property Standards By-law, tree by-law, sign by-law). 12.C.1.20. The City will make decisions with respect to cultural heritage resources that are consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which require the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. In addition, such decisions will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 12.C.1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural heritage resources. The conservation of significant cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.22. The City may require financial securities from the owner/applicant of an application submitted under the Planning Act, including applications for consent, 23 Page 75 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy site plan, draft plan of vacant land condominium and draft plan of subdivision, to ensure the conservation of the city's cultural heritage resources both during and after the development process. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, 1. e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 24 Page 76 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy f) implementation and monitoring; and, 1. g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 12.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days 25 Page 77 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Policy Policy to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/Integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 12.C.1.48. Signage on protected heritage properties will be compatible and complementary to the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property and in accordance with and consistent with good conservation practice. 3.3.2 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 (2019) The City is currently reviewing its zoning and has two zoning by-laws in force: Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051. Zoning By-law 85-1 is consolidated to 29 March 2004 and applies to all properties in the City.28 Zoning By-law 2019-051 was approved by City Council on 29 April 2019 and is currently under appeal.29 It is stage 1 of the City's zoning review and includes the ...framework of the document, definitions, general regulations, parking requirements and every zoning section with the exception of residential and urban growth centre (downtown).30 The Property is not yet subject to Zoning By-law 2019-051 and is currently subject to Zoning By- law 85-1. The Property is zoned D-6, which is known as Arterial Commercial Zone, which supports the uses identified in Table 4 below. This zoning classification does not have accompanying cultural heritage regulations. The Property is also subject to two Special Use Provisions for Specific Lands (116U and 403U), one Special Regulation Provision[s] for Specific 28 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 29, 2004, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%201 %20-%2OGeneral%2OScope.pdf, 1 29 City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051," last modified April 29, 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CROZBY Consolidated Zoning Bylaw Council Approv ed.pdf. 30 City of Kitchener, "Zoning bylaw," Development and construction, last modified 2021, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning-bylaw.asox. 26 Page 78 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Lands (105R), and one Holding Provision[s] for Specific Lands (1 OH). These additional provisions are defined in Table 5 below. Table 4: Zoning By-law 85-1 Permitted Uses31 Permitted Use Permitted Use Permitted Use Audio -Visual or Medical Beverage and Beverage- Building Material and Laboratory Making Equipment Sales Decorating Supply Sales Canine or Feline Grooming Carwash Commercial Parking Facility or Training (By-law 93-129, S.9) Commercial Recreation Convenience Retail Craftsman Shop Day Care Facility Educational Establishment Financial Establishment Funeral Home Garden Centre and Nursery Gas Station Health Clinic Health Office Hotel Office Personal Services Printing Establishment Private Club or Lodge and Religious Institution Repair Service Union Hall Restaurant Sale of Pets and Pet Sale of Sporting Goods (By - Supplies (By-law 96-58, S.2) law 98-136, S.1) Sale or Rental of Furniture Sale, Rental or Service of Sale, Rental, Service, and Electric or Electronic Business Machines and Storage or Repair of Motor Appliances or Electric or Office Supplies Vehicles, Major Recreational Electronic Equipment Equipment and Parts and Accessories for Motor Vehicles or Major Recreational Equipment Sale, Rental, Storage or Studio Surveying, Planning, Service of Tools and Engineering or Design Industrial or Farm Business (By-law 87-145, Equipment S.1) Tradesman or Contractor's Transportation Depot (By-law Veterinary Services Establishment 93-129, S.9) Warehouse Wholesaling 31 City of Kitchener, "Section 17 Warehouse District Zone (D-6) Zoning By-law 85-1," last modified March 5, 2012, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section%2017%20- %20Warehouse%2ODistrict%2OZone%20(D-6).pdf, 1-2. 27 Page 79 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Table 5: Additional By-law Provisions that Apply to the Property Provision Description Provision 116U, Special Notwithstanding Section 17.1 of this by-law, within the lands Use Provisions for Specific zoned D-6, described in the clauses listed below, commercial Lands entertainment excluding amusement arcade, retail and multiple dwellings shall also be permitted only in the buildings existing on the day of the passing of By-law Number 92-232, and having a minimum facade height of 6.0 metres.32 Provision 403U, Special Notwithstanding Section 17.1 and Schedule 105 of Appendix Use Provisions for Specific D, subsection iii) of this By-law, within the lands zoned D-6 on Lands Schedule 84 of Appendix "A", described as Part Lot 69, Lot 70 and Lot 71, Plan 374, a residential care facility shall be a permitted use and may be located on the ground floor.33 Provision 105R, Special Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2(c) or 17.3 of this by-law, Regulation Provisions for within the lands zoned D-6, described in clause (iv) below, Specific Lands the following special regulations shall apply: i) The maximum gross leasable commercial space for retail shall be 7,000 square metres with no single outlet exceeding 1,000 square metres. ii) The maximum gross floor area for office located within a building existing on the day of passing of By-law Number 92- 232, which building has a minimum facade height of 6.0 metres, shall be 100 percent of the floor area of the building. iii) Residential use shall not be located on the ground floor, except for access. iv) Parking spaces shall be provided for uses located within buildings existing on the day of passing of By-law Number 92- 232 in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.1.2(c) of this by-law or in the following quantities, whichever is the lesser: 34 32 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 116," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%20C%20- %20Specia1%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20 LandsH1161.1.pdf, 1. 33 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 403," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%20C%20- %20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//403U.pdf, 1 34 City of Kitchener, "SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS 105," last modified December 12, 2016,https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebvlaw/PublishedCurrentTexUAppendix%2OD%20- %20Special%20Regulation%20 Prov isions%20for%20Spec ific%20 LandsHl05R.pdf, 1. 2s Page 80 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual The City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual was approved in 2019 for the purposes of establishing expectations, guiding, and deriving a vision for the City's design through considerations of city building, economic development, and sustainability. Section 1.8.2 entitled Cultural Heritage Resources contains several pertinent guidelines, as identified in Table 6 below: Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline. Provision redacted for Plan 374, Lot 71. Provision 10H, Holding Multiple dwellings shall not be permitted until such time as the Provisions for Specific City is presented with documentation from the Ministry of the Lands Environment advising that the Ministry is satisfied with respect to the potential adverse environmental conditions or constraints caused by adjacent industrial uses, transportation corridors and site decommissioning requirements; and the holding symbol affecting the particular lands affected has 1.2.8 been removed by By-law. 35 3.3.3 City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual The City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual was approved in 2019 for the purposes of establishing expectations, guiding, and deriving a vision for the City's design through considerations of city building, economic development, and sustainability. Section 1.8.2 entitled Cultural Heritage Resources contains several pertinent guidelines, as identified in Table 6 below: Table 6: Pertinent guidelines from Section 1.2.8 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline. - 1.2.8 Conserve cultural heritage resources including buildings, views and vistas, paragraph structures, districts, streetscape and landscapes using the following strategies; 1,3 Rehabilitation: repair or replace heritage attributes, construct compatible and reversible additions, integrate the cultural heritage resource or components of the cultural heritage resource into a new development, or adaptively reuse the cultural heritage resources.ae 1.2.8 New development on a site with a cultural heritage resource and additions to paragraph cultural heritage resources should integrate new, contrasting building materials 5 in ways which respect the integrity of the cultural heritage resource. Conserve heritage value by being physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the cultural heritage resource. Section 5 of the City's Urban Design Manual provides additional guidelines relative to the downtown. Several Guideline sections including 5.2.7 Heritage Resources, 5.3.1 Built Form, 35 City of Kitchener, "HOLDING PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 10," last modified June 14, 2010, https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PubIishedCurrentText/Appendix%20F%20- %20Holding%2OProvisions%20for%20SPecific%2OLandsHlOH.pdf, 1. 36 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part A Urban Structure & Built Form, City -Wide," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 01 City Wide Design.pdf, 18 29 Page 81 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 and 5.4.4 UGC3 Innovation District — a specific guideline area — each contain pertinent guidance, as identified in Table 7 below. Table 7: Pertinent guidelines from Section 5.2.7, 5.3.1, and 5.4.4 of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual Guideline # Guideline Conserving cultural and natural heritage resources within Kitchener's Downtown is of critical importance, as doing so gives variety to the urban fabric, perpetuates the cultural history of DTK and encourages exploration, sustainability, and a sense of living history.37 5.3.1 Adaptive reuse of-- and additions to-- existing buildings should respect and paragraph enhance the established character of the building, its streetscape, and any 4 surrounding open areas. This is the case regardless of a building's cultural heritage status.38 5.4.4 The continued preservation and adaptive reuse of remaining historical paragraph buildings is critical to maintaining the character of the Innovation District, as is 2 streetscape design and pedestrian and mid -block connections that improve the pedestrian network between these assets.39 3.3.4 City of Kitchener Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS), published in December 2014, identifies that the Property resides immediately adjacent to the City's Warehouse District. Albeit not within the district, the Property's SOS acknowledges its connection and describes it as being a contributing piece .40 The Warehouse District is bounded by Glasgow Street, Dominion Street, Breithaupt Street, Francis Street, Victoria Street, and Belmont Avenue and is recognized for its associations with Kitchener's industrial, urban, and transportation development (Figure 3). The CHLS identified that the Warehouse District has maintained its historical integrity and retains both cultural and community value, as described in Table 8 below. Table 8: Warehouse District Values Historical Has been used for the same purpose since the railway was originally Integrity established in 1856. Retains several factories and industrial buildings that date prior to 1912, when Kitchener was officially incorporated as a city. 37 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 05 Downtown.pdf, 6 38 Ibid, 7 39 City of Kitchener, "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN UDM 05 Downtown.pdf, 7 40 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes," last modified December 2014, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Rerort.pdf 30 Page 82 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Value Description Cultural Explains the development history of Kitchener and is contextually important to Value surrounding neighbourhoods. Contains industrial buildings of the famous architect, Albert Kahn, and architectural design that will never be repeated again. Community A source of employment for many people living in Kitchener and the Value surrounding area. 3.3.5 Local Planning Context Summary The City considers cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and values them in the land use planning process. Through its OP policies, the City has committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources including archaeological resources. An HIA is required when a proposed development is on or adjacent to a recognized heritage property. The City has adopted Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and will reference them when assessing proposed developments. 31 Page 83 of 507 <46+ �!r.A 0 265 530 Meters Legend Property 4P ieoo,0 elf NKIA 1 4'x"4 • .XS� tnA V C �•,' 5 t i4-4. p.,r; ►' ®r 4tt A ,; • `'' —ScpNs' 1. • �y,� M do00 ASO p `_ `e 4'.: r'� �g --,Fp w L761 CL Det ", rA 4 Sr d ;p? •j� ¢t O ,� Cultural Heritge Landscapes, Warehouse District CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) DESIGNED 1. City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Appendix 6", December 2014. 1 HC Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. FIGURE # C.—rinht !cl Fsri and its licensors All rinhts reserved 2022-10-07 LHC JG December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 4 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Early Indigenous History 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500-8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier .41 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500- 8000 BCE), the climate was like the present-day sub -arctic and vegetation was dominated by spruce and pine forests.42 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big -game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.43 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000-1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE), the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although living in larger groups and transitioning towards a preference for smaller territories of land — possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of MexiCo. 44 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE—CE 1650) The Woodland period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE — CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub -divided into the Early Woodland (1000-400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE — CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).45 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking .46 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village -based communities during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early (CE 1000-1300); Middle (CE 1300-1400); and Late (CE 1400-1650).47 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded 41 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, "Paleo-Indians," in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris (London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990), 37. 42 EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 33 Page 85 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario — and more widely across northeastern North America —organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. Communities south of Lake Ontario at this time included the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Cayugas, Senecas, Onondagas, and Tuscarora, and groups including the Anishinaabe and Neutral (Attiwandaron).48 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth -Century Historic Context French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged military warfare on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.49 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Anishinaabe. The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in military conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Potawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.50 Most of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy allied with the British during the American Revolution (1765 — 1783) with the promise that their land would be protected.51 This promise was not kept, and Haudenosaunee Confederacy territory was ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Paris in 1783.52 In compensation, Captain General Fedrick Haldimand granted the Haudenosaunee Confederacy 950,000 acres through the Haldimand Proclamation dated 25 October 1784 (Figure 4 and Figure 5). 53 The land grant has been in debate ever since and has been steadily reduced to 46,000 acres today. 14 48 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013, http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm; University of Waterloo, "Land acknowledgment," Faculty Association, hUps://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement; Six Nations Tourism, "History," https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/. 49 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation," Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, last modified 2018, https://mncfn.ca/about- mncfn/commun ity-profile/. 50 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, "History", 3-4. 51 Cody Groat, "Six Nations of the Grand River," The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanad ianencycloped ia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of-the-grand-river. 52 Ibid. 53 Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, "History of Six Nations," https://sndevcorp.ca /history -of -six -nations/. 54 Six Nations Elected Council, "Community Profile," Six Nations of the Grand River, last modified 2013. 34 Page 86 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 4: Surveyor Thomas Ridout's map of the Haldimand Proclamation in 182155 55 Library and Archives Canada, "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]," 1821, Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 35 Page 87 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology >T � �" � m � s �► Lr r� - - pkeors ► ^. :." rt KITCHENER,, •..]r+nt�ryt'tue.e "'a _ _ ro. "! =y•- aAIMLLE ri.w MLm[.rp� � ! ia4 t =ar. ,BLRLINGFON L ,r'ietnbun.. HAMILTON 7 r •rt"�" � rJ r _. '•�� Gtrelu6y Liaca#n C " ..., X1J a resat •rci.aw. r-. .s.. yy- iNnra 1 p� r ••-wr -�-aL .a' �^ 4,..HuSLILIR H®idimand rrt. �tIm wIG ae Ip p 4I L t r. � '� [ 1 �� "19 Bw_r '7 T7�� -Pon Gwu ty tg' fwur von, E las LarxSs granted by F""" - hen Haldimar.tl p+pelartrstiyn D Cu rreM Sin. Nat— Rs-sera,- Rpprorrmatrly App—vtnaSsfy :ir t .. - F:54,po0 acres granted on 44,.544) actes or 4.9% [)csobtr 25. T 284 rr -rr,ng as of April 2404 Figure 5: Haldimand Tract 56 56 Six Nations, "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784," Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. 36 Project #LHC0333 Page 88 of 507 W!vq�- Lr r� - - pkeors ► ^. :." rt KITCHENER,, •..]r+nt�ryt'tue.e "'a _ _ ro. "! =y•- aAIMLLE ri.w MLm[.rp� � ! ia4 t =ar. ,BLRLINGFON L ,r'ietnbun.. HAMILTON 7 r •rt"�" � rJ r _. '•�� Gtrelu6y Liaca#n C " ..., X1J a resat •rci.aw. r-. .s.. yy- iNnra 1 p� r ••-wr -�-aL .a' �^ 4,..HuSLILIR H®idimand rrt. �tIm wIG ae Ip p 4I L t r. � '� [ 1 �� "19 Bw_r '7 T7�� -Pon Gwu ty tg' fwur von, E las LarxSs granted by F""" - hen Haldimar.tl p+pelartrstiyn D Cu rreM Sin. Nat— Rs-sera,- Rpprorrmatrly App—vtnaSsfy :ir t .. - F:54,po0 acres granted on 44,.544) actes or 4.9% [)csobtr 25. T 284 rr -rr,ng as of April 2404 Figure 5: Haldimand Tract 56 56 Six Nations, "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784," Lands and Resources, last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. 36 Project #LHC0333 Page 88 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 4.3 Region of Waterloo The Haldimand Proclamation was divided into six blocks by the Government of Upper Canada and sold to fund an annuity to the Six Nations people.57 Block Two was sold to land speculator Colonel Richard Beasley in 1796 covering an area of 94,012 acres .58 Beasley began to subdivide the land and sell plots to Pennsylvania Mennonites fleeing after the American Revolution, this portion numbering 63,000 acres and called the German Company Tract.59 The German Company Tract was surveyed by government surveyor Augustus Jones in 1805.60 The survey resulted in a closed Pennsylvania Mennonite community that did not include clergy, Crown, or Loyalist reserves and which was divided into equal 448 -acre lots without lot and concession numbers.61 The German Company Tract was incorporated into Wellington District in 1816 and renamed Waterloo Township.62 The Township grew quickly as it began a centre of German settlement in Upper Canada.63 Boundaries were redrawn following the Baldwin Municipal Act of 1849 and the Hinks Act of 1852 creating the United Counties of Wellington, Waterloo, and Grey in 1849.64 Waterloo County became independent in 1853 with Berlin as its seat. 65 The Region of Waterloo was established in 1973.66 4.4 City of Kitchener A community began to form in the German Company Tract at what would become Kitchener, then known as Berlin, beginning with the settlement of a group of Pennsylvania Mennonites in 1807 including early families like the Schneiders and Ebys.67 The Village of Berlin was established in the 1850s with most of its population of 700 working in agriculture.68 A station on the Grand Trunk Railway was established at Berlin in 1856, linking the village to the rest of North America.69 This coupled with access to inexpensive power from Niagara Falls lead to Berlin's industrial growth and nickname of "Busy Berlin" with a population of nearly 4,000 by 57 Kenneth McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener-waterloo. 58 Waterloo Region Museum, "History of Waterloo Township," https://www.waterlooregionmuseum.ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo-township.aspx#notel . 59 Ezra Elby, A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county, Volume 1, (Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895), 1 and 26. 60 John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: An Illustrated History, (Toronto: Robin Bross Studio,1996), 19-20. 61 English and McLaughlin, 19. 62 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Bill Moyer, Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History, (Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979), 1. 68 McLaughlin, "Kitchener -Waterloo," The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Rych Mills, Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960, (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002), 7. 69 Mills, 7. 37 Page 89 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 1890.70 Berlin received city status in 1912 and operated as a multi-lingual city, mixing German and English.' World War One brought change to Berlin with the city facing prejudice as Canada fought German y.72 Berlin voted to change its name to Kitchener in 1916 in response .73 Despite slowed growth during the war years, Kitchener grew from 20,000 in 1920 to 30,000 in 1930 leading to a housing and industry boom following the Great Depression.74 The city continued to grow through the 1900s, becoming Canada's fastest growing city in 1965.75 Kitchener experienced economic turmoil in the 1990s as the recession closed many long standing industries and lead to a restricting of the city's economy and workforce.76 Into the 2000s, the City has pushed for the reconstruction of Kitchener with increased post -secondary education and reuse of heritage properties." 4.5 Property History Pre -1900 A map that portrays the City's road and land parcel layout entitled Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo was drafted in 1853-1854 by George John Grange. Although the map does not identify the presence of structures on every lot, it shows many of Berlin's early commercial, civic, and institutional buildings including the railway station — which is located adjacent to the Property on lot 71 (also visible on the map) — as well as Town Hall, the Post Office, and the Courthouse and Jail (Figure 6). A subsequent map produced in 1956 entitled Plan and Lots Drawn from M. C. Scofield's Map of the Town of Berlin reveals much of the same information as the 1853-1854 map identified above; however, there is evidence that several lots, specifically along the north side of Victoria Street, were subdivided (Figure 6). The 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township yields little additional information specifically about the development status of the Property or neighbouring properties; however, it does begin to display emergent development that was occurring along the City's streets — most notably the downtown core of the City along King Street. Notably, the block that contains the Property has been given a shadow adjacent to the street, which may indicate the presence of buildings; however, the shadowing is located along Francis Street North, not Victoria Street (Figure 6). Analysis from the 1861 Tremaine Map is mirrored within an 1875 artist rendering of Berlin that depicts a bird's eye view of the City's Core. Although the map is to be understood as an interpretation, it shows that the Property had not yet been developed. The map does display 70 McLaughlin "Kitchener -Waterloo" The Canadian Encyclopedia, last modified February 24, 2017; Mills, 7 " Ibid. 72 Mills, 7. 73 Moyer, 56. 74 Mills, 8. 75 Moyer, 83. 76 City of Kitchener, Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city, (Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012), 97. 77 Ibid. 108-109 38 Page 90 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 several buildings along Francis Street North, indicating the presence of development directly adjacent to the Property (Figure 7). The 1879 map entitled Berlin displays additional development within City's downtown area; however, additions solely display civic and institutional development. Notwithstanding, this map highlights that development concentric to the City's core was beginning to occur. No evidence suggests that the Property had been developed; however, development on nearby lots is displayed, including St. Jerome's College and a church located on Duke Street and Water Street, respectively. 1901-1950 By 1904, most properties in the vicinity of the Property had been developed aside from the Property itself. A Fire Insurance Plan identified that each property contiguous with 97 Victoria Street had been developed, typically with small one -and -a -half storey residences (barring the two -and -a -half storey structure located at 70 Francis Street North) (Figure 8). A map developed as part of the City Plan for Greater Berlin in 1912 continues to lack any direct identification of development on the Property. The Property is identified as being within the `Union Station Plaza', which comprised an area bound by the Grand Trunk Railway to the north, Weber Street to the east, Water Street and Francis Street to the south, and David Street (now Duke Street) to the west (Figure 6). "a The Union Station Plaza development does not appear to ever have been implemented, as evidenced by the increased presence of development within the block where it was meant to be located. The 1916 topographic map of the area displays two buildings at the crux of Water Street and Francis Street, one building along Duke Street, and one building in the southwest corner of the Weber Street and Victoria Street intersection (Figure 9). Despite its proximity to the Property, the building at the Weber -Victoria junction is more likely to have been developed on 111 Weber Street. From the 1904 Fire Insurance Plan, it is known that most of the properties in the vicinity were developed, including 111 Weber Street (Figure 8). Another topographic map from 1923 shows the same four buildings as the 1916 map. Although the Property remains to appear undeveloped, this map shows an increasing number of buildings in the vicinity which more closely aligns topographic mapping data with Fire Insurance Plan data (Figure 9). The first evidence of development on the Property is found on the Fire Insurance Plan for the area from 1925. This plan identifies the presence of two small singe -storey structures located in the Property's southeast corner fronting onto Heit Lane. There is no indication that the industrial building had yet been erected (Figure 8). Kitchener's downtown intensification is further evident in the 1929 topographic map of the city, which uses shading alongside roads to indicate the presence of development. This map shows that the stretch of the south edge of Victoria Street North between Duke Street to the west and Weber Street to the east is developed (Figure 9). The presence of the building on the Property is expected during this time, as city directories, along with a 1930 aerial photograph, suggest that the building was erected c. 1927 (Figure 10). 39 Page 91 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Subsequent topographic maps produced in 1936 and 1938 and an additional aerial photograph from 1945 depict much of the same information and offer no additional clues into the development of the Property (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The first mapping resource that portrays the industrial building is the 1908 Fire Insurance Plan that was revised in 1947. This map depicts the Property directly abutting the property lines along Victoria Street North and Heit Lane (Figure 8). 1951-2000 Topographic maps developed in 1956, 1963, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1994, and 1998 also do not identify the presence of a building on the Property despite it being known that development had occurred. Notwithstanding the lack of specific evidence of development of the Property, clear alterations to Kitchener's downtown core occurred throughout this 50 -year span (Figure 9 and Figure 11). The most notable transformation that occurred is the locale of civic development. During the early phases of Kitchener's development, civic infrastructure and development was centred along King Street, typically between Young Street to the west and Lancaster Street to the east. Throughout the mid -20th century, new civic development was typically constructed along Weber Street, such as Kitchener's courthouse, developed in 1964 at 20 Weber Street East (Figure 11). 2001 -present Aerial photography of the Property from between 2001 and 2021 does not identify the presence of any evident modifications to the site (Figure 10). 4.5.1 97 Victoria Street North Property Ownership The earliest indication of ownership of the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North and legally described as Plan 374 Lot 71 from Land Registry documentation is from August 1905, when Marian Brauer (nee Dopp) sold the lot to Sophia Roehr for $1,050.7$ 79 It is possible that the Property was sold to Brauer by Duncan Ferguson in 1872. Land Registry documents indicate that Ferguson sold the neighbouring lot (legally described as Plan 374 Lot 72) to Brauer in 1872 who then, along with the Property, sold it to Roehr in August of 1905.80 Roehr, along with her husband Gustav who was later identified in registry documentation, received, and discharged several mortgages during their ownership of the Property and on 15 June 1916 sold it to Emanuel Hamel for $6,300.00.81 Shortly after acquiring the Property, Hamel sold it again to Annie Duch on 16 June 1917 for $7,500.00 who in turn sold it to Lucinda Bauman on 15 July 1918 for $8,000.00.82 On 21 August 1918, Bauman sold the Property to Carl G. Pritschau, a real estate broker, for the consideration of $1.00.83 Shortly thereafter, Pritschau sold the lot to the Ontario Glove Company Ltd. for $6,000.00.84 It is unclear as to if the Ontario 78 Ancestry, "County of Waterloo, Division of Berlin Marriages," 1906. 79 Land Registry Ontario, Waterloo (LRO 58), Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 19242 80 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 72, Instrument No. 19261. 81 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 36216 82 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 36871, 38194 83 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 38388 84 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 38399 40 Page 92 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Glove Company had plans to develop the site, as the company had already been operating from 38 Benton Street - a lot located approximately 750 metres southeast of the Property. Shortly after acquiring the Property, the Ontario Glove Company would resell the Property back to Pritschau on 19 April 1920 for $7,500.00.85 The Property would once again change hands several times during the 1920's. On 2 September 1920, John H. Meyers purchased the Property from Pritschau for $10,000.86 Meyers subsequently granted the lot to Carl Huether, the president of the Huether Brewery located at 476 King Street West, for the consideration of $1.00.87 On 12 February 1923, Huether would once again sell the Property, this time to Charles A. Kern who was a manager at L McLain Company Limited, an aluminum ware manufacturer.88 Kern would grant the Property to two different parties, first on 29 July 1924 to Ernest Denton - a photographer, and second on 8 May 1925 to M. B. Shantz - a real estate broker.89 Denton would retain title until transferring ownership to his spouse, Louisa, on 30 June 1932.90 Nearly 16 -years later on 8 June 1948, Denton would grant ownership to Oliver E. Fries and Stanley Grundman, who owned Midtown Motors Limited.91 Six -years later on 8 November 1954, Fries would grant the Property to the McCall Frontenac Oil Company for $27,000.00.92 On 11 October 1955, McCall Frontenac granted the lot to Highway Realties Limited for $55,228.00 who then leased it back to McCall Frontenac for $110,388.44.93 On 13 January 1981, Highway Realties granted the Property to Texaco Canada Inc. who later granted it to Paul D. and Celeste M. Fackoury on 30 April 1987 for the consideration of $186,400.00.94 V, Akin to Denton, Shantz also granted his property to a new owner: William E. Mitchell of the Mitchell Button Company which had been operating at 21 Gaukel Street until the acquisition of the Property on 14 April 1927.95 Photographic evidence and tenancy documentation found in city directories suggests that Mitchell had the structure on the Property built shortly after taking lot ownership. Per the registry, it appears as though Mitchell, along with the Canada Permanent Trust Company, retained ownership of the Property and leased it to the Mitchell Button Company for $5,400.00 yearly.96 In 1967, the Mitchell Button Company would retain ownership of the Property. The company would acquire several mortgages, most often from the Industrial Development Bank over the course of their ownership, including drafts for $19,000.00, $62,000.00, $90,000.00, and $70,000.00 in 1963, August 1967, February 1967, and 1969, 85 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1919, LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 42061 86 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 43296 87 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 43297 88 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 48453 89 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 52432, 54120 90 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 68189 91 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 96423 92 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 122695 93 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 131694, 131695 94 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 696474, 894005 95 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1926-1927, LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 58377 96 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 271598 41 Page 93 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 respectively. 97 It is unclear as to how the Mitchell Button Company's tenure as property owner ended, as after a discharge of mortgage from 7 February 1973, no records are present on registry documentation. A transcribed history of the Property legally known as Plan 374 Lot 71 can be found in Appendix D. 4.5.2 97 Victoria Street North Property Tenancy and Land Use Contrasting Property ownership found on land registry documentation against Property tenancy found within City directories yields several discrepancies between who owned versus who occupied the site. In many cases, ownership of the Property directly aligned with ownership of the adjacent property legally described as Plan 374 Lot 72. Development of this adjacent lot occurred before the development of the Property. This is evidenced in the City's 1907-1908 directory which identifies that `Gustav Roehr' occupied the property municipally known as 111 Weber Street West.98 It is possible that Roehr operated the Property as a boarding house, as was his noted occupation in subsequent city directories. Under Ernest Denton's ownership, 111 Weber Street West became known as `Denton Apts', providing further evidence of the adjacent lot's residential use.99 The earliest indication of development and occupation of 97 Victoria Street North is found in the 1928-1929 City directory, which indicates that the Mitchell Button Company occupied the Property.10' Occupation of the Mitchell Button Company can be triangulated and confirmed using both land registry documents, which established that the owner of the company, W. E. Mitchell was granted the site in 1927, and topographic maps of the City, whereby no structure is located on the Property in 1923, but in 1929, the entire block is denoted as being developed. An aerial photograph of the City from 1930 also shows the Property along with the building that currently occupies it. The Property is part of what the City of Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape report defines as the `Warehouse District'. The report makes note of Kitchener's rapid uptake of industrial trade that was an outcome of its position along the Grand Trunk Railway. Driving the City's emerging economy was a range of factories that were typically developed along the railway — the Warehouse District. Many of the buildings were erected between 1910 and 1920, with some having been developed earlier (such as the Kaufman Rubber Company in 1908) and some having been developed later such as the Mitchell Button Company, built c. 1927.10' Accordingly, albeit contributory to its broader cultural landscape, the 97 LRO 58, Plan 374, Lot 71, Instrument No. 272496, 359575, 392093, 415094 98 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1907-1908 99 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1924-1925 100 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1928-1929 101 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes." December 2014. htti)s://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Rerort.i3df 42 Page 94 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 building located at 97 Victoria Street North was not an early rendition of Kitchener industrial vernacular building style. City directories inform that the Mitchell Button Company Limited retained tenancy on the Property until 1969, undergoing two name changes across its 41 -year tenure, first in 1964 when it was renamed `Mitchell Plastics and Buttons Limited' and then again shortly thereafter in 1969 to `Mitchell Plastics Limited'. 102 A second company called the `Woeller Upholstering Company' also took occupancy in the building between 1932 and 1940.103 By 1941, after renaming to Woeller-Bowsfield Upholstering Co' and moving to 27 Gaukel Street, Mitchell Button Company became the sole tenant once again. For the first 41 -years of its developed existence, the Property supported an industrial use as it housed manufacturing companies. Despite Mitchell Plastics and Buttons retaining ownership of the Property as indicated on land registry documentation, the site remained vacant between 1970 and 1971 when the company moved to a new lot in 1970 located at 11 Hoffman Street. 104 In 1972, a company called `Marian Household Centre' took partial tenancy of the Property, with other sections remaining vacant. 105 Over the years, the Property supported as little as one and as many as seven tenants/uses. Some of the longest standing tenants were `Marian Household Centre' (1972-1980)106 `Dumont Press Graphix Limited' (1973-1988)107, `Schattens Canada Limited' (1975-1981)108, `Elsworthy Cabinets' (1977-1997)109, `St Vincent de Paul [The Society of, later Thrift Store]' (1982-2009)110 and `Business Cards Tomorrow' (1989-2009)11' The current tenants, `Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares', `The Working Centre', and `St. John's Kitchen' were first identified in the 2006, 2007, and 2010 city directories, respectively. 112 Tenancy since 1971 has therefore typically comprised commercial uses. For a complete, year -over -year listing of tenants for 97 Victoria Street North between 1926-1927 to 2014, refer to Appendix C. 4.5.3 The Working Centre Currently, the Property is owned by The Working Centre. The Working Centre was first opened by Joe and Stephanie Mancini in 1982 in response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. As The Working Centre grew, with support from Margaret Nally and Patrice Rietzel of 102 Kitchener -Waterloo City Directories Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1964; Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1969 103 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1932 through 1940 104 Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory for the Year 1971 105 Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the Year 1972 106 Ibid. for the Year 1972-1980 107 Ibid. for the Year 1973-1988 108 Ibid. for the Year 1975-1981 los Cities of Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. for the year 1977- 1997 110 Ibid. for the Year 1982-2009 111 Ibid. for the year 1988-2009 112 Ibid. for the year 2006; 2007; 2010 43 Page 95 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Global Community Centre, it arranged a board of directors that continue to guide its ongoing development. 13 Per The Working Centre's website, their primary goal is to: ...give people access to tools to create their own work combined with continuous ways of learning and co-operating. The Working Centre organizes its projects into six areas; the Job Search Resource Centre, St. John's Kitchen, Community Tools, Access to Technology, Affordable Supportive Housing and the Waterloo School for Community Development. 114 Over the course of its 40 -years existence, The Working Centre has been able to network with other not-for-profit organizations such as St. John's Kitchen which opened in 1985. Since then, a primary care clinic, dental clinic, nurses, and outreach workers have all joined The Working Centre's ecosystem.115 For their work with The Working Centre, Joe and Stephanie Mancini were awarded with the Benemerenti Medal and Papal Honour in 2014, the Order of Canada in 2016, and honorary Doctorates from the University of Waterloo in 2019.16 The Working Centre operates a number of properties in the City of Kitchener and has a history of managing and adapting existing and heritage buildings in a sympathetic manner, regularly applying the principle of minimum intervention as a pragmatic and sensitive approach to working with their properties. In addition to the listed property at 97 Victoria Street North, the group is headquartered in a listed property at 58 Queen Street South and provides services out of a listed property at 115 Water Street North; the latter of property successfully underwent a sympathetic alteration in 2019-2020 to provide additional capacity for transitional housing, harm reduction, and health care services (Photo 1 to Photo 3). 13 The Working Centre, "About Us," n.d. 14 The Working Centre, p. 4 15 University of Waterloo, "The Working Centre's founders receive honorary doctorates," 2019. 16 University of Waterloo 44 Page 96 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 1: Water Street House at 115 Water Street North 45 Page 97 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 2: Detail showing transition between original building at 115 Water Street North (right) and two-storey addition (left) constructed in 2020 Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition 46 Page 98 of 507 i r I5_ 7 � Photo 3: Detail of materials, original yellow brick (left) and faux yellow brick finish (left). The result is an addition that is compatible with the earlier structure, and distinguishable as a modern addition 46 Page 98 of 507 o� 3om�- �1 -+ice �•� ;��� � Em Ew v �E /► EEm E - M V43", ® \ d s 5 d 0 1A, 'sL — 4 # S � f 1= Y� n a �'' '41'f xTt _ • k ^ dry- XL q 114Y�,� aA f i4 1 ,�1� ice' f1 s ! des• '�d %s 'L J. 1 � R y tj{ '•Mr, ✓ 1 � .. r,�yi� � �i � ..',!T' E�}� `Li city �. �T�� yy .. t� hL 1®'�k. } w,t� � ,,: �� '.� t163i ��• � its °, � � �' ?,a't w �` �s ,..*+.�E■� �h,R r. it �1Y w �} . '�e�� °�1'e R 7 j tr 4 q 1 Ak, „ "►� :st�I�t4A k. �N' •�� x+:i 3.1 alit- �-'-- - to � •.��� ,�'"`� i " #r!};� �` � � �� � N'. Tk r r - Legend TITLE 1875 Birds Eye View Showing the Property Property CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario _ONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) PREPARED LHC 1. Bros ius M., "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo- region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, DESIGNED JG Madison, Ws: J.J. Stoner, 1875. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and 1HCage I UU Of bU are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. �FIGUIEI i I I jf q I I y p��q 40 LJ I � a } -- in 0 0 25 50 Meters a ia.a nr G 16 1Y0n+rA.P ti_' ALL 0 • 25 50 Meters Legend Property TITLE 1904, 1925, and 1947 Fire Insurance Plans Showing the Property CLIENT Perimeter Development PROJECT PROJECT' '. LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment 97 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario NOTE(S) 1. All locations are approximate. REFERENCE(S) 1. Chas E. Goad, "Kitchener Berlin", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, scale 1:600, Toronto & Montreal: Chas E. Goad, 1894 rev. 1904. 2. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ontario', Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1925. 3. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ont.", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, microfiche, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1947. Portions of this document include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright (c) Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2022-10-07 PREPARED LHC 1HC DESIGNED JG FIGURE # age 0 8 .'rTr F�• r� Y�• f �L i' i�M•ii *r�l a r O E a E a E a E a E a E a RE D RE RE No N - E 0 �Tlm — ,_bp �— —- _ r■ a ear. �a #!., F+1 r F e +�F +l.a! .■ar4'.i r'*!:#iso. + ■+. a rR. r +. s iY '+. F ■ `a9a Fey i d n N or QO O T N E 4g -B MNM E- - - m O ° �- a a - E E. E. 1 E E E E m r A r 9AP ars -Em- mEam E�tmao_� iii ■i - -wE . oso o0 oar a m Eos _ ms�o��6ms�o��T'��oza-a �Tlm I � r A r■ a ear. �a #!., F+1 r F e +�F +l.a! .■ar4'.i r'*!:#iso. + ■+. a rR. r +. s iY '+. F ■ `a9a Fey i r A r 9AP ars L iii ■i ■` rrAa i ■ ' �• +e +baF I � r December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 97 Victoria Street North Exterior The property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North is a two-storey "L" shaped building on a concrete foundation with three additions (Photo 4 through Photo 7). The main building is two -storeys in height and measures approximately 15.0 metres (m) wide by 35.3 m deep. The primary, northwest elevation is divided into three distinct bays by four shallow buttresses. Both the southwest and northeast elevation are divided into seven bays. A large chimney was erected in the main building's southwest corner. The first addition was attached to the east section of the main building's southeast (rear) elevation. This addition matched the two-storey height and general rhythm of the main structure, adding three bays along the building's northeast elevation and two along the southeast elevation (Photo 8 and Photo 9). Three distinct elements distinguish this building section as an addition. First, one of the three bays added along the northeast elevation does not match the width of the others; second, the roofing material is different from that of the main building and there is a distinctive parapet that is no longer situated along the roof's edge; and third, the yellow brick is slightly different in colour from the main building. Another addition was added to the building's southeast elevation, this time situated towards the westmost section. This addition is also two -storeys in height and shares the matching fenestration rhythm found along the main building; however, it comprises a different brick colour and is not arranged into bays using shallow buttresses (Photo 7). A third, single storey addition was later added and branched off the southwest elevation of the previous addition. This later addition is constructed of concrete block and gave the property its current `L' shape (Photo 9). The first storey of the building serves a retail and community outreach use, and the second storey comprises a dining hall and St. John's kitchen. The building has a flat roof and is constructed of stretcher bond brick that is red along the building's primary, northwest elevation and yellow along all other elevations. The building is typically divided into distinct bays by shallow buttresses found along all elevations; however, this rhythm is interrupted along the southmost portion of the southwest elevation because of the addition. The primary, northwest elevation is symmetrical, with buttressing located at the edges of the building as well as two additional buttresses that are evenly set along the fagade which creates three bays. The middle bay comprises a large, centre -set entrance along the first storey, and a former window bay that has been infilled and clad in painted vertical siding within the second storey. The bays that flank the centre both have three side-by-side double hung, six - over -six windows that align with the door opening on the first storey and infilled window bay on the second storey. The primary elevation also has a decorative parapet. The symmetrical pattern of buttresses and window openings continues along the building's southwest and northeast elevations. Many of the window bays on secondary elevations have been infilled and clad in vertical siding, with new windows having been installed in several locations. The rear, southeast elevation follows a similar architectural language as the other elevations; however, it is asymmetrical. It has two buttresses that are offset towards the east portion of the elevation and has windows of various size. The first storey of the building can be accessed from two locations along the Property's southwest elevation. The first access point is located within the fourth bay and the second is located towards the south corner set within the Property's second addition (Photo 7). The 53 Page 105 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 second storey of the Property is accessed via a door located in the seventh bay along northeast elevation (Photo 5). The windows set within the northwest elevation have concrete sills along their bottom edges and flat -headed, soldier course brick along their top edges. The windows extend the entire width of the bays that are formed by the buttresses. As described, the general window pattern along the northeast and southwest elevations corresponds to that of the northwest elevation; however, the window selection varies. Fixed -pane, double -hung, and smaller side-by-side double -hung windows were observed on both elevations. The Southeast elevation comprises three double - hung windows located along the building's second storey. Neither natural heritage elements nor landscaped features are present on the Property. Photo 4: View south showing the Property's northwest (primary) and northeast elevations 54 Page 106 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 5: View west showing the Property's northeast elevation Photo 6: Panoramic view northwest showing the Property's southeast elevation 55 Page 107 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 7: View northeast showing the Property's southwest elevation Photo 8: View northwest of the Property's southeast elevation. The addition on the right follows the same rhythm of bays and buttresses found along the other elevations. The addition to the left is void of buttresses and is a distinctly different colour 56 Page 108 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 9: View north showing the single storey addition that branches off the southwest elevation of the previous addition 5.2 97 Victoria Street North Interior 5.2.1 Worth a Second Look (First Storey) The first storey of the building is "L" shaped in plan and comprises Worth a Second Look along with supporting storage space (Figure 12). Despite the building's main entrance fronting onto Victoria Street North, access to the first storey is provided along the southwest elevation. Upon entrance, the first floor is a large, open room that has polished concrete floors, gypsum clad walls, and a gypsum clad ceiling (Photo 10). Typically, the wallboard has been painted white; however, the windowsills have been painted blue. Along the ceiling, the building's structural beams are visible, but they have been covered in wallboard. Structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all visible and are typically painted white to match the walls and ceiling (Photo 11). The materiality used in the main, Worth a Second Look, room typically remains congruent when moving towards the structure's storage areas located at the rear of the building. In addition to the floor typically remaining polished concrete, the walls and ceilings are also typically clad in painted gypsum wallboard (Photo 12 and Photo 13). In certain areas, the material use is changed. For instance, some walls comprise painted brick and the flooring in several areas is composed of tile (Photo 14 and Photo 15). 57 Page 109 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 FLS 11LuJ1 13 e R- iiia 1 8� Figure 12: Current Worth a Second Look floor plan (first floor) Photo 10: View north upon entering the first storey of the building 58 Page 110 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 11: View southeast showing the building's structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems Photo 12: View southwest showing material use towards the rear of the first floor 59 Page 111 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 13: View showing the material use towards the rear of the first floor Photo 14: View showing a tiled floor area 60 Page 112 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 15: View showing painted brick walls 5.2.2 St. John's Kitchen and Safe Supply Clinic (Second Storey) The second storey of the building is rectangular in plan and comprises St. John's Kitchen and the Safe Supply Clinic (Figure 13). The second storey of the building is accessed from the building's northeast elevation. The entrance provides access to a foyer area that has a tiled floor and walls that are typically clad in gypsum and painted yellow but with some exposed brick (Photo 16). A vinyl -clad, metal staircase is located to the right upon entrance that provides access to the second floor. Akin to the foyer, the walls surrounding the staircase are yellow - painted gypsum (Photo 17). The second floor also has a tiled floor throughout and walls and ceiling that are clad completely in gypsum. The walls are typically painted yellow, green, blue, or red. Like the first floor, Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are all visible and are typically painted white (Photo 18). Directly ahead of the top of the stairs is the Safe Supply Clinic which is a separate suite within the building. Aside from this suite, the rest of the floor is generally open space. A hallway that extends lengthwise through the building provides access to the different rooms, including St. John's Kitchen located towards the northwest elevation of the building (Photo 19). The safe supply clinic was not accessed during the site visit. 61 Page 113 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 I' ry Ea d I I I I I I Figure 13: Current St. John's Kitchen floor plan (second floor) Photo 16: View southeast showing the foyer and stairs 62 Page 114 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 17: View northwest showing the staircase providing second floor access Photo 18: Panoramic view showing the second floor of the building 63 Page 115 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Photo 19: View showing St. John's kitchen (right) and an open hallway (left) 5.2.3 Community Outreach (Rear Wing Addition) The community outreach wing of the building was not accessed during the site visit 5.3 Surrounding Context The Property is located in the Innovation District of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre, which as described in Section 15 of Kitchener's OP, is "...characterized by many large, old industrial buildings which have already been converted or have the potential for conversion to loft style office and residential uses and other viable uses.""' The Property is located between two of the City's Heritage Conservation Districts (HCD), namely the Victoria Park HCD designated under by-law 96-91 and the Civic Centre HCD designated under by-law 2008-039. The Property is located approximately 90 metres from the CN rail tracks and approximately 550 metres from Victoria Park. "' City of Kitchener, "City of Kitchener Official Plan," 2019, 15-12. 64 Page 116 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 The topography of the surrounding site is relatively flat with a slight downward slope towards Duke Street. Vegetation along the section of Victoria Street North that the Property is situated is sparse, with few properties having grass, trees, or other landscaped features. Observed land uses in the surrounding area include a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial. The buildings within the Property's immediate vicinity are typically low-rise, and generally do not exceed two -storeys in height. Victoria Street North is a two-way street with four lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and streetlights on both sides of the street. Heit Lane, situated to the rear of the Property, is a two-way, one lane street with no sidewalks or streetlights. The Property is located within Kitchener's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). Recognized as a regionally significant cultural heritage resource, the Warehouse District CHL (identified as L -COM -1) extends along the CN Rail line and is bounded by Glasgow Street, Dominion Street, Breithaupt Street, Francis Street, Victoria Street, and Belmont Street."$ 119 The Warehouse District is contextually important to the development history of Kitchener as an industrial manufacturing centre during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Supporting facilities including factories, warehouses for department stores, commercial enterprises, and residences for workers were established in the district. Within the Warehouse District, factory complexes, including the Kaufman Rubber Company building designed in 1908 by Albert Kahn (1869-1942), still stand. Residential neighbourhoods, typically constructed of brick masonry, in the immediate vicinity housed the workers of this industrial and commercial area. 120 5.4 Adjacent Heritage Properties The City defines adjacent as: ...lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. Using this definition, the Property is adjacent to one heritage property located at 70 Francis Street North which is a late 19th century Queen Anne style residence that is recognized for its design, physical, and contextual values (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The City's Statement of Significance for the property states: The building is an excellent example of the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features an asymmetrical plan; buff brick; rock -faced stone foundation; steeply pitched gable roof; projecting two storey bay with gambrel roof on south elevation; fan brackets with ornamental pendants; frieze board with simple dentillated trim; turret with steeply pitched polygonal roof; front door with raised panels, and a single light with beveled glass, three sidelights with beveled glass, and a transom with beveled glass; semi circular openings with radiating 118 Region of Waterloo. "Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources". 2018, 4. 119 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 2014 December, 24. 120 City of Kitchener. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 65 Page 117 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 voussoirs and moulded brick trim; 1/1 double hung windows with concrete sills; and, front porch. 121 Photo 20: View north showing 70 Francis Street North's primary elevation Photo 21: View northwest showing 70 Francis Street North's southeast and northeast elevations 121 City of Kitchener, "DTS-09-053," 7 April 2009. https:Hlf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/3wgyhgnl h3kw5yn2del 1 nzmt/3/DTS-09-053%20-%20Listing%20of%20Non- Des ignated%20Property %20of%20CUItural%20Herltage.pdf 66 Page 118 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 6 EVALUATION 6.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation The Property located at 97 Victoria Street North was evaluated against O. Reg 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Section 4 and 5 of this HIA. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 9. Table 9: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation for 97 Victoria Street North 67 Page 119 of 507 Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. - property has designor physical - becausei. is a rare, unique, representative, Yes The Property is a representative example of or early example of a style, type, a building developed using the industrial expression, material, or vernacular architectural style. construction method, The building on the Property was erected c. 1927 to serve an industrial purpose for the Mitchell Button Company who occupied the site for over four decades. Although the Property is a later addition to Kitchener's Warehouse District CHL, it nonetheless is a representative example of Kitchener's early 201h century industrial core. The Property's symmetry, decorative parapet over its primary fagade, shallow buttressing, and rectangular shape are representative aspects that reflect this building style. ii. displays a high degree of No The Property does not display a high degree craftsmanship or artistic merit, or of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Despite being a representative example of the industrial architectural style that was common in Kitchener in the early 20th century, the building exhibits vernacular and simple building methods common at the time of construction. iii. demonstrates a high degree of No The Property does not demonstrate a high technical or scientific degree of technical or scientific achievement. achievement. It was constructed using common building methods at the time of construction. 67 Page 119 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 68 Page 120 of 507 Criteria Met JustificationCriteria 2. - property has historicalor associativebecause i. has direct associations with a Yes The Property has direct associations with theme, event, belief, person, Walter Mitchell and his company called the activity, organization, or `Mitchell Button Company' which operated institution that is significant to a within Kitchener for nearly 55 years. By community, direct extension of the Property's manufacturing use, the Property is directly connected with the theme of the City's industrial expansion that occurred throughout the early 20th century. ii. yields, or has the potential to No The Property does not yield, or have the yield, information that potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding contributes to an understanding of a of a community or culture, or community or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the No The Property does not demonstrate or work or ideas of an architect, reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or artist, builder, designer or theorist who is theorist who is significant to a significant to the community. The industrial community. vernacular building was built using common materials and methods at the time of construction. The Property's architect and/or general contractor are unknown. - ..-rX . - i. is important in defining, Yes The Property is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the maintaining, and supporting the character of character of an area, the area. The Property is a former industrial building that contributes to the City's `Warehouse District' CHL. This area is defined by its industrial commercial development that occurred during the early 20th century and the concurrently built industrial vernacular structures. Because the Property was developed as an industrial building that was architecturally similar to other industrial properties within 68 Page 120 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met the Warehouse District, it helps to define its neighbourhood. In addition, the Property acts as a visual gateway into the Warehouse District because of its position at the edge of the district. ii. is physical, functionally, visually, Yes The Property is functionally and historically or historically linked to its linked to its immediate surroundings. surroundings, or In addition to its presence among the greater Warehouse District CHL that creates a link, the Property is directly adjacent to the City's primary rail junction. This connection is important because the Warehouse District's growth and development is connected to the ability for manufactured goods to be transported via the railway. Accordingly, the Property is directly connected to the neighbouring railway. In addition, the Property is among the first within the Warehouse District CHL that is seen by eastbound rail and vehicular traffic. Accordingly, it is a symbolic gateway into Kitchener's Warehouse District. iii. is a landmark. No The Property is not a landmark. The MCM defines `landmark' as ...a recognizable natural or AEIV human -made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous... The Property does not meet this criterion. 6.2 Additional Considerations In order to understand the uniqueness and representative value of the physical features of 97 Victoria Street North as well as thematic associations outlined in the existing SOS, a comparative analysis of buildings of similar style, material, age, and massing within the Warehouse District was explored. Information was extracted from the City's municipal heritage 69 Page 121 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 register, existing SOS documents prepared by the City, and the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscapes report. Table 10 below displays other properties found within the `Warehouse District' that have been described as being built in the industrial vernacular architectural style. Note that this comparison is not a comprehensive list of Kitchener's industrial vernacular properties. Table 10: Comparative Examples of Industrial Vernacular Architecture in Kitchener's Warehouse District 111 Ahrens Street 1887 All elements related to the construction and West 122 Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • roof and roofline, including: flat roof; parapet wall; • door openings; • window openings, including: tripled 6/6 double hung windows per bay; stone headers and sills; • yellow brick construction; • stone foundation (original building); • concrete foundation (later buildings); • shallow buttressing between windows; • decorative cornice; o sign banding; and, • chimney. 113-151 Charles c. 1896 All elements related to the design and physical Street 123 value, including: • Complex of industrial vernacular buildings spanning the turn- of -the -20th century; • Breezeways interconnecting buildings; 122 City of Kitchener Development and Technical Services, "Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR," January 5, 2009, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=980089&search id=3f27fa99-22c1-4b0e-b538-65db618b4c75&dbid=0, 6-8 123 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Municipal Heritage Register Listings," May 5, 2015, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1371069&paqe=66&searchid=77bd49d5-a435-41 f5-af84- d4d89b5aadb2, 1-66 — 1-73 70 Page 122 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 124 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201&searchid=b55a7Oee-6eeO-49c4-a1f9-a01bfOcO4283&dbid =0, 8- 17-8-18 - 17-8-18 71 Page 123 of 507 • Painted signage on the exterior walls; Former administration and production buildings at the corner of Charles and Francis; • Former beam and storage house; Former leach house along Joseph Street; • Decorative brickwork; Lionhead tie roads; Segmentally arched windows with wood sashes and stone sills; • Generous floor to ceiling heights; • Wooden beams and flooring; Wooden staircases; Exposed structural columns and mechanical systems; • Freight elevators with wooden gates; and, • Metal fire separation doors with original weights and pulleys 283 Duke Street 1896; 1936; 1939 All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular West 124 architectural style of the buildings, including: • varied rooflines, including flat roof and low pitch side gable roof; off-white brick (now painted); • original windows, including 6/ 6 windows paired in each bay and ribbon of three 6/ 6 windows in each bay; • original window openings, including flat head and segmentally arched openings with original wood sills or concrete sills; • slight brick work under the eaves; shallow buttressing; and entrance on 124 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLin kExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201&searchid=b55a7Oee-6eeO-49c4-a1f9-a01bfOcO4283&dbid =0, 8- 17-8-18 - 17-8-18 71 Page 123 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 125 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31-2c2b-418b-b60c- 021b037427de&dbid=0, 3-17 — 3-20 72 Page 124 of 507 Duke Street West marked by simple projecting pilaster. All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the buildings and contribution they make to the continuity and character of the Duke Street West and Breithaupt Street streetscapes; • Proximity to the rail line; and, • Presence as a neighbourhood landmark. 72 Victoria Street 1903 All elements related to the construction and South 125 architectural style of the building, including: • all elevations of the building and additions; • red and yellow brick walls; • brick pilasters that separate the bays; • roof and roofline, including; flat roof; brick corbelling at the roofline; • window openings; • concrete sills and lintels; • brick voussoirs; • main entrance portico, including: Doric columns; Brick voussoirs; Semi -elliptical opening; rounded concrete steps; • tie rods and anchors; • yellow brick chimney; and • chimney clean out. All elements relate to the interior of the building, including: 125 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31-2c2b-418b-b60c- 021b037427de&dbid=0, 3-17 — 3-20 72 Page 124 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 126 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842-4b9d-a46d-1cabecacO483&dbid=0, 9- 139-9-145 - 139-9-145 73 Page 125 of 507 • exposed heavy timber (post and beam) construction with 4 -way steel post caps and metal stirrups, timber capital and support members; • original hardwood and concrete floors; • concrete and brick walls; • original wood ceilings; • original window on interior wall located at the ground floor loading entrance; • original freight elevator; • column base with concrete casings in basement; • original metal door and hardware in basement leading to storage units; • exposed cast iron sprinkler system; and, • interior foundation wall in basement. 130 Weber Street c. 1919 (original), All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular West 126 1946 (rebuild) architectural style with subtle Art Deco influences, including: • flat roof; • concrete • floral motifs and banding; • original window openings either with concrete sill or concrete window surround; • angled corner with entrance facing intersection; and, • concrete door surround. 126 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842-4b9d-a46d-1cabecacO483&dbid=0, 9- 139-9-145 - 139-9-145 73 Page 125 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Municipal Address.•- Attributes All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the house and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Breithaupt Street and Weber Street West streetscapes. When directly contrasting the structure located at 97 Victoria Street North with other early 20`h century industrial vernacular buildings, it becomes clear that it is not an early or unique example of the architectural style. Other industrial vernacular buildings, including several identified above, where constructed approximately 30 -years prior to the Property. 6.3 Summary of Evaluation In LHC's professional opinion, the property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. 6.4 Proposed Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 6.4.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North has design and physical values because it is a representative example of an industrial building having been developed in the industrial vernacular architectural style; historical and associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community; and contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of an area and because it is physical, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. The building located at 97 Victoria Street North was built c. 1927 as an industrial warehouse for the Mitchell Button Company and has continued to serve as an industrial and/or commercial building until present day. The building is recognized as a contributing industrial property that supports the character of the City of Kitchener's Warehouse District cultural heritage landscape. The building was erected in the industrial vernacular architectural style that was common in Kitchener during the early 20th century. Architectural elements that define this style that are present on the property include its symmetry, flat roof with shaped parapet on the front fagade, shallow buttressing, use of red, yellow, and beige bricks, and 6/6 windows. 6.4.2 Heritage Attributes All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: • Two storey height; • Symmetrical northwest (primary) fagade; 74 Page 126 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 • Flat roof with shaped parapet on the northwest (primary) fagade; • Shallow buttresses that define distinct bays along each of the building's elevations. • Brick construction comprising red, yellow, and beige brick; • Original window openings with soldier course brick headers and concrete sills; • Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade; and, • Chimney set in stretcher bonded, yellow brick with concrete banding. All elements related to the contextual value, including: • Location of the building and contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District; and, • The link to the surrounding Warehouse District. 75 Page 127 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7.1 Massing, Access, and Setbacks The proposed new development seeks to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the building listed on the City's municipal heritage register located at 97 Victoria Street North. The first proposed addition is the inclusion of a third storey that will increase the building's height, and the second proposed addition is a single storey wing that will attach to the extant building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane (Figure 14 and Figure 15). The proposed development will permit the construction of a mixed use residential, commercial, and institutional building totalling a gross floor area of 2,639 m2 comprising 2,082 m2 of residential, support services, and common area space and 557 m2 of space dedicated to an updated St. John's Kitchen. The overall massing of the site is expected to increase as a result of the proposed development, mostly because of the proposed alterations to the building located at 97 Victoria Street North. The addition of a third storey (plus a mechanical penthouse situated towards the southern edge of the roof) and the addition of a new southwest wing will increase the amount of land that is developed and increase the height of the Property. Notwithstanding, the proposed southwest wing will be largely obscured from view from Victoria Street North because it will be situated behind the extant buildings located at 87 and 83 Victoria Street North. The proposed changes will not impact the Property's extant setback distances. The front (northwest) and rear (southeast) elevations will have a shallow setback, and the northeast and southwest elevations will be deeper, allowing for pedestrian and vehicular access. For pedestrian traffic, the site will be accessible from the space between 83 and 87 Victoria Street North, the space between 91 and 97 Victoria Street North, and form the driveway situated in the Property's southwest corner along Heit Lane. Vehicular access is provided via Heit Lane located to the Property's rear. Two dedicated staff parking spaces, one standard and one accessible, are located adjacent to the proposed southwest wing and are accessed via an approximately 6.3 metre wide and 17.5 metre long driveway. Six additional parking spaces, five standard and one accessible, are located in a small parking lot on the south side of Heit Lane that is adjacent to 97 Victoria Street North. In addition to parking areas, an approximately 28.5 -metre -long loading bay is situated along the proposed southwest addition and is accessible via Heit Lane (Figure 16). 76 Page 128 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 14: Rendering looking east showing the third -storey addition to the Property Figure 15: Rendering looking east showing the single -storey southwest wing addition to the Property n Page 129 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 VICTORIA STREET NORTH ,L i TT i r I �; I - 90 I 9 12 P�E]&YT F-iJIAVA,-�,r� ICs 1 111011 _ t �l -5 :..�, a•.�ti-i JI. A a3 FAe-3 W�54L.r I i - - HEIT LANE Figure 16: Site plan showing the proposed redevelopment 7.2 Architectural Design Several alterations will be made the to the listed heritage property located at 97 Victoria Street North. First is the replacement of all extant windows with contemporary counterparts. The purpose for this proposed alteration is twofold. First, the Owner is seeking to create a net -zero building. Accordingly, the proposed windows reduce the total glazed area, increase opaque/insulated area, and minimize mullion thermal breaks. Second, to allow for the maximum capacity of residential units, two units per structural bay is optimal. At present, there is one window per structural bay. An additional consideration was the ceiling height within the 78 Page 130 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 structure. To allow passage of the updated building systems, the ceiling must be dropped. The extant window openings are too tall and would conflict with this requirement. Due to the unit requirements and building systems considerations, therefore, the extant window design requires alterations. The project architect, bnkc, considered several window alternatives for the proposed design (Figure 17). Ultimately, it was decided to divide the extant window bays in two. The proposed new windows comprise a metallic frame, inset into the existing window openings found along each elevation, with two individual windows (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Second, the extant community outreach wing that branches off the Property's southwest corner will be removed to allow for the construction of a new, larger southwest wing. The proposed southwest wing will be clad in several materials. The primary, northwest elevation will comprise a 20.5 metre curtain wall with 2.3 metre curtain wall returns on either side. Flanking the curtain wall, and also on the northwest elevation, is an approximately 6.5 metre wall section to the west and approximately 8.5 metre wall to the east. Both of these wall sections will be clad in metal panelling (Figure 20). The southwest and southeast elevation will be clad in brick masonry. The roof of the proposed southwest wing is typically flat; however, a section of the roof is raised, creating a clerestory, and sloped upwards at 12 degrees. The sloped roof follows the dimensions of the 20.5 metre curtain wall situated along the northwest elevation of the proposed southwest wing. The highest point of the sloped roof is at the terminus of the curtain wall, and the lowest point is near the centre of the southwest wing. The upper portion of the curtain wall is proposed to have horizontally strung wooden louvres (Figure 21). Internally, the proposed southwest addition comprises exposed mass timber framing (Figure 22 and Figure 23). Third, a third -storey addition will be added to the extant building. The addition will be consistent in shape and size to the first two storeys and will remain similar in height (at 3.8 metres) to the 3.7 metre first storey and 4.1 metre second storey. The third storey addition is proposed to be clad in metal panelling and will have the same window style that has been proposed for the rest of the building. Along the building's primary, northwest elevation, the decorative parapet will remain, and the northwest wall of the third storey will be narrowly setback to accommodate the attribute. In addition, the northwest facing section of the setback will have a raised parapet. To create a visual buffer between the two storey heritage resource and proposed third storey, a narrow metal band circumnavigates the connection between the second and third storeys. Moreover, the structure's chimney will be incorporated into the addition, with the third storey addition wrapping around the detail. The roof of the third storey will typically be clad in photovoltaic panels towards the northwest elevation and will have the building's main mechanical penthouse situated towards the rear, southeast elevation. The mechanical penthouse will be clad in metal paneling and will add an addition 2.7 metres of height the structure. The structure will continue to have a flat roof (Figure 14). Fourth, the extant entrance centrally located along the building's southwest elevation will be redesigned and will protrude from the face of the building by just over 1.0 metre. The redesigned entrance will typically comprise glass, but metal panelling sections will be included between the first and second storey and at the top of the second storey (Figure 24). 79 Page 131 of 507 W � M i u d a+ LL _0 W i C .a .. o Jl . A a� 4) u u F CC W C) a CD W CD Z W O CD LU 2 CD Z W O J Ul � J J w Y � Q - V O I Q o6 LJ Q LU m Q � Z � C W N 0 .0 W N W W Q Z 0 W CDS HrZ 3:z LL m O N Q Z (j) S ~ J Q O 0 Z i5 W J CD—0> Y L>u_ U) p� W 0 J W W r jGo D m Q O O a Q Z= pZ Q Ham— WH 0- WO LU minZU) U) W W X z LU LU O 1. -co O Q Q 2 o-= N O O W LU H W W O Z O_ LuCD O p o C) C) Z J J ~ Z z 0 Z W Q Z Z = W Z U, W C Z LL.0O LU Go i5 C, Cl) p OW W'2 W r W rW W' W WQ � LL =CD W'p Z LU LU z �a�a 0> zWm Q z WzN Jaa- a(n J� LU w�E C�OWC) W LU aU) W � M i u d a+ LL _0 W i C .a .. o Jl . A a� 4) u u F CC W C) a CD W CD Z W O CD LU 2 CD Z W O J Ul � J J w Y � Q - V O I Q �I , LJ m Q � Z � C W N 0 .0 i5 W December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 18: Rendering of the northwest and northeast elevations showing the proposed windows Figure 19: Rendering of the northwest and southwest elevations showing the proposed windows 81 Page 133 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 21:Axonmnletriorendering ofthe proposed development showing the southwest wing's 82 Page 134 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 22: Internal rendering looking northeast within the proposed southwest wing Figure 23: Internal rendering looking west within the proposed southwest wing 83 Page 135 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Figure 24: View of the proposed entrance on the southwest elevation 7.3 Description of Alteration to Heritage Resources The proposed development will impact two of the Property's heritage attributes identified in Section 6.4.2. First, adding a third storey to the building on the Property will change the identified `two storey height' attribute. Second, all extant windows will be removed from the building and will be replaced with contemporary counterparts. The proposed new windows are not the 6/6 style that is historically accurate for the Property and the greater Warehouse District within which it is located. 84 Page 136 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES 8.1 Potential Impacts to 97 Victoria Street North The MCM's Info Sheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outlines seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include: 1. Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features; 2. Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; 3. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or planting, such as a garden; 4. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; 5. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features; 6. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and 7. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The Property located at 97 Victoria Street North was found to meet O. Reg. 9/06 and a list of heritage attributes was prepared for the Property. Table 11 below considers potential negative impacts identified by the MCM in relation to the identified heritage attributes. Table 11: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 97 Victoria Street North Two storey height Yes Alteration The proposed development proposes to add an additional storey to the extant two storey building which will make it three storeys in height. The proposed third storey will be 3.8 metres in height, which is consistent with the first storey (3.7 metres) and second storey (4.1 metres). In addition to the third storey addition, a mechanical penthouse will also be added to the building. The mechanical penthouse will add an additional 2.7 metres of height to the Property; however, it is located 85 Page 137 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Heritage Attributes Potential Type of Discussion Impact Impact towards the southmost section of the building's roof. Symmetrical No None Although the northwest (primary) northwest fagade of the Property is being (primary) fagade altered through the addition of a third storey and the replacement of its windows, the symmetry of the fagade will remain unchanged. Flat roof with No None Although the proposed third storey shaped parapet on will alter the extant roof of the building the northwest on the Property, it will continue to (primary) fagade have a flat roof. The shaped parapet will also remain as -is. The section of the proposed third storey that is located to the rear of the parapet is setback from the wall face of the extant building, allowing the parapet to remain a prominent feature of the building. Shallow buttresses No None The proposed development will not that define distinct impact the bays that are divided by bays along each of the shallow buttressing along the the buildings' elevations. Modifications to the extant elevations. two-storey building are not anticipated to impact the arrangement and/or rhythm of the elevations. Brick construction No None The brick masonry that currently comprising red, comprises the building's cladding will yellow, and beige be largely unaffected as a result of brick the proposed development. Original window No None The extant window openings along openings with with their soldier course brick headers soldier course and concrete sills will be unaffected brick headers and as a result of the proposed concrete sills development. Six -over -six Yes Alteration All extant windows, including former windows on the windows that have been covered or infilled, will be removed and replaced 86 Page 138 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 northwest with contemporary counterparts (primary) fagade including the six -over -six windows currently observed on the building's northwest (primary) elevation. Each extant window bay will be infilled with two separate window sections. Both window sections comprise two glazed sections divided by a metallic mullion. The project architect, considered several window alternatives for the proposed redevelopment. Ultimately, due to the internal room layout, privacy and sustainability concerns, the proposed window design was selected. Chimney set in No None The chimney is currently obscured stretcher bonded, from view from the public realm from yellow brick with most angles. Accordingly, despite the concrete banding third storey addition building around the chimney, it will not have a ' significant impact on the attribute. Location of the No None The location of the building will not be building and impacted, and the building will contribution that it continue to support the character of makes to the the Warehouse District. continuity and character of the Victoria Street North streetscape and the Warehouse District The link to the No None The character of the building will be surrounding unaffected, and the building will Warehouse District continue to support the character of the Warehouse District. 87 Page 139 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.2 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Property at 70 Francis Street North The seven potential impacts identified within the MCM's Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans were also considered for the adjacent property listed on the City's municipal heritage register located at 70 Francis Street North (Table 12). The identified heritage attributes were taken from the City of Kitchener's Statement of Significance for the property. 127 Table 12: Impact assessment for the identified heritage attributes on 70 Francis Street North Irregular building No None The proposed development at 97 plan Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Buff brick laid in No None The proposed development at 97 common bond Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Rock -faced stone No None The proposed development at 97 foundation Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Projecting two No None The proposed development at 97 storey bay on Victoria Street North is not anticipated south elevation to have any negative impacts on the with gambrel roof property located at 70 Francis Street North. Modified gable No None The proposed development at 97 roof Victoria Street North is not anticipated to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. 127 City of Kitchener, "DTS-09-053," 7 April 2009. https:Hlf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/3wgyhgnl h3kw5yn2del I nzmt/3/DTS-09-053%20-%20Listing %20of%20Non- Des ignated%20 Property%20of%20Cultura1%20Heritage.pdf ss Page 140 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Octagonal tower No None The proposed development at 97 with an eight -sided Victoria Street North is not anticipated conical roof to have any negative impacts on the property located at 70 Francis Street North. Plain fascia, No None The proposed development at 97 moulded soffit, Victoria Street North is not anticipated and frieze with to have any negative impacts on the dentils and property located at 70 Francis Street mouldings North. Windows and No None The proposed development at 97 window openings, Victoria Street North is not anticipated such as the 1/1 to have any negative impacts on the windows with flat property located at 70 Francis Street rusticated lintels, North. the large first floor windows with half - round transoms. The 1/1 round topped windows with decorative surrounds and keystone, the three part oriel window; . the three section window with a two section elliptical - arch transom and brick label and, the two storey bay window with a bracketed pediment gable above Main entrance No None The proposed development at 97 door with single Victoria Street North is not anticipated light, sidelights to have any negative impacts on the with and transom property located at 70 Francis Street with beveled glass North. 89 Page 141 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.3 Potential Impacts to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape Potential impacts to the City's Warehouse District CHL are identified in Table 13, below. Appendix six of the CHL report indicates that the Warehouse District has historical integrity and that it retains both cultural and community value. The CHL report identifies several criteria for each of these three specific categories. The proposed alterations to the Property are measured against these criteria below. Table 13: Impact assessment for city's Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape 90 Page 142 of 507 Historical Integrity Land Use — Continuity of No The proposed development will not alter Use the land use of the Property or any neighbouring properties within the Warehouse District. Built Elements — Original No The proposed development will not alter Groupings and Associated the grouping of sites within the Sites Warehouse District. View that Reflects No The character of the Warehouse District Landscape Character from as it appears in historic photos will be Historic Photos minimally impacted because of the proposed alterations. Designed Landscapes that No The proposed development will not Have Restoration Potential impose or destroy landscapes that have restoration potential. Cultural Value Design Value — Rareness or No The proposed development will not Uniqueness impact the rareness or uniqueness of the Property. 90 Page 142 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Attribute ImpactCHL Design Value — No The proposed development will have Aesthetic/Scenic Reasons minimal impact on the aesthetic and/or scenic value of the Warehouse District. Design Value — High Degree No The proposed development will have Technical/Scientific Interest minimal impact on the technical and/or scientific interest of the Warehouse District. Historic Value — Historic No The proposed development will have Understanding of Area minimal impact on the historic understanding and legibility of the Warehouse District. Historic Value — Direct No The proposed development will not Association with a Theme impact the associative value that the Event or Person]&— Property or Warehouse District has. Historic Value — Work of No The architect of the building on the Landscape Architect, Property was not identified and the Architect or Other Designer architectural value of the building is being largely retained. Contextual Value — No The proposed development will not Important in Defining the impact the Property's ability to help Character of Area define the character of the Warehouse District. Contextual Value — No The proposed development will not alter Historically, Physically, the Property's historical, physical, Functionally or Visually functional, or visual link to the Linked to Surroundings Warehouse District. Community Value Community Story — Tells No The proposed development will not Story of Area impact the Property's ability to contribute to the story of the Warehouse District. Community Image Identified No The proposed development will not with Kitchener's Provincial/ impact the City's reputation or any National Reputation contributing elements thereof. Genus Loci No The proposed development will not impact the sense of place that the Property contributes to the Warehouse District. 91 Page 143 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 8.4 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles 8.4.1 Standard and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Per the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (S&G), the proposal is a rehabilitation project, which is defined as "the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value." 128 Rehabilitation should be considered as the primary treatment when: a) Repair or replacement of deteriorated features is necessary; b) Alterations or additions to the historic place are planned for a new or continued use; and, c) Depiction during a particular period in its history is not appropriate. The S&Gs provide nine general standards along with three additional standards specific to rehabilitation projects. Table 14 below reviews the proposal's compliance with each pertinent standard. 128 Canada's Historic Places. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010. 17 92 Page 144 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Table 14: Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines 93 Page 145 of 507 Justification Criteria Criteria Met Conserve the heritage value of an Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is historic place. Do not remove, met. The Property's character defining replace or substantially alter its elements are proposed to be retained with intact or repairable character minor modifications. defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character - defining element. Conserve changes to an historic Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is place that, over time, have met. The defined heritage attributes took become character -defining into consideration the cultural heritage value elements in their own right. or interest of the main building as well as its two additions. All defined attributes are being proposed to be retained with minor modifications. Conserve heritage value by Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is adopting an approach calling for met. Although changes that will alter the minimal intervention. Property's scale and massing are proposed, the proposed changes are not anticipated to reduce its cultural value or interest. Recognize each historic place as Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is a physical record of its time, met. Both proposed additions to the place and use. Do not create a Property are distinguishable from the extant false sense of historical building and are products of their time. development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. Find a use for an historic place Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is that requires minimal or no met. The Property's use will remain largely change to its character -defining the same, with the addition of residential elements. suites. The necessary alterations will have minimal overall impact on the Property's character defining elements. Protect and, if necessary, n/a The management of archaeological stabilize an historic place until resources has not been considered as part any subsequent intervention is of this HIA. 93 Page 145 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. Evaluate the existing condition of Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements to met. Interventions surrounding the determine the appropriate Property's character defining elements are intervention needed. Use the proposed to be cautiously applied. gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. Maintain character -defining Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining met. Character defining elements that have been altered, including the window bays, are elements by reinforcing their proposed to be repaired and replaced as materials using recognized part of the project. conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, -- 'WOO where there are surviving prototypes. +�► Make any intervention needed to Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is preserve character -defining met. Proposed interventions for character - elements physically and visually defining elements will be compatible with the compatible with the historic place Property. and identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. Repair rather than replace Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements. met. Although replacement of certain Where character -defining character -defining elements is proposed, elements are too severely such interventions will be compatible with deteriorated to repair, and where the Property and will not impose negative sufficient physical evidence consequences on its heritage value. exists, replace them with new 94 Page 146 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Criteria Met Justification elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. Conserve the heritage value and Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is character -defining elements when met. Proposed additions and alterations to creating any new additions to an the Property are compatible with, historic place or any related new subordinate to, and distinguishable from the construction. Make the new work extant building. physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place Create any new additions or Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is related new construction so that met. Alterations to the building's identified the essential form and integrity of heritage attributes are reversible. an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. 8.4.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties To help guide heritage conservation within Ontario, the MCM has defined eight principles to be considered when undertaking projects. Table 15 below assesses the proposal's compliance with all eight principles. Table 15: Compliance with the Eight Guiding Principles 95 Page 147 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Criteria Justification Criteria Met Respect for historical material Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Minimal alterations are proposed to be made to the elevations of the existing structure. The proposed new windows are not historically accurate; however, given the proposed internal layout of the structure and the owner's desire to create an environmentally conscious product, the proposed alterations will have little overall impact. Respect for original fabric Yes In the context of this project, this criterion in met. Repair work and alterations proposed for the existing building are proposed to be completed with like materials that are compliant. Respect for the building's history n/a The proponent is not proposing to restore the Property to a known former state. Reversibility Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Alterations to the building's identified heritage attributes are reversible. Legibility Yes In the context of this project, this criterion is met. Both proposed additions to the Property are distinguishable from the extant building and are products of their time. Maintenance n/a This criterion is beyond the scope of this HIA. 8.5 Summary of Potential Impacts Potential impacts related to the proposed development were explored above in Table 11. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the building's two storey height and it's six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. No adverse impacts were identified for the adjacent heritage property listed on Kitchener's municipal heritage register located at 70 Francis Street North or the broader Warehouse District CHL. In addition, the proposed alterations to the Property are in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Table 14) and the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties (Table 15). To help mitigate the potential impact to the identified heritage attributes, mitigation measures are outlined in Section 9 below. 96 Page 148 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 9 CONSIDERED MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 9.1 Considered Options The following range of possible development alternatives was explored. All options have been considered in relation to the applicable planning framework outlined in Section 3 of this HIA. The options have considered existing conditions. The preferred option is identified. 9.1.1 Option 1: On-site Retention in Current Use This option would leave the Property as is and the existing building would remain in situ. As the Property is currently being used for commercial purposes, either the same or another commercial enterprise would retain the current use of the building. The `do nothing' option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property, or the adjacent heritage property located at 70 Francis Street as there would be no changes made. However, in the context of the needs of this site, retention in situ is not a viable option. 9.1.2 Option 2: On-site Retention in Alternate Use This option would leave the existing building in situ; however, the building would be used in a different way. Based on the observed existing conditions, the building could support a variety of uses. This option would not result in any direct impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or the adjacent heritage property located at 70 Francis Street as there would be no changes made An alternate use could result in direct impacts to the Property as renovations are undertaken to allow for the reuse. Because the building has had numerous owners and tenants throughout its commissioned life, modifications are likely to have already occurred to both internal and external elements of the building. At present, internal modifications pose little risk to the Property's heritage attributes because all attributes are external. In the context of proposed redevelopment of this site, on-site retention in alternate use is not a viable option as it does not address the needs of this site related to housing and services. 9.1.3 Option 3: Retention of Entire Structure and Integration into Proposed Development This option would see the retention of the building located at 97 Victoria Street North and its integration into the new development per the proposal. During the design phase, architectural detailing and material selection can help mitigate potential adverse impacts. This option would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the heritage attributes of the Property or adjacent heritage properties as the design and changes would be managed with heritage conservation in mind. 9.1.4 Option 4: Demolish Existing Structure and Redevelop This option would seek to demolish the existing building while being designed to avoid impacts on the adjacent heritage properties. 97 Page 149 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Based on the foregoing research and analysis, 97 Victoria Street North meets the criteria established in O. Reg. 9/06. Its removal would therefore result in an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property and the loss of all heritage attributes. Furthermore, the loss of the building at 97 Victoria Street North would have an adverse impact on the Warehouse District CHL. 9.2 Preferred Option Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred option. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North, and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. 9.3 Mitigation Measures As outlined in Table 11, potential adverse impacts were identified for the following heritage attributes: • Two storey height; and, • Six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Mitigation measures are required to ensure the conservation of these heritage attributes Both proposed additions — the third storey and the new wing situated towards the south of the Property's west elevation — will connect directly to the structure's extant masonry. Detailed design and construction of this addition should involve or be overseen by a qualified professional with experience working on brick masonry heritage buildings. In addition, it is recommended that the project team, in consultation with the City of Kitchener, review alternatives to replacement of the six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Previous recommendations suggested that if retention of the windows on the primary fagade is not feasible, replacement windows should mimic the existing windows to the extent possible. It is recommended that the replacements be planned and overseen by a qualified professional with experience working on masonry buildings to lessen potential for unanticipated impacts on the brick surrounding the openings. To minimize the potential for unintended impacts resulting from project construction, a conservation plan (CP) — prepared by a qualified heritage professional — is recommended to be developed for this project. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plan. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The CP should include guidance for any immediate interventions required prior to removals and construction, guidance for stabilization during removals and construction, and 98 Page 150 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 guidance for repairs and long-term maintenance following construction of the new development. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). 99 Page 151 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS LHC was retained in August 2022 by Perimeter Development, on behalf of The Working Centre, to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the redevelopment of the property located at 97 Victoria Street North in the City of Kitchener, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The properties located at 83 and 87 Victoria Street North are also being included in the project; however, they are not listed on the City's municipal heritage register nor have they been flagged by the City for having potential cultural heritage value or interest. Accordingly, this HIA focusses on the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North. The Proponent is proposing to retain the extant structures located on 83 and 87 Victoria Street North and retain and add two additions to the structure at 97 Victoria Street North. The proposed additions include a one storey addition that will increase the building's height to three storeys, and a one storey addition that will attach to the southmost corner of the building's southwest elevation that will extend along the southeast Property line along Heit Lane. A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest and list of heritage attributes for the Property are provided in Section 6 of this HIA. This HIA was prepared to outline heritage planning constraints, assess potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the Property and its surrounding area, and identify mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or lessen impacts. This HIA was undertaken in accordance with the recommended methodology outlined within the MCM's Ontario Heritage Toolkit and the City of Kitchener's Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. In LHC's professional opinion, the Property municipally known as 97 Victoria Street North meets criteria 1 i, 2i, 31, and 3ii of O. Reg. 9/06 for its design and physical, historical and associative, and contextual values. Potential adverse impacts were identified for the Property's two storey height and six -over -six windows on the northwest (primary) fagade. Alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen or avoid these potential impacts were explored. It was determined that Option 3, retention of entire structure and integration into proposed development, is the preferred alternative. This Option is preferred because it allows for the alteration of the Property to meet the housing and service needs of The Working Centre while conserving the heritage attributes of the Property and mitigating the potential for adverse impacts to affect the Property, the adjacent property located at 70 Francis Street North and the adjacent Warehouse District CHL. The City may require a Conservation Plan (CP) for this project. A CP is a document that details how a heritage resource will be conserved through site alteration. A CP typically includes descriptions of all repairs, stabilization, and preservation activities that are proposed to occur on a known heritage resource as well as long-range conservation, monitoring, and maintenance plans. In order to inform a more detailed CP, a comprehensive condition survey of the existing building should be undertaken. The City of Kitchener has a Conservation Plan Terms of Reference (2018). loo Page 152 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 11 SIGNATURES Please contact the undersigned should you require any clarification or if additional information is identified that might have an influence on the findings of this report. Christienne Uchiyama, MA, CAHP Principal, Manager Heritage Consulting Services 101 Page 153 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 REFERENCES Policy and Legislation Resources Canada's Historic Places. "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition." Canada's Historic Places. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010. Accessed March 11, 2021, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/l 8072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. City of Kitchener. "City of Kitchener Official Plan." Last modified November 19, 2014. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_City_of Kitchen er_Official_Plan_2014.pdf. ---. "Community Services Department Report No. CSD -14-036: Listing of Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register." Last modified May 6, 2014. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=813197&searchid=4c82bf5b-2e5e- 4893-b1 e0-89f96864b850&dbid=0 ---. "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Data Sheets". 2014 December, 24. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_CHL_Study_Ap pendix_6_CH L_Data_Sheets.pdf ---. "Development and Technical Services Report No. DTS-09-053: Listing of Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register." Last modified April 7, 2009. https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=959017&searchid=9bbOd8a8-f1 db- 46d3-aa7a-4ebb0f73ec42&dbid=0 "Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest." Last modified October 24, 2017. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/COR_LEG_I ndex_of_Non- Designated_Properties.pdf ---. "HOLDING PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 10," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20F%20 -%20Hold ing%20Provision s%20for%20Specific%20Lands//10H.pdf ---. "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 116," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20C%20 -%20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//116U.pdf ---. "SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS: 403," last modified June 14, 2010, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20C%20 -%20Special%20Use%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//403U.pdf 102 Page 154 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 ---. "SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC LANDS 105," last modified December 12, 2016, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix%20D%20 -%20Special%20Reg ulation%20Provisions%20for%20Specific%20Lands//105R.pdf ---. "Urban Design Manual: Part A Urban Structure & Built Form, City -Wide," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_UDM_01_City_ Wide_Design.pdf, ---. "Urban Design Manual: Part B Urban Structure & Built Form, Downtown," last modified 2019, https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD_PLAN_UDM_05_Downt own.pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 85-1." Last modified August 27, 2018. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of%20Co ntents.pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 85-1: Section 17 Warehouse District Zone D-6," Zoning By-law 85-1, Last modified March 12, 2012, https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw/PublishedCurrentText/Sections//Section% 2017%20-%20Warehouse%20District%20Zone%20(D-6).pdf ---. "Zoning By-law 2019-051." Last modified December 24, 2021. https://app2.kitchener.ca/appdocs/Zonebylaw20l 9/PublishedCurrentText//Table%20of% 20Contents.pdf ---. "Zoning bylaw." Development and construction. Last modified 2021. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.kitchener.ca/en/development-and-construction/zoning- bylaw.aspx. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. "Heritage Conservation Principles for Land use Planning." Last modified 2007, http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/I nfoSheet_Principles_LandUse_Plan ning.pdf ---. "Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities." The Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Accessed February 3, 2021. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HPE_Eng.pdf. ---. "Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process" Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_Heritage_PPS_infoSheet.p df ---. Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process. Last modified 2014. http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/MTCS_Heritage_I E_Process.pdf. 103 Page 155 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Province of Ontario. "A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe." Last modified August 2020. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place- to-grow-office-consolidation- en-2020-08-28.pdf. ---. "Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25." Last modified September 8, 2022. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01 m25. ---. "Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified October 19, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol 8 ---. "O. Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance - Under Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18." Last modified January 25, 2006. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010. "Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13." Last modified June 1, 2021. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05pl 3. ---. "Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13." Last modified July 1, 2022. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90pl 3. "Provincial Policy Statement 2020 — Under the Planning Act." Last modified May 1, 2020. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020- 02-14.pdf. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. "Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan." Last modified October 2002. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the- region/resources/Documents/artsmasterplan.pdf. "Regional Implementation Guideline Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources". 2018. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the- region/resources/Documents/Guideline_for_Conserving_RSCHR.pdf ---. "Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan." Last modified June 18, 2015. https://www. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-govern ment/land-use-plan n i ng.aspx. Mapping Resources Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E. "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8 west half, third edition, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1956. Army Survey Establishment, R.C.E., "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map 104 Page 156 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8 west half, edition 4, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Army Survey Establishment, 1963. Author unknown, "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and- atlases/waterloo-region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:11,880, 1879. Brosius M., "Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and- atlases/waterloo-region-historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, Madison, Wis: J.J. Stoner, 1875. City of Berlin, "City Plan for Greater Berlin Canada Showing Waterloo", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:800, Toronto: n.a., 1912 City of Kitchener, "Cultural Heritage Landscapes Appendix 6", December 2014 Chas E. Goad, "Kitchener Berlin", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, scale 1:600, Toronto & Montreal: Chas E. Goad, 1894 rev. 1904. Kitchener OnPoint Map Viewer, "2003 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2006 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022). ---, "2009 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022). ---, "2012 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2017 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) ---, "2021 Aerial Imagery", (https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExternal/RMap/Default.aspx: accessed October 6, 2022) Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 6, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1980 105 Page 157 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 7, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1984. Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Surveys and Mapping Branch, "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsporta1.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 5, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1972 Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, The Canada Centre for Mapping, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/ queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 8, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources, 1994 Natural Resources Canada, The Centre for Topographic Mapping, "Cambridge Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/search/_queries@=topographic;&fields@=;&sort=relev ance&limit=entitled: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, edition 9, scale 1:50,000, Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 1998. Department of Militia and Defence, "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of Militia and Defence, 1916. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1936. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Galt, Ontario", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of 106 Page 158 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 University Libraries(OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1938. Department of National Defence, Geographical Section General Staff "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1929. Department of National Defence, "Ontario, Galt Sheet", (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/#r/details/_uri@=564032357&_add:true: accessed September 27, 2022), scanned and georeferenced as part of the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project, sheet 40 P/8, scale 1:63,360, Ottawa: Department of National Defence, 1923. Geo. R. & G.M. Tremaine, "Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, Canada West", (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=8cc6be34f6b54992b27da17 467492d2f: accessed September 27, 2022), Ontario Historical County Maps, scale 1:39,600, Toronto: Geo. R. & G.M. Tremaine, 1861. Schofield, M.C., "Map of part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo C.W.", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:6,336, Buffalo: Compton & Gibson, 1853-1854. Simpson, A.W., "Plan of Lots Drawn from M.C. Schofields Map of the Town of Berlin", (https://uwaterloo.ca/library/geospatial/collections/maps-and-atlases/waterloo-region- historical-maps: accessed September 27, 2022), University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre, scale 1:1,584, Toronto: Maclear & Co., 1856 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS Community Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ont.", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, microfiche, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1947. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, "Insurance Plan of the City of Kitchener, Ontario", Kitchener Public Library's Grace Schmidt Room, Toronto & Montreal: Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited, 1925. 107 Page 159 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 University of Toronto. 1954 Air Photos of Southern Ontario. Photo 434.803. https://mdl.library. utoronto.ca/collections/air-photos/1954-air-photos-southern- ontario/index. University of Waterloo, "Photo IM30, 1930 Photo", (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed September 27, 2022), 1930 ---. Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Photo IM30. 1945. https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html ---, "Photo IM30, 1945 Photo", (https://Iib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/project/IM30.html: accessed September 27, 2022), 1945 Archival Resources Ancestry, "County of Waterloo, Division of Berlin Marriages," 1906. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/l 03668612:7921 Library and Archives Canada. "Plan shewing the Lands granted to the Six Nation Indians, situated on each side of the Grand River, or Ouse, commencing on Lake Erie, containing about 674,910 Acres. Thos. Ridout Surveyor General, survey Gen. Office York 2nd February 1821. [cartographic material]" 1821. Item ID Number 4129506. Library and Archives Canada: Ottawa. Ontario Land Registry. "WATERLOO (58), KITCHENER PLAN 374." Historical Books https://www.onIand.ca/ui/58/books/83201/viewer/589836728?page=1 Vernon Directories Limited. Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory. Hamilton, ON: Griffin & Richmond Co. Ltd. 1926-1927 to 2014. Additional Resources City of Kitchener. Century Celebration: Kitchener marks 100 years as a city. Kitchener, ON: City of Kitchener, 2012. ---, "Listing on the Municipal Heritage Registe," March 6, 2012, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1180948&searchid=83d53c31- 2c2b-418b-b60c-021 b037427de&dbid=0 ---, "Municipal Heritage Register Listings," May 5, 2015, ttps://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1371069&page=66&searchid=77bd 49d5 -a435-41 f5-af84-d4d89b5aadb2 ---, "Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320201 &search id=b55a70ee- 6eeO-49c4-a1 f9 -a01 bfOc04283&dbid=0 City of Kitchener Community Services Department, "Listing of Non -Designated Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register," June 3, 2014, 108 Page 160 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=1320202&searchid=fd7d7a9f-e842- 4b9d-a46d-1 cabecac0483&dbid=0 City of Kitchener Development and Technical Services, "Listing of Non-Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the MHR," January 5, 2009, https://If.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/DocView.aspx?id=980089&searchid=3f27fa99-22cl - 4b0e-b538-65db618b4c75&d bid=0 Elby, Ezra. A biographical history of Waterloo township and other townships of the county. Volume 1. Berlin, ON: Ezra Elby, 1895. Ellis, Chris, and D. Brian Deller. "Paleo-Indians." In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5, edited by Chris Ellis and Neil Ferris, 37-63. London: Ontario Archaeological Society, 1990. EMCWTF, "Chapter 3: The First Nations," in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks (Toronto: TRCA, 2002). http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf. English, John and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Bross Studio, 1996. Groat, Cody. "Six Nations of the Grand River." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 18, 20202. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/six-nations-of- the-grand-river. McLaughlin, Kenneth. "Kitchener-Waterloo." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Last modified February 24, 2017. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/kitchener- waterloo. Mills, Rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880 — 1960. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. "The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation." Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. Last modified 2018. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-M NCFN-FI NAL.pdf. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener. Yesterday Revisited An Illustrated History. Burlington, ON: Windsor Publications Canada Ltd., 1979. Six Nations. "The Haldimand Treaty of 1784." Lands and Resources. Last modified 2008, http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/HaIdProc.htm. Six Nations Elected Council. "Community Profile." Six Nations of the Grand River. Last modified 2013. http://www.sixnations.ca/CommunityProfile.htm. Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. "History of Six Nations." Accessed https://sndevcorp.ca/history-of-six-nations/. Six Nations Tourism. "History." https://www.sixnationstourism.ca/history/ 109 Page 161 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 The Working Centre, "About Us," n.d. https://www.theworkingcentre.org/about-us/82 University of Waterloo, "The Working Centre's founders receive honorary doctorates," 201 9.https://uwaterloo. ca/arts/news/worki ng -centres -fou nders-receive-honorary- doctorates Waterloo Region Museum. "History of Waterloo Township."https://www.waterlooregionmuseu m. ca/en/collections-and-research/waterloo- township.aspx#note1. 110 Page 162 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX A Project Personnel Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP — Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Since 2003 Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi -disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Ben Daub, MA, BAT (Hons.) — Heritage Planner Ben Daub joined LHC in May 2022 as a junior heritage planner as he worked towards completing his master's degree in urban planning at the University of Waterloo. In addition to his now completed master's degree, Ben also holds a Bachelor of Applied Technology in Architecture — Project and Facility Management from Conestoga College. Through his education, Ben has gained a detailed understanding of the built environment at a range of geographic- and site-based scales. Professionally, Ben has gained experience working in the heritage planning domain over his time with LHC where he has written heritage impact assessments, cultural heritage evaluation reports, and official plan amendments. In addition, Ben has previous experience working in real estate development and facility management. In academic settings, Ben has also held various research and teaching assistant positions, enabling him to hone his research capacities. Lisa Coles, MPI — Heritage Planner Lisa Coles is a Heritage Planner with LHC. She holds a Master of Arts in Planning from the University of Waterloo, a Graduate Certificate in Museum Management & Curatorship from Fleming College, and a B.A. (Hons) in History and French from the University of Windsor. Lisa has over five years of heritage sector experience through various positions in museums and public sector heritage planning. She is excited to have the opportunity to work in all aspects of the heritage field and to build on her previous experience as part of the LHC team. 111 Page 163 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) — Mapping Technician Jordan Greene is a mapping technician with LHC. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Geography with a Certificate in Geographic Information Science (GIS) and a Certificate in Urban Planning Studies from Queen's University. Jordan joined the LHC team shortly after graduating and during her time at the firm has contributed to over 100 technical studies. Jordan has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to project mapping Jordan has also begun to develop interactive maps and tools that will contribute to LHC's internal data management. She has also taken on the role of Health and Safety representative for the firm. Between graduation and beginning work with LHC her GIS experience allowed her the opportunity to briefly volunteer as a research assistant contributing to the study of the extent of the suburban population in America with Dr. David Gordon. Jordan is excited to continue her work with LHC to further develop her GIS skills and learn more about the fields of heritage and archaeology. 112 Page 164 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on the Ontario Heritage Act, (OHA), the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP), and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP). Adjacent Lands means those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS). Adjacent means lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite to other lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal road or other right-of-way. (OP). Alter means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, or disturb and "alteration" has a corresponding meaning ("transformer", "transformation") (OHA). Archaeological assessment means the combined background research and field study of a property evaluated as moderate to high on Archaeological Potential Maps approved by the Province that identify the presence of and interpretation of the archaeological resources on the property, and make recommendations for the mitigation of the impacts on the resources. Archaeological assessments must be undertaken by a Provincially licensed archaeologist, in accordance with reporting guidelines established by the Provincial Government and must address the entire area of the development application. (ROP). Archaeological potential means the likelihood to contain archaeological resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives may also be used. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (ROP). Archaeological Resources includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. (OP). Built heritage resources means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and identified as being important to the community. These resources may be identified through designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by local, regional, provincial or federal jurisdictions. (ROP). 113 Page 165 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Built Heritage Resource means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or listed by included on local, Regional, Provincial and/or Federal registers. (OP). Community Character refers to identifiable pockets of the urban fabric with distinctive physical attributes. These attributes include but are not limited to development patterns, scale of the built environment, architectural vernacular of existing buildings and structures, cultural heritage resources and community infrastructure. Community character is a reflection of community image, identity and sense of place and may also reflect cultural and social values. Cultivating community character is intended to foster community pride. (OP). Conserve/conserved means the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. (ROP). Conserve/Conserved/Conservation means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a heritage conservation plan, archeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. (OP). Compatibility/Compatible means land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing unacceptable adverse effects, adverse environmental impacts or adverse impacts. Compatibility or compatible should not be narrowly interpreted to mean "the same as" or even as "being similar to". (OP). Contiguous means lands that are situated in sufficiently close proximity such that development or site alteration could reasonably be expected to produce one or more of the following impacts: alterations to existing hydrological or hydrogeological regimes; clearing of existing vegetation; erosion and sedimentation; or producing a substantial disruption of existing natural linkages or the habitat of a significant species. (ROP). Culture/Cultural is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs. (OP). Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment means a study to determine if cultural heritage resources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of 114 Page 166 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development approaches may also be recommended. (ROP). Cultural heritage landscape means a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts. (ROP). Cultural Heritage Landscape means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities. (OP). Cultural heritage resources are the physical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past human activities. These include, but are not limited to: • buildings (residential, commercial, institutional, industrial and agricultural); • cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); • structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); • monuments (cenotaph, statue and cairn); • archaeological resources; • cemeteries; • scenic roads; • vistas/viewsheds; • culturally significant natural features (tree and landform); • movable objects (archival records and artifacts); and • cultural traditions (language, stories, music, dance, food, celebrations, art and crafts). (ROP). Cultural Heritage Resources means includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. (OP). 115 Page 167 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act. (ROP). Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, the construction of buildings and structures or an addition or alteration to a building or structure that substantially increases the size or usability of the site, requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; and, b) works subject to the Drainage Act. (OP) Heritage Attributes means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g., significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). (PPS). Heritage Corridors means streets or multi -use pathways which because of their unique structural, topographic and visual characteristics, as well as abutting vegetation, built environment and cultural landscape, historical significance or location within a Heritage Conservation District are recognized as a cultural heritage resource and are intended to be conserved. (OP). Heritage Attributes means the principle features or elements that contribute to a cultural heritage resource's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (including significant views or vistas to or from a cultural heritage resource. (OP). Heritage Conservation District means a geographic area primarily made up of a group of buildings, streets and open spaces which collectively contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the area. (OP). Heritage Conservation District Plan means a document that provides policies and guidelines to assist in the protection and enhancement of the cultural heritage values of the district. The document includes a statement of objectives, a statement of the district's cultural heritage value or interest, a description of the district's heritage attributes, policies, guidelines and procedures for achieving stated objectives and managing future change, and a description of external alterations or classes of external alterations that are of minor nature that an owner can carry out without obtaining a permit. (OP). Heritage Conservation Plan means a document that details how a cultural heritage resource can be conserved. The conservation plan may be supplemental to a heritage impact assessment but is typically a separate document. The recommendations of the plan should include descriptions of repairs, stabilization and preservation activities as well as long term conservation, monitoring and maintenance measures. (OP). 116 Page 168 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Heritage Impact Assessment means a document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official plan policies and any other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may include an archaeological assessment where appropriate. (OP). Identify/Identified (in regard to cultural heritage landscapes) means designate for the purposes of the Regional Official Plan. (OP). Municipal Heritage Register means a register maintained by the City of Kitchener, in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, which includes protected heritage properties and properties listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. (OP). Property means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon. (OHA). Protected Heritage Property means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;. property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (OP). Qualified Person for the purposes of cultural heritage resources, means an individual including a professional engineer, architect, archaeologist, etc., having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (OP). Significant means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS). 117 Page 169 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 APPENDIX C City Directory Records Sources: 1927-1929: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory. Vernon and Sons Publishing. Hamilton, On. 1929-1938: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Miscellaneous, Alphabetical, Street and Business Directory. Vernon and Sons Publishing. Hamilton, On. 1939-1947: Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. 1948-1966: Kitchener -Waterloo City Directories Miscellaneous, Business, Alphabetical and Street. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. 1967-76: Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, ON. 1977-2014: Cities of Kitchener -Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited. Hamilton, On. Address.. 1926-1927 City Directory N/A N/A 1928-1929 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Cc Ltd 1929 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Cc Ltd • i City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell, Button Cc Ltd 1931 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1932 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc 1933 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc •4 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 118 Page 170 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• Woeller Upholstering Cc 1935 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Cc 1936 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Co 1938 City Directory 97 Victoria Street Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Woeller Upholstering Co •40 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Vacant 1941 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd Vacant 1942 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1943 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd •44 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1945 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1946Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co, Ltd 1947 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Cc Ltd •4: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Cc Ltd •4• City Directory 119 Page 171 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1950 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1951 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1960 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1963 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Button Co Ltd 1964Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd 1965 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd 1967 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics & Buttons Ltd •.• City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mitchell Plastics Ltd 1970 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant 1971 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant 1972 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre 1973 City Directory 120 Page 172 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre 1974 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre Directory1975-1976 City 97 Victoria Street North Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Donut Man Marian Household Centre Moir Press Schattens Canada Ltd 1977 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Project Release Project Coming Together Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Vacant Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1978 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Resource Centre Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1979 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Eulenberg Audio Developments 121 Page 173 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:0 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Marian Household Centre Schattens Canada Ltd Sound Audio Symposium Ont Ltd Warehouse Between the lines Publishing Co Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1981 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Vacant Vacant Schattens Canada Ltd Sound Audio Symposium Ont Ltd Warehouse Between the lines Publishing Co Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1982 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent de Paul Crown Acoustics Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1983 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent de Paul Crown Acoustics Ltd 122 Page 174 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •. Warehouse Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:4 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tandy Crown Ltd Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1985 City Directory129 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 1987 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets •:: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Society of St Vincent de Paul Tannoy North American Ink Dumont Press Graphix Ltd Elsworthy Cabinets 129 An inventory of Kitchener's industrial buildings entitled "An Inventory of Industrial Buildings of Architectural/Historical Significance in the City of Kitchener" compiled by James Campbell, Malcolm Horne, and Diane Kolaritsch identified that a company called A & G Mechanical Contractors Ltd. owned the Property; however, no evidence suggests that they occupied the lot. 123 Page 175 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• •:• City Directory Society of St Vincent de Paul 97 Victoria Street North Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets 1990 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets 1991 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow K W Community Media Project Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography 124 Page 176 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio 1995 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets Sound on Sound Recording Studio ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Dumont Group Photography Elsworthy Cabinets 1997 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo Elsworthy Cabinets 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo ... City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 000 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Evans M St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop 125 Page 177 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 2001 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North No Return St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Aikido & Ki — Kitchener Waterloo 2002 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography 2003 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow ;9!7ictoria Mode Photography ictoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography ®r. City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2007 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography 126 Page 178 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address .• Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 00: City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 00• City Directory 97 Victoria Street North St Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop Business Cards Tomorrow Mode Photography Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares The Working Centre 2010 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project St John's Kitchen The Working Centre logo Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project NL St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2012 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Psychiatric Outreach Project St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2013 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mode Photography Psychiatric Outreach Project 127 Page 179 of 507 December 2022 LHC I Heritage Planning and Archaeology Project #LHC0333 Address •• St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 2014 City Directory 97 Victoria Street North Mode Photography Psychiatric Outreach Project los�� St John's Kitchen The Working Centre Worth a Second Look Furniture and Housewares 128 Page 180 of 507 Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N 0 a m T ti 0 LO O co r N c6 M E E � X X 0 O O m ca ca � 0 0 C Q N N O X J J J J J X O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O fl- O O O CO M Ln N N M N X X > L O(� L0 U V m T cu C6 C O ca N L cu J L L L L CL .c O Q O Q N N U) H (n 2 (n w L > > > ^, W L L fn fn fn cuNOo 0_x =3_COY � m of W cu W �C�xx� W cu OO N C6 L� m L ,V L i L cu L L -E L L �_ cu C ``Q^^_ VJ co co N�N0 Y. ccL G rrCL VJ NNN LAS ''Q^^_ VJ NNS w T 2 LO LO O O d7 d7 L L O L♦ " r r L C4 E E fn fn E cu U O O Q Q L CO 00 Z N Z N O O O M Mm m — O Ln M LO O N N M M N N N i� in N N 0) cu E E E E Q C Q(D >� U� O C) >- > M N M O 0 M N M LL m Ln O O N O O N N N Z 00 0 � N Z— Z N N O N N N cu cu O 0 0 cu L y0 L yO) L L m 2 2 0 .2� CD w N N w 1l- Il- r r a) T- T" T N N N m T ti 0 LO O co r N c6 Cl) Cl) Cl) O U J U O 0- ti 0 LO 0 N 00 (D c6 X CSO X Un c6 J X X c6 J X X c6 J X X c6 J 76 p Q X E 76 o Q X E 75 p Q X E i vU) c6 J O O O O O O O O O O O O X X �M cO LO �M N O 00 6 cA /3 i Q U) L L a) T C O E L O � Q U) L OR `V L Q [n L Un C E c6 2 � C6 E W X T >(6 (6 _ C-6 Q] C= Q E c6 2 j E W75 c6 E =3 (13 m J o o 0U) X ii.5 CD C-6 N CL U) L o L U 2 Un c E in cu C9 C6 Q U) L m �° i v, U` 06 C6 n in L m Ur ccu E T- 77D0 � U6 E w X 'E Q cin X L 0 � 'E Q LM L L L L Q) OD Q] -0 U O) 0')-0 c6 2: O W U LO O) Q] -0 U LO O) Q] -0 U LOQ) O) -0 E Cl) m 0) co m co r rn m CO M CO CO CO r Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) N E Q) 0 CV M c6 LO N Cf) O) � E Q) 0 LO O) t E Q) 0 LO O) t E Q) Q) 0 LO O) In CO O) O) N E 0 (fl O) O) N E Q) N 0 CO O) N 00 cA a) a) Q) 0) 0) 0) c6 LO N c6 N CD 76- 0 0 .2: O 0 O 0 p .2� X X Un In p Un m CD (D r- w ti ti ti ti rn N 1- N 00 00 r G) O w w to 00 04 Cl) Cl) M M CO) Cl) M M ti 0 LO 0 N 00 (D c6 0- rl- O LO 0 q m ¢ 2 n � 0 E E 2 3 / / e . (0 U) m $ X 5 e 5 X f 5 e 5 \ ? \ \ 7 \ 7 / ? % \ ? f x $ \ $ \ $ \ 7 E E / E 0 - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ q \ c w A = q \ q R \ 2 \ m d g \ m \ m 0 g 0 / ) ƒ x : k \ \ \ o d 5 O 2 d * _ d — a O\ _ I — T- — C: \ \ / \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ E % q / m / q § (n U CU I E \ o \ c=u O / 2 k I @ k IL IL $ m$±\ o _ E cu E- \ £ a 5 \ £ a \ \ \ = £ m ± m§ \ 3 \ cu / \ d / \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ c c c c \ \ \ \ % \ m / = e 2 E = E \- / < / 0 / / & \ \ \ X 2 / U) C A 2 m 04 q / % \ \ \ \ \ » c / c / c / c / < \ < \ < \ c % = / h 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x\ 2 % 2 / 2 G 2ƒ 2 \ \ / / \ ° / \ k ± 2 I I \ 2 x X I \ 2 x x x X / I - k k \ \ k k \ \ 00 Cl) CO) R q q q V) q le rl- O LO 0 q m ¢ 2 n � 0- rl- O LO 0 'IT m ¢ 2 n 0- / x 7cu / 0 x \ / e ± ± R e x s s 7 2 2 \ƒ 2 2 $ \ m q 5 % e e e® o ± $ ± ± 0 7 $ $ 2 7 7 \ @ 2 7/ 2 2 A 7 7 = 7 7 \ \ \ 7 E \ \ E 0 E \ E E C) E / E / \ / \ \ \ \ \ / / \ / t a n o q E x o k o \ a 2 0 0 / $/ $ X \ = O c ® ƒ k m = o 2 2 \ o 0 2/ / � s LO & § U) E 0 \ E $ » f — 7 m @ § c — _ @ -E .> / / \ E ± / _ f E % 2 2 O \ 0 2 \ R e \ \ E± .> § § $ G $ 2 § § $ % \ $ ® / 3 3 � o ƒ ƒ ƒ / ® 7 n 2 I — % / % % o m .- . 2 \ w w \ \ \ \ § \ \ § 3 § & / / \ \ \ ? ? / q ƒ / � 2 2 0 0 _\ ' / / / Q R / \ / / \ \ 2 2 LO \ K % / c q q w c c § j j ° / 0cu » o = CU N C N � � K � ® 3 ? / LL NLL o e A o o w o e o m o w e o 0 0 w — \ c — & — A — A — m \ \ \ cu ° \ \ 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / 2 0- / \ \ a / / (D / 2 I- J co q k I- 2 q q 2 e 2 2 2 2 0) 04 co w Iq le LO LO U) LO w w CD 0) m rl- O LO 0 'IT m ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N O O_ ti 0 LO O LO co r a) (6 x x CB U U U N N N N N N N M N N (6 (B (B NF N (6 N (6 45 4 � N � O O O O LO O O O O O O Of X LL > E > E O O o 1- O O O O O O O Ln O (.0 O (D N Ltd OO N N 06 Lo U (6 E cl U),O J Q = O � T -O L N NLL > 06 Lj V 06 (n LL L. U) LL Q N W (n W L W W C LL > LL > LL L > FD U 0 U 0U) >_ 2 O2Q O� ° w 2 2O X r x En m N N NA♦♦ � _ J O (j N V) U N 'L ) Qi c U L N 1'L I..L LL LL LL U- _ ^, We 0 1' 1L I..L �L LL �L l 11L I..L W W cu N W W L L coa� cu =3 W L L > >cu O O W W S 00 O W W O O ' 00 O LOMLO O: Ln CF) L L n E E Ln O LO O O N N 7 7 7 C C > > > i+ O7 IT 07 N O co Z� Z � Q Q Q °Ln Z O Ln M O O O O Ln O O O O M M N M N N CO L L L 7 MQ co > 00 > CO O O Q O Q Q 7 t O � O O O O -,t-,tLO O O O O LO O Lo O L(7 N O O LO O O LO O N LO O O r— U) M Z— M Z— N— N N— N O N N N N N N U U 0) N _N� L � X L X X X E Q (B � X U o U o 0x X C� M M 00 00 1- 00 01 Iq w le CA 00 O w w w le LO a) Cil N M le T- T- N w 1- 1- O r O N N N CA CA Cf1 Q1 r r r r r r ti 0 LO O LO co r a) (6 0- rl- O LO 0 S m ¢ 2 n � \ X d d / d e / / / $ » $ » 2 e $ » $ » 2 e 7 ? / \ 2 2 2\ 2 2\ \ 7 \ / \ / E E / c \ c \ \ 0 \ 2 7 c 0 2 7> 0 2 7 2 7> 0 00 E o E/ E 0 E E / / \ ±00 cl L 04 \ < % / § / § \ $ ) \ \ $ \ $ ƒ 2 ƒ ƒ R e a e a 2 2 2w 7 \ / -\ / / \ \ \ \ i / \ 7 \ / \ 3 3 a) U) % E \ % § £ \ cu / cuf / In 2 2 \ 7 \ _ E— 0 U) o g 2 & 0 a 6 e a x o \ / � E\ \ / a \ E\ / / » \ 3 o f 0 0° § o— -CE 0 0 E I 2/ R 2 O ±\ u± 2 E m m ° \ \ 0 0 # 0 # 0 # ? ƒ n \ L \ n \ r ? 2 \ 2 \ 2 \ < o \ $ \ $ < CO c CO c A A E E 2 E E 2 = 7 = CL / CL / / / CL % % 0 ° o % o $ 9 < b 0 m 0 0 g— 0 m 0 o g n o A m A e n o m e c A o e e e _ A o \ \ \ \ o U) k 0 ) \ = 7 k 2 2 O E c m \ 2 ƒ% -0 / q \ o CD k w w w k T- T- T- T- / CO) co � rl- O LO 0 S m ¢ 2 n � 0- rl- O LO 0 rl- m ¢ 2 n 0- ) o \ E ® E § \ \ 0 / k / 2 9 0 2 \ \ \ \ o d \ \ ƒ x C:) / �9 0 6 0 0 o e \ / - \ \ < ± $ q ± q � 2 m \_ § 2 m § S2 \ k k \ \ \ a E 2 E L E 2 E E\ 2 c ƒ E o E $ 2 ƒ E 0 $ c k \ 7 / > \ / > \_ / k mƒ � m ƒ \ ± m c k 2 C/) 2 \ 2 / 3 § 2 % / \ \ \ [%[= [\ c o o 0 E E n = E 2 0 0 £% o= E o O£ R\ q I a I o 2 2 2 E 2 2 > t- 2 k E F \ e®/ f O f 3 O d\$ $ 2 E@ _ 7 o$ 2 f o m%\ E 7 E/ 7 \ 2 E § g \\ 3 E 7[[ E E ± :R \_ \_ / / / \ § ƒ d / % \ / / o ° I / / m m 7 » § � \ \ 0) \ f 7 \ / LL # / 2 / k ¥ w \ 2 \ % & Q c & = & o n 2 7 § 2 / 7 / 7 / ? LL o % 2 e 2 / 2 /% 2/ 2 \ƒ$ x £ f _ 0 \ E m o 0E 0 0 2 \ 2 0 / � 2 \ $ co 1- $ I 2 1 - LO � q k 2 g k 04 04 04 04 q q rl- O LO 0 rl- m ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J U N O 0- ti 0 LO 4- 0 co co ^r W (6 LO c� 3 U r- LO O L LO M J N M X o J � Q O N In >� U O J J O LO d M O O 00 O O O O OO O O O O O O O O N a7 r - X c W c fn O W (B / u H O C CU Q W O O c cn (B c O E E N O O W N E d O J - N E ECL 'O c cu 'O 1=O -O V �_ _ -O J _ E N L Q O _ L O cu (ocu C- co (0 � — N ca ca of m s ca (n a) N c cn a) E E C E L O 2 c E L V_ > O > CU a) 0 cu(B =3 O O > a) 7 O N U d U U d O U d U > 0 m cl _ C-6 O N LU C c C-6 C: C-6 N . \ U co m U cu m U N(c6 L -_ -p N CU -0 N (C6 _ W W N d J u- E d J 15 E d J mcn CL cn O mcn W U) U > U > U U' m W m m C Q f m L ^L^ll W L c L E E � E � OQ Z r- LL co Q < W O co O) In co O) (O O) Il- N co O) N - N - r L L L ^L^ll W E E c n E N N LI- co O O O O)f-- O m co O m co O CO CO O m N Z — Z LL Z O X o _0 _m O _0) X Q E o CD r w rn rn v o LO o r N N LO LO w 0) 0) T- CO) CO) CO) M le ti 0 LO 4- 0 co co ^r W (6 0- rl- O LO 0 m m ¢ 2 n 0- m \ C) (5/ 0 2 / / k cu LO LO \ E R m/ 2 E o 3 R = -i 0 \ $ e \ » 2 \ \ \ \ \ / 7 a e f ) % k / 2 k 2 // 0 \ \\ E f 5 2 e± 0- $ C) \ C) E / ? 2 & m q m < ± C/) ƒ k § § § f 6 2 % m -J % % % = 2 c s 2 a % g E 0 a c a ( a % I O E S 2 0 o E\ E\ E\ O // u $ c $ 2 2 / \ 0 $ § § § 3 7 2 f 2 f 3 f 0 � 2 2 k x o 0 3 d / R </ S d 2 d 2 d // LL L/ $ 0 ± ± \ m § = m m E m f cu § \ \ / \ c a) a o cu E Fl \E E E I O U$ 2 L 0 C5 0/75 \ 2 0 m \ — ■ 0 0 \ > f 3 _ > > Co 7 = _ \ 2 f f 2 7 E x R 3 o / R ± 2 / » C) / / / » co ± o § \ 2 2 E § = 2 o = > \ \ CL k / CL LL C) � � ® � C) \ m � # \ n $ o — m # CO — n cu » » \ cu _ 2= cu » c 2 \ \ \ \ CO LL \ \ \ \ \ LL m— c E— m A E A A— w— ± @ @ ± % % 2 2 0 0 2 O O o 0 \ \ \ \ / LO le CD w a) a) le le Iq le le "T w co rl- O LO 0 m m ¢ 2 n 0- Cl) Cl) Cl) O U 2 J It U N O 0- ti 0 LO 4- 0 0 rn a� c� a Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-221 SUBJECT: H PA -2023 -IV -007 369 Frederick Street Proposed Alterations and Addition to the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home RECOMMENDATION: The pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 be approved to permit the alterations of and a four -storey addition to the property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: 1. That final building permit drawings be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed alterations and addition to the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed work will not have an adverse negative impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and is in keeping with the provincial standards and guidelines. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 proposes alterations to the existing A.R. Goudie Eventide Home at 369 Frederick Street as well as a four -storey addition to the existing building. The existing building is in the process of being designated under Part IV *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 191 of 507 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The alterations include shortening of the entrance canopy of the existing building, retention of the northern curtain wall and relocating a portion of that wall as an interior feature, as well as the modification of the stair tower curtain wall on the west side of the building. These alterations are necessary in to order to facilitate the construction of the addition so that this site can continue to function as a long-term care home. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note that the proposed alterations will not have an adverse negative impact on the heritage attributes of the building and that the addition will be compatible but distinguishable from the existing building. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2023-IV-007 (Attachment A) seeking permission for the alterations of and a four -storey addition to the subject property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street (Fig. 1) ' i4 T• Figure 1: Location Map of 369 Frederick Street. 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 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 eighty (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 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 Page 192 of 507 to facilitate the installation of a service elevator. The updated HIA has not received approval from the Director of Planning yet. Since the existing building is in the process of being designated, these changes are subject to a heritage permit application. A Conservation Plan (CP) dated March 1, 2023, and revised April 27, 2023, prepared by Parslow Heritage Consultancy Inc. has also been submitted to the City. The CP includes short-term, medium-term and long-term conservation measures for the existing building at 369 Frederick Street. The CP is currently being reviewed by heritage planning staff and has not yet been approved by the Director of Planning. REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Frederick Street near the intersection of Frederick Street and East Avenue. It was built in 1993 in the International Modern style of architecture and is in the process of being designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property was previously included on Kitchener's Inventory of Historic Buildings. A motion to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act was passed by Council at its April 17, 2023. Meeting. Council resolved: "That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street a being of cultural heritage value or interest, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -2023-116". The Notice of Intention to Designate was published on April 28, 2023. The building, also known as the A.R. Goudie Eventide Home, is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. The existing building was designed by Montgomery and Sisam Architects for the Salvation Army in 1991 and was constructed in 1993. It has been featured in the Images of Progress.- Modem rogress: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. 2). 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 193 of 507 Figure 2: 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 heritage attributes of this building 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. Proposed Alterations to the Existing Building There are a number of alterations being proposed to the existing building, which include: 1. Removing a portion of the Entry canopy, thereby reducing its current size: 2. Retention of front -facing curtain wall as an interior feature; and Page 194 of 507 3. modification of the west elevation stair tower curtain wall. Removinq a portion of the Entry Canopy The canopy is being shortened to accommodate the new driveway and addition. However, it will remain as the visual and main entry to the long -term care home. The loss of the ends of the canopy is partially going to be offset by retaining most of its symmetry on the existing doorway, as well as maintaining the overhangs at each end as well. r 2 V Q : - .. CAMMY SHORTENED AT BOTH EMOS BY •r.- &R TO ACCOGNMATE ONVE s ADDITION - OVERHANGS REMAIN THE SAME s Figure 3: Proposed shortening of the Entry Canopy. 0 �, 1 .l Retention of North-facina Curtain Wall as an Interior Feature and Modification of the Stair Tower Curtain Wall. The removal of a portion of the existing glazed and solid panel curtain wall was triggered to facilitate the addition to the building. This portion is located in the residential wing area, on the western side of the building. The large glazed and solid curtain wall will be relocated to the interior of the building (Fig 4 & Fig 7). The curtain wall stair on the west elevation of the building will also be modified by moving the wall slightly northward and adding a new piece of the wall in order to accommodate a new elevation (Fig. 5 and 6). Even with the proposed alterations, the portion of the original curtain wall will remain visible. W EST ELEVATION Figure 4: Rendering showing the main fagade with the new addition. Page 195 of 507 section of curtain wr�ll eaennuarl Figure 5: Stair Tower Curtain wall modification. Figure 6: Rendering showing the approximate location of the modified stair curtain tower to accommodate the new elevator (highlighted in red). Page 196 of 507 Proposed Four -storey Addition to the Existing Building The applicant is proposing a four (4)- storey addition to the existing building. As mentioned above, the proposal was originally for three (3) storeys, however, with the extra allotment of the beds, the total height of the addition had to be increased. The proposed addition will wrap around the western side of the existing building (Fig. 7 and 8). The proposed addition will be clad in stucco (EIFS), like the existing. However, to distinguish the existing from the new construction, the stucco will be of a warmer and lighter tone, integrating with the existing building but also differentiating from it. The height of the proposed addition is generally consistent with the existing building. Figure 7: Site Plan of 369 Frederick Street along with the new addition. Page 197 of 507 Figure 8. Rendering of the new addition looking east. All the proposed alterations and the addition are important to facilitate so that the building can continue to operate as a long-term care home. Since the proposed alterations do modify the heritage attributes of the building, commemoration in the form of interpretive panels with texts and images of the original 1993 building is being proposed to be placed in the reception area or some other public room. The commemoration of this building has also been made a condition of final site plan approval, and staff continue to work with the applicant to finalize the contents of the panels. The proposed alterations and addition meet the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties", especially: • Respect for original location — do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes cultural heritage value considerably. • Respect for historical material — repair/conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built heritage resource. • Legibility — new work should be distinguished from old. Buildings should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. • Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. The proposed alterations and addition meet Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada, especially: • Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. Page 198 of 507 Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. Heritage Planninq Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 369 Frederick Street will be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; • Certain modifications are needed for existing building as well a four(4)-storey addition so that the building can continue to function as a long-term care home providing assistance to the residents of Kitchener; • The modifications proposed include shortening of the canopy, removal of a portion of the existing glazed and solid panel curtain wall, and the retention of the curtain wall as an interior feature. • The entry canopy will continue to remain as the main visual feature to the entrance of the building. • The four -storey addition will be clad in stucco but will be distinguishable in design from the existing building. • The proposed modifications will not result in an adverse negative impact on the character defining elements of the building. • The proposed alterations and additional are generally consistent with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for Historical Places in Canada, with respect to the interventions and addition proposed. • These alterations and addition will not adversely impact the reasons for designation of the property nor the Frederick Street streetscape. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit will be needed for the proposed alterations and addition. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. Page 199 of 507 CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Notice of Intention Designate 369 Frederick Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act — DSD -2023-116 • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-007 Attachment B — Scoped HIA for 369 Frederick Street Page 200 of 507 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor .h P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 MNER 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ® Exterior ® Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ® New Construction ® Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON N2H 2P1 KITCHENER GERMAN COMPANY TRACT SUB LOT 3 PT LOT 9 PLAN 414 PT PARK LOT X RP Legal Description (If know): 58R20004 PTS 5 6 Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ® Institutional Heritage Designation: ® Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ® No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: peopeCare Not -For -Profit Address City/Province/Postal Code: Waterloo, ON N2V 21-11 Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Refer to page 5 (last page) for written description. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The proposed addition and alterations are designed to provide a substantial number of new long-term care and seniors' residences, fulfilling an important need in the community. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: The Long -Term Care Home 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. 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. With the alterations being made the LTCH retains its form, mass, outline, and materials, and is considered to have contextualize value as it is the fourth building in a succession of care homes on this site since 1869. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): Please refer to the Heritage Conservation Plan dated March 1 st, 2023 for description of how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: June 2023 Expected completion date: March 2025 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ® Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ® Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Christine Wagner d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ® Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number SP22/126/F/ES Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: —005— Date: 04 / 04 / 2023 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: / We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 10 of 10 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage The proposed work consists of a 4 -storey Long -Term Care Home (LTCH) addition to the existing 3 -storey LTCH. The built heritage features being modified are indicated below: 1. Removing A Portion Of The Entry Canopy 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. 2. Removal of A Portion Of Existing Glazed and Solid Panel Curtain Wall, and Retention of North -facing Curtain Wall As Interior Feature Portions of the glazed and solid curtain wall not salvageable. New curtain wall sections at points of internal communal and circulation spaces will 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. The visible glazed and solid administration wing curtain wall at the main entrance is retained. 3. Distinction Between New and Existing 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. 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. Page 205 of 507 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 Page �T607 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 PageHT607 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 Page 27607 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 Pag�'Yib �T607 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 Pag�'Yl� �T607 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 Pag�'Yl� 27607 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 Pag�'Y'1b 27607 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 Pag�ly,34 �' 07 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 Pag�'M �T607 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, 1920s -19J"/, 1962-1993 & 1993 -present CHC Limited —May 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 ni C ... 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 Ic�o.o oeo.e nummuk 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. 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 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 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/ 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) 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 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 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 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 CHC Limited —May 3, 2022 Updated Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 22 369 Frederick Street, Kitchener CL min. recd common r f P i � f � tr� I'de j al. w i ng 3 story l� 44 OL oe"A 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. 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 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. CHC Limited —May 3, 2022 N o- . i V o-- o- o— o- a ti RE I N R s� g — i i 9 1 N i I F16 ® c s 8 s T � I �I I a� I I F,)q I IN I 51 pp i g BB{ o -o r ' its it S_ it J I k Y€ 4 s o - CIO R N R pg'rg5� P • D• K 8 � g ® _ ® 7 J 0 C� i e - s�# Al a 1 N Is — 1 R 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 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 CHC Limited —May 3, 2022 0 M �'4 bA w ti N x M ti 0 N N ■ N a4� N ccO M U 'S3 a n U �. ILL '_._JWP a+ Q a` LU - c o c O ca 7 a A a - ■ W a LU a �1 ■ a a \ FS a LL � LL a� N -6 cn U O � 0 1 ti 0 N N O N N ccO M U El bA O .y N -6 cn U O 0 � O � o � U U N "d cl O 'C U to U U 0 cn 0 O U U cl 2 O O U 'C c N to U U U U a �n o w Z � N M ■ F" ti R M M w ti R I'M J� Iiii - m i j�4glkl) I Lly d m 7 C O � d v m � n � _a o y C� M I M r c N� N 4 O � N .11 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 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). 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 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 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 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 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 CHC Limited —May 3, 2022 Appendix 1 Pre -submission Consultation - Heritage InternalMemo R (Community 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 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. 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 7.5,'3 of .r, 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 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 National Award 2016 Mike Wagner Award 2013 People's Choice Award 2012 Award of Excellence 2012 National Award Award of Merit Award Award Award Award Regional Merit National Honour Citation Honour Award Citation National Citation National Merit Award 2009 2009 2007 2001 1998 1994 1990 Landscapes Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Heritage Award - Breithaupt Block, Kitchener, ON Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON Brampton Urban Design Awards, Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives, Brampton, ON Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Excellence in Urban Design Awards, Heritage, Old Quebec Street, City of Guelph, ON Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award) Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award) CSLA Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan 1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan 1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON 1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa, 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK 1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON Selected Heritage Publications: CHC Limited age 07 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 age 07 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/lIuntsville, 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 Linn ted rag 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 Pagaj4bti 102507 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 age 07 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 aga 07 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: May 12, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-245 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-009 883 Doon Village Road Demolition of rear addition, alteration to rear window and door, and construction of new addition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-009 requesting permission for: 1. The demolition of an existing, one -storey, rear yard addition; 2. The alteration to one door and one window on the rear fagade; and 3. The construction of a one -storey, rear yard addition; on the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road, BE APPROVED in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: a) That the vegetation in the front yard be maintained or new vegetation introduced as a visual buffer where feasible; b) That prior to the issuance of the heritage permit, the Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 archaeological assessments, if required, be submitted to the satisfaction of Heritage Planning staff; and c) That final building permit drawings be reviewed, and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present a proposal for various external work at the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road, as detailing in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-009 and in the documents that form Attachments A -C. The intent of the proposed work is to increase the livable space and functionality of the home. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 261 of 507 • The key finding of this report is that the proposal will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property as it maintains the original appearance of the primary dwelling and is in keeping with local and provincial standards and guidelines. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-IV-009 proposes the demolition and reconstruction of a one -storey rear yard addition and the alteration of one second -storey rear door and one second -storey rear window at the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By-law No. 2020-061 (amended from 1984-52 in 2021). In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff note that the proposed work meets the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places as determined by the province. Further, the proposed work maintains the character and overall appearance of the subject property and is not anticipated to adversely impact the heritage attributes identified by the designating by-law. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2023-IV-009, which seeks permission for various external work at the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The work proposed includes the demolition of an existing one -storey rear addition and construction of a new one -storey rear addition. Alterations to one rear door and one rear window will be required to accommodate the new build. The intent of the proposed work is to remove a deteriorated portion of the home that currently offers limited use and increase the livable space available. °os Ih— sz 1-- s 41 41s 54 ss ****"1>" Ea�'F RO s° �. 97 q1� / 1011 109 113 07 t 1 qry, rE� 177 Ci. 38 Figure 1: Location Map of 883 Doon Village Road 30 SOUTH 41 \\ Q4 Page 262 of 507 O� tEy -G1 O .1a O �2 ****"1>" Ea�'F RO s° �. 97 q1� / 1011 109 113 07 t 1 qry, rE� 177 Ci. 38 Figure 1: Location Map of 883 Doon Village Road 30 SOUTH 41 \\ Q4 Page 262 of 507 REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Doon Village Road, between the intersections of Doon Village Road and Bechtel to the northwest and Doon Village Road and Anvil Street to the southeast. The property consists of a mid -19th century two-storey dwelling, a mid -19th century one -and -a -half -storey coach house that was formerly used as a hog and hen barn, and a modern garage. Figure 2: Front View of Subject Property 883 Doon Village Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage first through Designating By-law No. 1984-52, which was amended in 2021 by way of Designating By- law No. 2020-061. The amended by-law stemmed from consent applications submitted in 2018 and 2019 and the accompanying 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), prepared by MHCB Planning. The consent application was for severance of a portion of the property, to create four new lots Bechtel Drive. A Heritage Permit was required as part of this work, with Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016 being submitted and approved in June of 2021. The amended by-law included a revised legal description of the lands as well as a revised list of heritage attributes. The property is recognized for its design/physical and historic/associative value. The two- storey farmhouse dwelling on the subject property was constructed c. 1860 in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style for Benjamin Burkholder and is identified as being the primary heritage attribute. The single -storey coach house, known as the Hog and Hen Page 263 of 507 House, is identified as being a secondary attribute. The following physical attributes for the primary heritage attribute are also identified by the designating by-law and are as follows: • Two storey massing constructed in buff/yellow brick with side -gabled roof; • Three bay front fagades; • Front entrance with side lights and transom; • Two side facades with returning eaves at the roofline and small square-shaped window openings and wood frame windows; • All window openings and wood windows with 6x6 panes; • One storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; • Paired brick chimneys at either end of the gable roof; and • Location in situ and orientation towards Doon Village Road Proposed Work Demolition of Existing Rear Addition The existing single -storey rear addition and attached covered porch is a board and batten construction not visible from the street line. It is not original to the dwelling. It contains no heat source, no insulation in either the walls or the ceiling, and the electrical service to this area of the dwelling has been disconnected. As such it is not habitable space and is currently being used only for storage. Further, the rear addition is in poor condition and not structural stable. The windows have extensive damage and no longer provide any thermal insulation, and the lath and plaster which filled the opening in the basement foundation is deteriorated. There is visible damage to other elements of the addition as well. The entirety of this rear addition is proposed to be demolished to facilitate the construction of a new rear addition. Figure 3: Existing Rear Addition to be Demolished Construction of New Rear Addition The proposed one -storey addition is approximately 933 square feet in size, with the entrance, mudroom / laundry room, and master suite comprising 744 square feet and a four - season sunroom comprising 190 square feet. The four -season room and a covered porch will be the only portion of the proposed addition that extends into the side rear yard by a width of approximately 14' 6". Maibec Board and Batten siding in white is proposed for the exterior cladding. The cladding on the existing addition on the side entrance will also be updated with the same material so that both matches. The pitched gable roof of the addition Page 264 of 507 will have Canadian Driftwood shingles that match the existing shingles of the house. The windows will be double -hung twelve -pane vinyl windows on the east fagade and either six - pane or nine -pane vinyl windows on the other fagades. Figure 4: Architectural Drawing of Front Elevation with Visible Rear Side Addition Figure 5: 3D Renderings of Proposed Rear Addition - All Elevations Page 265 of 507 f i � 4C RT -LEAD - 4LW CCN MJCIIONf al 4CRT-VNE ;T - NEW C44STRUCTICN ,. J^ s t A Iv NOT FOR CONGTRLcnON NOi FOR PE}iUR ry Fm __ _ �isaaeTal� - rew - x►�TTrrc�n !. 11-NIIIIIII f .UTH.'4YE ;T - 4EVi CONCTPoXPQ4 _ Figure 5: 3D Renderings of Proposed Rear Addition - All Elevations Page 265 of 507 Different orientations and positioning had been considered during the initial stages of this process. The proposed option was selected as it provided the least amount of anticipated impact to existing heritage attributes on the property such as windows and continued to allow the functional use of the existing driveway and detached garage. Orienting the addition to be fully within the rear yard and not the rear side -yard would have required the removal of more windows and window openings and would have impacted the accessibility of the garage. Due to the topography of the property and the presence of existing mature trees, visibility of the addition in the rear -side yard will be limited. The area in front of the sunroom is proposed to be landscaped to provide addition screening. Figure 6: View of Subject Property from Doon Village Road Street Line Alteration of Rear Door and Window To accommodate the new proposed addition, alterations will be required to one second storey rear door and one secondary rear window. The second storey rear storm and wood door are to be removed, and the door opening is proposed to be converted to a window opening. The window will be a nine -by -nine pane vinyl window. The second storey window adjacent to the rear door would be bricked in. The alterations are required to accommodate the proposed height and pitch of the addition roof. Page 266 of 507 The existing ground floor rear door opening of the primary dwelling will remain and will serve as an interior entrance point to the addition. Figure 7: Architectural Drawing of Existing Rear Facade Figure 8: Architectural Drawing of Rear Facade with Proposed Addition The purpose of the proposed work is to increase the amount of livable space and the functionality and usability of the property for the current property owners. The proposed work is in accordance with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada. In particular, the following are met: • Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place. Page 267 of 507 • Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. • Achieve compatibility with the insertion of a new element through form, material, and detailing, or through proportion, scale, or massing. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designating By-law 2020-061; • The heritage attributes identified by the designating by-law relate primarily to the single -detached dwelling located on the property, and secondarily to the detached coach house. A view of the north elevation of the dwelling looking south is also an identified attribute; • The proposal is for demolition of an existing one -storey addition and construction of a new one -storey rear addition with alterations to rear door and window opening; • The materials proposed to be used are appropriate for and compatible with the character of the subject property; • The majority of the proposed addition is located in the rear yard and not visible from the street line. There is limited visibility of the portion proposed in the rear side -yard due to the setback of the home, the existing topography of the subject property, and the presence of mature vegetation on site; • Additional landscaping is proposed to provide further screening of the proposed addition; • The proposed work is consistent with Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historical Places in Canada with respect to being compatible but distinct in design and visual appearance, and avoiding impact to the integrity of the historic place; and • The proposed work will not adversely impact the reasons for designation of the subject property, nor will it adversely impact the Doon Village Road streetscape or adjacent properties. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Page 268 of 507 CONSULT - The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-016 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: F-11 FF R ITT�i_aaLY_1180yalIRKiI91MIWO 17, Attachment B - HPA-2023-IV-009 Written Supporting Documents Attachment C - HPA-2023-IV-009 Drawing Package Page 269 of 507 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca nTA rr 11l►r r%L11 V 31Hrr USE vi,41-I Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: HPA- PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Page 7 of 10 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Exterior .Interior ❑ Signage Demolition ZNew Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY _ Municipal Address: ciy� P10,k/ CI&�,5 AW '�� �� � 0,A/ � 7� Legal Description (if know): �' --r L -o -r 2 13ip—if / S9 '7Z96-7 s��zaos�� Building/Structure Type: XResidential ❑ Commercial ElIndustrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ,Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes o 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: s/a/�` S ci�i q 'go L3 Address: ' 060A1 (11 L-1—A&f lzr� City/Province/Postal Code: %�/'/C / 1Z C,V14P `A � Phone: A-41' -S/f` 7 I Email L % it Gf %i % ®C' �S e 1 orn 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? .4R."(es ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes 0( No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? es ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number, Working together 9 Growing thoughtfully • Building community 2023 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, 'if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed o0mpfiso*e9t as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Signature of 9. AUTHORIZATION Date: Aaz Z S Z0 3 Date: L a Z2b'_) If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I /we, hereby authorize owner of the land that is subject of this application, Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together 9 Growing thoughtfully 0 Building community 2023 STAFF USE ONLY Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 273 of 507 1 883 Doon Village Road — Application Details 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Owners have submitted an application to demolish in full, a one-story, unexcavated addition, along with a partially covered deck at the rear elevation of the existing home. The existing rear board and batten addition was formerly used as a wood shed. There is no heat source, no insulation in either the walls or the ceiling, windows have extensive damage and offer no thermal insulation, and electrical service has been disconnected. There is extensive deterioration on both the interior and exterior of this addition. As well, the opening in the basement foundation was previously filled with lath and plaster which has completed deteriorated over time. Note, this particular room is currently being used for storage, as it is not habitable. City staff from both Heritage and Planning (Building Inspectors) have viewed this portion of the house during various site visits. The proposed addition is approximately 844 sq ft. in two single -story `wings, 'and contains a crawl space in order to support all mechanical requirements. The proposed addition will be subordinate and distinguishable from the existing house, and will serve to increase the liveable space in a sensitive manner. Please see attached files, including the site plan, site pictures and Preliminary CAD drawings. Note: Engineered drawings, featuring building elevations and exterior 3D modeling will be forwarded as soon as they are received. Proposed addition details as follows: • The area directly to the rear of the house (approximately 700 sq ft.) will include an entrance, mudroom/laundry room combination, and master suite • The main floor master suite will include a four piece bathroom • The side wing that extends into the rear side yard will feature a (approximately 144 sq ft.) four -season sunroom, with direct access into the existing fenced backyard • The rear roof line will also include a 12' wide covered area, which will sit nestled between the back of the addition and the sunroom. Note, this space is not visible from the street, and will house an existing hot tub • The Basement will feature a crawlspace and will be accessible from an existing opening in the basement foundation (likely from a previous exterior access point) • All proposed mechanical, electrical and plumbing will tie-in to the main house through the crawlspace access Page 274 of 507 z The rear yard will be landscaped in front of the sunroom addition in an effort to soften, screen and/or buffer a portion of the new addition. Since the proposed sunroom starts the rear corner of the existing house, visibility from the streetscape is limited due to existing grading and mature trees. As a result, the proposed sunroom addition will not (negatively) impact the views from the sidewalk/street The proposed addition will maintain the current setback from the edge of the existing driveway. Careful consideration was given when evaluating the location of the existing setback, as the use of the existing driveway run, access to the detached garage, and view from the kitchen window would have been impacted if the setback was moved closer to the driveway. Since the addition will maintain the existing setback, the existing kitchen window, along with the detached garage accessibility will not be impacted. The proposed addition will impact the following elements on the upper level at the rear elevation: 1. Exterior wood door and glass storm door on second floor will be replaced with a 9x9 pane vinyl window. Shutters may be added at a later time to match existing. 2. The rear 6 x 6 double hung window (that sits above the existing covered deck area) will be bricked in to allow for the new roof Note, owners have an inventory of brick onsite to match the existing house, which will be used to patch and repair as needed. A Limestone motor will be used, which has already been tested and approved during a previous restoration job. The proposed addition is subordinate to the main house in location and scale. Since it will be located at the rear of the house, and extend into the private backyard, the visual impact of the addition in relation to the streetscape does not impair or negatively detract from any important historical features associated with the primary residence. Proposed construction materials are compatible with the existing house - both in size, material and colour. However, low -maintenance, and cost-effective options have been proposed for the addition. These include: • Windows: o Double -hung, 6 over 6, vinyl windows size and colour to match existing where appropriate (master bedroom and sunroom) 0 6 pane, awning, vinyl windows size and colour to match existing where appropriate (side elevation closest to existing driveway) o Windows will be similar in scale to existing, however the total number of panes may be modified to accommodate roof lines or interior finishes. For example, use of 6 -pane awning window in the mudroom/laundry room, and use of a 9 -pane awning window to replace an upper exterior door to accommodate the new roof line Page 275 of 507 3 • Exterior Doors: o Proposed side door to match existing side door in size, material and colour (black door, featuring 6 -pane glass) o Sunroom door 6' wide double French doors o Master bedroom TBD may include a French door, or double doors, or combination of door and double hung window to match windows on new addition. Since the windows face the private realm, there are no negative impacts with respect to the final design choices. Note, Engineer to confirm preferred options Exterior Cladding: o Vertical Board and Batten o Maibec, or other suitable board and batten material— white to match existing. Will explore available materials/options and update Heritage on the preferred material prior to the scheduled Heritage meeting (June) o Will remove and replace board and batten on existing side entrance to match new addition. Note, existing (wood) material at existing side entrance is currently cracking and warping. Note, the wood material is not listed in the designating By -Law • Eaves: o Match existing house -white, round gutter Soffit and Fascia: o White to match existing, however will be aluminum instead of wood on addition • Roof o Pitched gable roof, subordinate in size and scale to primary asset (house) o Proposed roof line to sit below the secondary story eaves, with no impacts to the existing roofline o Shingles to match existing house Canadian Driftwood • Shutters: o May look to replace "Like For Like " on main house, however will not include shutters on new single -story addition Page 276 of 507 El 5. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: It is necessary to undertake the proposed work as the existing wood structure has extensively deteriorated over time. As previously noted, the space is currently unhabitable. There is no heat, insulation or electrical service to this room. There is also significant structural decay which is past the point of repair both on the interior and exterior of the building. Although significant deterioration is a key factor to undertaking the proposed work, a sensitive addition featuring modern day amenities has been carefully considered in the overall design. The existing house contains a small two-piece powder room (sink and toilet) on the main floor. The second floor features a shared, 4 -piece bathroom. Since this is the only full bathroom in the primary house, the proposed main floor suite and private bathroom has been designed to improve the overall function and accessibility in the house. The proposed addition will address significant structural deterioration on the existing rear addition, and will provide an opportunity to add updated, modern-day amenities and conveniences, resulting in the improved use, enioyment, and accessibility of*the house and property for years to come. The Owners have worked to restore the property since purchasing it in 2012. Upgrades have included major mechanical and structural elements, across multiple buildings. The proposed addition is yet another critical project that is required in order to protect the primary asset long term. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by- law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of*Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): In reviewing the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation Historic Places in Canada, the proposed application is consistent with this guideline in the following ways: Planning: a. Several factors were taken into consideration when designing and proposing the single -story addition. These included size, scale, materials, existing By-law, and the overall view from the streetscape. The current needs as a family and owner, and the long-term impacts on the property were also considered. Page 277 of 507 5 2. Rehabilitation: a. Is defined in the Standards and Guidelines as "the sensitive adaptation of an historic place or individual component for a continuing or compatible contemporary use, while protecting its heritage value " b. That being said, all design choices were made in an effort to mitigate any negative impacts, while still meeting both personal goals (desired use and enjoyment) and financial objectives (reasonable cost to add compatible space) c. Ultimate goal - to construct a sensitive addition. One that complements the existing heritage asset long-term, and one that also addresses any deficiencies in the current use and enjoyment. 3. Construction: a. The proposed new addition is subordinate in size, and does impose on or detract from the primary building b. Proposed materials also complement the existing house and property ADDITONAL COMMENTS The updated By -Law for 883 Doon Village Road includes a Schedule B. This particular schedule states that "there is further cultural heritage value of interest for the archaeological site. " This clause was added to the By -Law instead of adding a separate Agreement to Title. It simply states there is further cultural heritage value since the entirety of the retained land was not cleared in the previous planning/severance application. Note, only the portion of land impacted by the previous application was cleared in full. With respect to this particular planning/heritage application, a local Archaeological firm has been contracted, and is currently working with the Ministry on clearance and approvals for the portion of land affected by the proposed development (addition). The project has been placed in the queue, and the owners will be notified when a date has been confirmed for work to commence. Required scope of work will be completed, and all approvals in place, prior to the desired start of construction in Fall 2023. Page 278 of 507 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD, KITCHENER Project Cost Estimate: It is expected that the project cost estimate will run in the $200 - $250 per square foot price range since all existing mechanical (HVAC/AC), and electrical systems will be able to support the proposed build. Since it is a modest signal story addition, with a crawl space to run mechanical, costs are expected to be on the low-mid range for industry standards in price per square foot. Owners are also proposing cost-effective, high efficiency, and low maintenance materials in order to keep the renovation costs in line, such as vinyl windows. Trades with previous work experience on the house will be contracted to complete the addition. Once approved by City of Kitchener's Heritage and Planning departments, materials will be confirmed and ordered immediately so there are no delays in sourcing and receiving materials. Other Costs: A local Archaeological firm has also been contracted to conduct a site-specific assessment, which will serve to clear a section of land impacted by the addition. The contracted firm will work closely with the MCM to review and approve the assessment as per archaeological industry standards. Cost range for this particular scope of work: $12,400 - $23,275 Page 279 of 507 Page 280 of 507 Updated dimensions based on engineered drawings The proposed addition is approximately 933 sq. ft. in two, single -story `wings, 'and contains a crawl space in order to support all mechanical requirements. The proposed addition will be subordinate and distinguishable from the existing house, and will serve to increase the liveable space in a sensitive manner. Proposed addition details as follows: • The area directly to the rear of the house is approximately 744 sq. ft. (26'x 28'6'), and will include an entrance, mudroom/laundry room combination, and master suite • The main floor master suite will include a four piece bathroom • The side wing that extends into the rear side yard will feature a 190 sq. ft. (14'6" x 13 four -season sunroom, with direct access into the existing fenced backyard • The rear roof line will also include a 11 ' wide covered area, which will sit nestled between the back of the addition and the sunroom. Note, this space is not visible from the street, and will house an existing hot tub • The Basement will feature a craw/space and will be accessible from an existing opening in the basement foundation (likely from a previous exterior access point) • All proposed mechanical, electrical and plumbing will tie-in to the main house through the crawlspace access Page 281 of 507 • IIIIII�� ■ ■ • • • �► • • ■ • �,/LLI LL • ■ • • •LL ■ • • • 111111�� !99979799979799' �;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I � � � � � 1111 ,,;,;,;,LI;, iiiiiiiiiiiiii 14444444411111111114�I �LLL:i�llllllllllllll 14444444444444411111111 ('11111111111111111111111111111 �i�i�i�i�i�i�i�;,;,;,;,;,;,;111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,111111111111111111 liiiiiiiiiiiiiii �!'!�''!'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'Ii4iii11i1111 11111111111111 � _ I;I;I;I;I;I;II 44411444 IIIIIIIIIIIIII = IIIIIIIIIIIIII — � � � � � � i � � rIIIIIIIIIIIIII III'rI'rrrrrrrrrrlaaaal III III "" `� "':�' 1444444'14'1�144'1'1'I I;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;I II,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,II 1l'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'!1d!1d!1;11;1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1,111111111111111 •II!1!1!1!1!1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II�1111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1444444444444444 1111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I' !'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!1 I 444444444444444 1111111((111 444444444444444 I l l l n l 44444444444444'liiiiiilii ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1!'!'!'!'!'!'!111111111111111111] ;;I;I!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!11111111111111111 141 IIIIIIII I!I:I!1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1111111111 i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'!'i I1'1444444444444444oi l 4444444444444444414 444444444444444444 ;,;,;aaaaaaaaaaaaaa,�i ;;I;I ■■® 141 ®■■ ® l 4 (IIIIIIIIIIIIII Ili IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '!'!� ]111111111111111111111111111111 ;,;,;■■■■11111111111111111 j;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l ,;,;,■■■■11;1;1;1;1;1;1;11 liiiiiiiiiiiiiii ;,;,;.■■■1111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '!'!I:,,,,,,,,,,, 1111111111111111 44444444444444 ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;111111111111111111 (IIIIIIII IIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !�!'!�!'!�!°!I ■■■■,;,;,;,;,;,;,II ■■■■;I;I;I;I;I;II;I ■■■■,;,;,;,;,;,;,II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - - - - - - ;I;I;I;I;I;II;I 1111111 I idildildildildi1di44444411,1 li;11111111111111ililililililil!���1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I; ;111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111114 11,44444444444444 441 (IIIIIIII ;,;,i ■■■■ 111111111111111111 ;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I; ,;,;i■■■■11;1;1;1;1;1;111; ;,;, ■■■■11111111111111111111111111111 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�; (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,11111111111111 I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I I;I;I;I;I;I�I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I 111 ;!;!i ®■■ �!1!I■® ®I� r.:•r::•r::::•r::•r::•r:r1 I ii ,41,444441,4444441, ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 1444444444444441,1,1,1,1,1,11111 1111111111111111111111111111111 14411111111111111111111111i1i44444441 .;:rrrr-lrr�i-:-:-:-:, :,1,1,1,1;;,;1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,6' ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1111111111111111 111111111111111 i444444444444444 44444444444444' 111 1111111111 ;1;1;111. i= 1111111111 - ;444444444444444 !!!!! 4444441141 ■ ... C 111111111111111111111111111114 111111111111111 I!'!I!I. ® i®�111111111111111111j111 4441 111111111 111111111111111111111111111114 �!�!�■■■■11111111111111111 1I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III 1;11111111111111111111111111111 ■ (IIIIIIII ■�® ■ Hiiiiiiiiiiiiii 444p�;�;�;�;�;�;l;y'_ �. i-0iiiiiiii — I;I;I■■■■11111111111111111 I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I ;I;I; ■■■■11;1;1;1;1;1;1;11 liiiiiiiiiiiiiii I;I;i ■ ■ ®® iiiiii;lil ■ ... C 1111111111111111111111111111111 ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1; 111111111111111111111111111114 !'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'ijij! I'I'I'�1111111111111111111 1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 1111111111111111111111111111 !';(;111111111111111!(;(;(;1;1111111111111111111111111111 ■ 4444444444444441;1;1p;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1i14444444y 4444444444444441'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'1�14444444� ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1; ;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;1!'!1!'!'!1!'111111111111111111 11;1;1;1;1;;,p�::;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;,.1 11'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'11 �yj,j,j,j,j,j:::::::::,:,;,I�� 1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1; ;;;;; I;;;;;;;;;1;1;1;1;1;x;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 ����� ■■■ I,I,I,I, IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1;1;� ■■■ IJ11'111' i111i1i1il11lilil11w1111111i1 a::::::;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;l;ll;l; - 1111111111111111 �'�',yy'1yl'1 144444444444411111111 4444444444444441 '!'!� P�444444 I;4I;I4;I;I;II;I;I;I;I;I;(III ....................... IIIIIIIIIII°II • 1111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 I'I'I ....... J'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'llll !'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!'!4'!'!I!I� i'lll'lll'lll'llll'll !'!I!'!I!'!I!'!I!'!I • ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I,I,I 111111111111111 III■■■■111111111 14444444 11111111 1111111 ■■■■1,1,1,1,1,1,11 • IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4'14'14'14'144'14'14'14'1444'I'I IIIIIIIIII 4'I'I'I'I'I'I'14'I • 1111111111111111111111111111111 ;I;I;■■■■11111111111111111 ■■■■I;I;I;I;I;lylll 4444444444444441 �I'ISI'ISI'ISI'I�I�I'ISI'ISI'ISI'I�I�I�I'I'II'L1'L1'I.1'I.1'I'I�I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I�I'I 1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 ,I,I,■■■■11;1;1;1;1;1;1;11 1111111111111111111111111111111 '!'!� ■■■■1,1,1,1,1,1,11 11111111111111111 I�I'I�I'1�11111 ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1; 4'14'14'14'144'14'14'14'1444'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'14'I'I'I'I'I'I'14'll ;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;, ■ 1111111111111111 'I'14'I.1'I.1'I.1'I.1'1'I'P 11111111 '1.1'1.1'1.1'1.1'1.1'1.1'14'14'141111 ■ , , , 1444444444444444 I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;lilililil�l;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;II;I; ■ 1111111111111111111111111111111 ;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,II �;;;;;;;;;;;;11111111111111 I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;I;i1i1111;1i1 ;II,1,1,1,1,1�I41�41n; !I!I!I!I!I!I!I!I!I!I!I�I ;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1 11111111111111 111111111111111111111111111141:1:1:1:1:1:1:6 ;444444444444444 aaaaaaaaaaaa:6aaaa:l:il 11111111111 1111111111 �� I_I :666666666666666 : �I ©I Z _- ztW9 NQQ d' < � - �O zoQ �o Lu p �c =� w�� (nines o0 _ �Z� 0 oaF o Of go o W 0 a. LL> 0 Yi W LLp Q OWE w� W _ v �w �°dro3an 0-0 00 �� W m Y - 5� > U) 0 0 3:5 _ Z HQ w F zWLU 0-W w N O Z WO HE- tF-T� ® Z 71 z O JJ O i O LLl W Z Q D Z z Z_ H ~ WLLl 0 Z O LLI � w J LLL I -o '0.o W W Z O p _ - U R w o Li Q Cl) _ t9 cs Z o< —Sd`�G �� Lu Z_u�a z og - ozv o JUO W o¢ Of o0 z wi LLp w 10 ZHU - o 2 �.,�,Naan d O Q F U a Y w" o Q - �, 5 m- 00 U) O o O aw 0,0 — LL z wQ o W n F zoQ � v co N O U) aJw ow FT F .AB x,.9L 1 OBx Z 1. III ..09x..66 rrrrI �� ENE f Qo � h. ..09x„Bb ❑oo pr I't Z Zb x „Bb Z h s E .Z9 x..6C O � i � iE f bb aE U 1 i U z zENE �� z z ss ..ob O rI O 1 s9 x „ob ... W W LLIJ .. it J LLI O 7 Ti O � N � Z O o U z U~ n w Z Z r7 R o z Q z oQ —Sd_ d d z ~ rc J - U 0 z �10—�su+EEn aim Z_ fA d a z„ 0 0 LU z 0 0 ^� �Z� w o u� =� - �� awz X00 z� ao z� �, o 2Y'i W 0 W COQ a O Y N �` W o O w l _ V 63 �'�Naan 0- 0 00 = m w w - � a 5 m j� 0 10,010 0 tto Z yQ w zW 3:5 _ O F <W w N Z Z5 x „BE {u+r. �E � Q ssxsE 10 Ell z LD �xsE U U 7 D F- F- z z o O U e -s W z ,, z z 0 LD F- Q os zc > W W J J W W - C � W Wm �m N a § ^ \§x y -_96< :k } \ } -^ OOT, ( \_ .\� o( \§§ jE§ /§k ~� E)\L :\\\Oo :/ FD |� : -\ ( \ : — �\/ co - - en , k - \ � f . � d . k \ \ § § / § j � < \ \ \ � / « � � S t� � \ ( § 2 § » . « \ \ \ \ Z - -_ - Ow o r7� R o Li t7 z_ z Wz oQ a _ Q �su+EEn �a,4 Z u) d _ K z„ _ J z - z 0 U) j 0 oQo - o ODi Of zJ 0 0 W U LL ��~O O Q LL> F C) Y� W `m w� _ W z V o0 �w 'V3Jll O z wQ wco ��� _ 0 Z U F a w N 1 V A Z 0 A O W (� W CG Z = U � w z a w 2 O Z N A O O H H Z � Z O O U U o W Z W Z H H W H � W H � 7 O O Z � m .L M n ,,,.vi... ti 0 LO 4- 0 co co N N c6 � I - � z �g;�m�� �33 �o� & o �§�p � m o R R o Cc Cc CD oo T lo o CL) oo 0 CL -m5l CL36- ZT, (D 0 0 cc 0 oo CD 'M V n3x. ... ........ ------------ LeL0 CD � ��� tie � —I �,���� <, � i a ����� � ������ AJ iol z Joy a! . . . . . . . . .. ..... KK AN JJiE I E I \ 0 I E 4 1p sl loo 0 ME- X.E rl- 0 LO 4- 0 CY) co N gl U) 2 0 > 0 LL. 14§ 0 w (D C z -= . ......... 0 i �< C, w 12 ---------- < > m co � I - � z �g;�m�� �33 �o� & o �§�p � m o R R o Cc Cc CD oo T lo o CL) oo 0 CL -m5l CL36- ZT, (D 0 0 cc 0 oo CD 'M V n3x. ... ........ ------------ LeL0 CD � ��� tie � —I �,���� <, � i a ����� � ������ AJ iol z Joy a! . . . . . . . . .. ..... KK AN JJiE I E I \ 0 I E 4 1p sl loo 0 ME- X.E rl- 0 LO 4- 0 CY) co N r Staff Report I -N I il R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-224 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 137 Queen Street South 6 -storey Affordable Housing Building RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated April 2023, prepared by McCallum Sather regarding a proposal to redevelop the subject properties municipally addressed as 137 Queen Street South and 149 Queen Street South (Fig. 1). Both the subject properties are located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. 137 Queen Street South is also known as the St. Paul's Lutheran Church, and is classified as a Group `A' building — meaning it is of high significance. 149 Queen Street South is also classified as a Group `A' building. Additionally, both these properties are also located within the Victoria Park Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. P2 JICTORIAPARK 'PSOG 0 55 '%1L R°G2 7f S� J Rss U-1 162R p]1\-. A EE1/5p Omc� D-1 383R 2fi �d \ 1v:4 ze cllY comme cla�eoae \2%� ,��� n'C\ 5 O �f�STF 188 202196 - I7� <<- 2 5138. S Ai4s lGF � 2i RiU � s � z'1P�. 1 ' V °s1p az 53� SME l*me.t MU -2 519o�A cn Q 5 56 \ �w2 � f _ CR 3,1,"R �i BR R cFtvAR rill l: CR W R -B 136R lit] h'1 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 290 of 507 Figure 1. Location Map of 137 and 149 Queen Street South. The proposed development includes the construction of a six (6) -storey affordable housing building with one (1) level of underground parking, and a two-way ramp entry/exit along Queen Street South (Fig. 2), located towards the rear of 149 Queen Street South (Building `C' in Fig. 2). At -grade parking is also proposed with access to Church Street. The proposed development will include a total of fifty-seven (57) dwelling units, and twenty-seven (27) parking spaces. The existing heritage properties will be preserved in-situ with no alterations proposed to these existing buildings. 4kottN 7rR{tr5 North Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan for the development at 137 Queen Street South. Building `A' is the proposed 6 -storey affordable housing project. Due to time constraints related to secure funding from the Region for affordable housing projects, the development proposal has received conditional site plan approval, subject to several conditions, including final approval of the HIA by the Director of Planning, as well as obtaining a heritage permit for the construction of the new building. The draft HIA has concluded that the proposed development will have minor to no negative impacts on the immediately adjacent heritage properties. The proposed building also incorporates design cues from the surrounding context to better integrate within the VPAHCD but remain distinguishable and contemporary in design (Fig. 3 & 4). Page 291 of 507 11 11 11 11 �rrnr►neu [ar s3urH FIEYATON �o[ Figure 3. Proposed Front elevation (facing 149 Queen Street South) and South elevation (facing St. George Street). FAST FLIWAIq [% WMM RFV,41IGN fD1 Figure 4: Proposed East Elevation (rear fagade) and North elevation (facing Church Street). The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the June 6, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions the committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review of the HIA and processing of the related Planning Act Applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the June meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Page 292 of 507 0 m U] U. 0. d [l 01 U 0 0 F IT]o j-, 3 j ID IE 0 nm 0-1Q d FAST FLIWAIq [% WMM RFV,41IGN fD1 Figure 4: Proposed East Elevation (rear fagade) and North elevation (facing Church Street). The applicant's heritage consultant will attend the June 6, 2023, meeting of Heritage Kitchener to answer any questions the committee may have. Heritage Planning staff are in the process of reviewing the HIA and are seeking the committee's input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review of the HIA and processing of the related Planning Act Applications. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the June meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Page 292 of 507 Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 137 Queen Street South Page 293 of 507 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 DATE OF REPORT: May 18, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-248 SUBJECT: 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Award Nominations Summary RECOMMENDATION: That Heritage Kitchener Committee receive the 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Award nomination summary and vote for up four award winners. BACKGROUND: In 1997, the City of Kitchener established the Mike Wagner Heritage Awards to pay tribute to property owners, businesses and individuals who have contributed to the conservation of the City's cultural heritage resources. The program was named after former City Councillor Mike Wagner who served on City Council from 1989 to 1997, and who was a strong advocate for heritage, culture, and the arts. In 2017, the heritage awards were renamed The Mike & Pat Wagner Heritage Awards in recognition of the many contributions of Pat Wagner, who was a long-time member of Heritage Kitchener and a recipient of the Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement. In 2015, Council approved the reorganization of the City's comprehensive planning awards program to celebrate a broader range of categories under one program event, known as the Kitchener Great Places Awards (KGPAs). The biennial KGPAs includes presentation of the City's urban design and sustainability awards, as well as the City's heritage awards. Up to 4 heritage awards may be presented in a given award period year, and nominations may be received in one of three categories as follows: Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritaae Resources Preservation projects involve protecting, maintaining and stabilizing the existing form, material and integrity of a cultural heritage resource while protecting its heritage attributes and values. Preservation projects generally relate to cultural heritage resources that are intact and do not require extensive repair, extensive replacement, alterations, or additions. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 294 of 507 Restoration projects involve revealing, recovering, or representing the state of a cultural heritage resource or of an individual heritage attribute as it appeared at a particular period in its history, as accurately as possible, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration projects are based on physical and documentary or oral evidence. Rehabilitation /Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Resources Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse projects involve the sensitive adaptation of a cultural heritage resource or of an individual heritage attribute for a continuing or compatible contemporary use, while protecting its heritage value. This may be achieved through repairs, replacements, alterations and/or additions. Individual Contributions to the Field of Heritage Conservation Awarded to individuals, businesses, organizations, institutions who have made exceptional and/or long-lasting contributions to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. Nominations for a Mike Wagner Heritage Award must demonstrate that: • The conservation project involves a cultural heritage resource; • The conservation project conserves the heritage attributes and values associated with the cultural heritage resource; • The conservation project is located within the City of Kitchener; • The conservation project is complete; • The conservation project obtained all required approvals such as Building Permits and Heritage Permits; • The conservation project has not received a previous Mike Wagner Heritage Award for the same work; • The individual, business, organization or institution nominated has made exceptional or long-lasting contributions to the conservation of cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener. REPORT: The following properties have been nominated for the 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Heritage Award. Category Address Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage 87 Scott Street Resources Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage 48 Ontario Street North Resources Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage 404 King Street West Resources Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse of Cultural 114 Victoria Street South Heritage Resources Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse of Cultural 883 Doon Village Road Heritage Resources Page 295 of 507 A summary of the nominations that have been received is provided below. 87 Scott Street - Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. It is a two-storey single -detached dwelling built in the Italianate architectural style. 87 Scott Street had fallen into disrepair and was rehabilitated by ABA and a consulting team into a duplex, per the Standards and Guidelines for Historic Places in Canada. Work included but was not limited to the repair or replacement of cracked masonry, window and door frames, wood columns, handrails and decking on the front verandah, and the repair of the tooth fascia detailing. The work undertaken did not substantially alter the character defining elements or heritage attributes of the building. Original building material was retained where feasible. Figure 1: 87 Scott Street Before Rehabilitation Page 296 of 507 48 Ontario Street North (The Canadian Legion) - Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building was the former headquarters of Bell Telephone in the town of Berlin, before being sold to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 50 where is operated in various capacities. Voisin Capital Incorporated has renovated and restored the property, where it now once again operates as office space. Work included the installation of completely new electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems, as well as the installation of a new roof, windows, and significant masonry repairs. Lead paint and asbestos titles were remediated and the original brick walls and concrete structural elements were exposed and restored to their former condition. Some of the original conduits from Bell Telephone were exposed and encased as a display, as homage to the buildings original use. Figure 2: 48 Ontario Street Before Restoration Page 297 of 507 Figure 3: Rendering of Work to 48 Ontario Street Page 298 of 507 404 King Street West (Kaufman Lofts) - Preservation / Restoration of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Formerly the Kaufman Rubber Company and Footwear Building, the heritage resource has been redeveloped into dwelling units. Most recently, Edison was retained to complete exterior repairs to the building. Work included masonry and concrete repairs, improving water shedding details and flashing, resealing the building cladding joints to prevent water infiltration, and repainting and recoating the exterior to match the existing finish. The objective of the project was to extend the lifespan of the architectural components while preserving the character -defining heritage attributes, and the work was completed in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Figure 5: 404 King Street West Before Repair Work Page 299 of 507 Figure 6: 404 King Street West After Repair Work 114 Victoria Street South (Glove Box) - Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The Glove Box redevelopment involved the restoration and adaptive reuse of the former Huck Glove Factory building. The entirety of the original building, save for the dilapidated roof structure, was preserved and integrated into a new seven -storey, 120,000 square foot addition. The work completed repaired and conserved materials and finished wherever feasible in keeping with good conservation practices. This included the repair and repointing of deteriorated portions of the original double-wythe exterior brick masonry walls, and original stone windowsills. A creative solution involving the provision of new cast -in place concrete structural slabs was also used to preserve the original hardwood floorboards and timber beams, which had been deemed inadequate to support office loads. The windows were not original to the structure and were replaced with historically appropriate units. The new addition was carefully designed to contrast against and minimize impact on the heritage resource. Page 300 of 507 t338,1 ROOF PLAN N LEVEL 3 PLAN r� _I LEVEL 2 PLAN N LEVEL 1 PLAN 3RAOE oM 32! 4.021 LEVEL 1 PLAN Figure 7: 114 Victoria Street South Before Work Figure 8: 114 Victoria Street South After Work Page 301 of 507 883 Doon Village Road (Hog and Hen House) - Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Designating By- law No. 2020-061 identifies the coach house formerly used as a hog and hen barn as being a secondary heritage attribute. The former hog and hen barn was relocated in 2019 and placed on new foundation in 2020. Restoration of the exterior was completed in 2021, while interior renovations to convert the building into livable space was completed in 2022. The relocation involved the hand excavation of the structure in sections, securing by metal strapping and moving it via large I -beams, hydraulic hacks, and cribbing. Limestone mortar was used to repoint damaged brick and stone, wood awning windows and a new steel roof that matched the original were installed, and wood soffit and fascia replaced. Figure 9: Hog and Hen House Before Work r i� Figure 10: Hog and Hen House After Work Page 302 of 507 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — 87 Scott Street Nomination Package Attachment B — 48 Ontario Street North Nomination Package Attachment C — 404 Kinq Street West Nomination Package Attachment D — 114 Victoria Street South Nomination Package Attachment E — 883 Doon Village Road Nomination Package Page 303 of 507 Staff Report ` Develo hent Services Deoartr7ent www.kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Raida Chowdhury, Student Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7078 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: June 2, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-275 SUBJECT: Addendum to Report DSD -2023-248 RECOMMENDATION: For information REPORT: Report no. DSD -2023-275, dated May 27, 2023, as prepared for the June 6, 2023 Heritage Kitchener meeting, outlines the 2023 Mike and Pat Wagner Award nomination summaries for 5 nominated properties. This addendum report is to add the nomination summary for 1 Queen Street North to report no. DSD -2023-275. 1 Queen Street North (American Hotel) — Rehabilitation / Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Resources The subject property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. The original owner of the property is Louis Breithaupt, who served as Mayor of Berlin from 1879 to 1880. The site was home to the American Hotel and remains the oldest commercial building in Kitchener. The property has undergone rehabilitation and continues to be used as commercial space. The rehabilitation work included improvements to the structural integrity of the building, repairs to the masonry, and updates to the egress. Additions to modernize the building such as an elevator and washroom were included. The exterior was finished with various elements appropriate to the style of the building, including trim, decorative moulding, and cornices. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 304 of 507 yJ � '�Z� A■ t Figure 1: 1 Queen Street North Before Restoration Figure 2: 1 Queen Street North After Restoration Page 305 of 507 APPROVED BY: Must be the CAO or a General Manager ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — 1 Queen Street North Nomination Package Page 306 of 507 Raida Chowdhury From: no reply@esolutionsgroup.ca Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:51 AM To: Great Places (SM) Subject: New Response Completed for Great Places Awards - 2023 Attachments: 2023-04-26-063.pdf Hello, Please note the following response to Great Places Awards - 2023 has been submitted at Wednesday April 26th 2023 11:46 AM with reference number 2023-04-26-063. • Nomination type Mike & Pat Wagner heritage award • Mike & Pat Wagner heritage award Rehabilitation / adaptive reuse of cultural heritage resources • Has this project been nominated before? No • Name of project being nominated American Hotel • Project address/ location 1 Queen Street North • Why are you nominating this project? It has been through too many tenants, too much abuse, and what was left too little, to make a reasonable candidate for a more precious restoration. Yet, what is said to be the oldest building in downtown Kitchener circa 1862, still deserved to be rescued, repurposed and revitalised in a lasting way. • Main contact name Stephen Litt, Vive Development • Address (main contact) 1020 King Street East, Kitchener • Phone number (main contact) 5194982141 • Email (main contact) sl @vivedevelopment.ca • Name (nominator) Richard D'Alessandro, NEO Architecture i Page 307 of 507 • Street address (nominator) 270 King Street East • City (nominator) Kitchener • Province (nominator) Ontario • Postal code (nominator) N2G 21-1 • Phone (nominator) 5195900265 • Email (nominator) richard@neoarchitecture.ca • Nominator confirmation By checking this box, I as nominator confirm I have notified the nominee /property owner and have received their permission to make this nomination. • Enter answer below: American Hotel 1 Queen Street North, Kitchener Building Height: 3 Storeys Building Area: 621 sqm GFA: 1839 sqm It began with stripping away layers of haphazard renovations, inside and out. Sagging joists were sistered, beams and columns were added. Openings were braced and structural loads transferred. Brick was repaired and refinished. Then, to prolong the use of the building and extend its life indefinitely, an elevator and washrooms were added, and means of egress updated to comply with current building codes. Conflict upon compromise was discovered and necessary, budgets blown and timelines tested - less determined owners would have thrown in the towel. But at long last, the building is whole and the street level exterior has now been reunified. Generous expanses of glazing and a continuous signage band serve new commercial tenants and office spaces above. The building is finished with trims, decorative moulding and cornices of the appropriate style, and in a discrete and dignified black. Save for one wall, which is instead clad in a contemporary pattern of shiny metal, in order to enhance the historically nondescript side facing Goudie's Lane. • Firm name 1. Vive Development 2. JG Group 3. NEO Architecture 4. Strik Baldinelli Moniz 5. Ontenco 6. MHBC 2 Page 308 of 507 7. Woodhouse Group • Contact name 1. Stephen Litt 2. Shaddi Fahel 3. Laird Robertson 4. Kevin Moniz 5. Nizar Abboud 6. Pierre Chauvin 7. Jason Boyer • Telephone 1. 519 498 2141 2. 519 577 0721 3. 519 5744479 4. 519 471 6667 5. 519 760 0288 6. 519 5804912 7. 519 580 6959 • Email 1 1. sl@vivedevelopment.ca 2. shaddi@jggroup.ca 3. laird@neoarchitecture.ca 4. kevin@sbmltd.ca 5. nizar.abboud@ontenco.com 6. pchauvin@mhbcplan.com 7. jasonb@woodhouse. ca • Upload documents containing all project material 1. 1 Queen Historic.jpa F80.0 KBI 2. 1 Queen Existing_jga F1.3 MBI 3. 1 Queen Proposed.jpa F8.5 MBI 4. 1 Queen Phase 1 Drawings.pdf [12.9 MBI 5. 1 Queen Phase 2 Drawings.pdf [9.8 MBI [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] 3 Page 309 of 507 T-1 14 rl- 0 LO 4- 0 0 (Y) (1) //l it r-7 ......... . . . . . . . . 0, N MLI"N 9 A I 'OIL ri o it U= a a p €bac a o§ as aaM oa �a�3 �o�a aQm°ouamomW�ww o�gwa xo 99x4 baa° ° w�� ���� gQ� ��g'��wo9o��3� �.°M ,&a� � �3ad2 N e� ;ow � � Asa '�kkkkk°ddidd €w dd° iddaw idda4wadw.ddg4 aLLwo � @6 a @ s � LL� @ �s�4 a �°'. MM �°� m.m.c; am=mzm m,,.,w = oacw. m,oa�°a��°° qga=axoRg�ooadm �. ,q o�aooa°omEm�mkm�4a==°ga°aaaa�a�°�F�a�wQea�ma��daw€ o� �f �mSok''�o Zw�4� a N, -gym °n °�nSs 2=� °sai s' b dpi � o - m g m O k @ go 6 € b 9 g w tit o� �f �mSok''�o Zw�4� a N, -gym °n °�nSs 2=� °sai b dpi � O k @ go € € R 1: o �E n a ea ea omg� o � ID 8 ga saes isff �f �mSok''�o Zw�4� a N, -gym °n °�nSs 2=� °sai e 2� 4LM �N R 1: o �E n a ea ea omg� o � ID 8 ga saes isff e 2� 4LM Q Lmjrio'� Q ❑❑❑❑ c o= CO lJ � Ue w La a JFoN , o La F17 G Q JIM Q Cc as cs P �o Lt ElE_ 0 ddb o F ¢ 3 d 4 a Lu U= a o o La 17 c mai Q ❑■ og Obi£ _moo ¢ 3dEs J iW o F go�m�oo o 8 °Fi Hn i On" � o�ogo�4�8°�0 _'U__EM 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 Q a o LuV U = a go�m�oo o � 8 - o�ogo48°�0 _'U__EM 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 Q LuV U a o = L a 117 x o e NANA O �■� o g b� a � &&&& ¢ � 3 3 i J iW o F d ti F E� go�m�oo o � 8 - o�ogo48°�0 _'U__EM 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 O o Lu U= a L a 117 e O _moo �■� o 4 b� a � &&Q &&&& ¢ � 3 3 i J iW o F d� F E� go�m�oo o � 8 - o�ogo48°�0 _'U__EM 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 dj�aL' O ��4i= uiQ���a Q�r � �V Wap aha 3p 22 6 ry ry N n n nry ry ry rvry ry ry rvn Q a o Lu V U= a J ❑■� iW og Obi£ �o F ¢ �3 dm n^r`3:, dj�aL' O ��4i= uiQ���a Q�r � �V Wap aha 3p 22 6 ry ry N n n nry ry ry rvry ry ry rvn Q ■ EI ii ��4i= uiQ���a Q�r � �V Wap aha 3p 22 6 ry ry N n n nry ry ry rvry ry ry rvn ■ EI ii dj�aL' O 22 6 ry ry N n n nry ry ry rvry ry ry rvn n^ r4 3:i ■ EI ii dj�aL' O 22 6 ry ry N n n nry ry ry rvry ry ry rvn - r ❑ 0 b� � o F ¢ � 3 ¢ � �� d i 4 - �o - CM a M.■I®I I®I Co - �a c� . � � = o J.I � [�= a �� La ,oN � �: - aoxa�§�= � �a 0 d b� o ., � o � F ¢ � _ d d h ��� 3 i 4 c o cc - �a n^ r 4 3 -❑ = O w� �� a � 0 0 u Q aZOz O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I e W I Q I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I d a I I I Im Im- I e I ----I - �Q cp W C ------ao v W � I •~ � e I I I x H I ooa W 1 W I I 0 I I v a 0 1 I I p I I I I I ml I I I I I I I o----- I ----------- I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------- I I I I I L ----------I I I I I I I I I I I I W I d v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I oo��a�e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d I I b I I b I I b I I b —❑ = O o�� C� a @ o O F j a z z N m O o O a w z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �_ 0P I I I I I I I I ---------- I I I I I I ap I=„ I I oe I I i oo I I I I I I I - ze I I I I 111 m 8 ~ $e f=N Q III I I m! I I a� �e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I = a w I I I I I I I a------------�-- I =a 1 ——------------- — --- -- —- —- I — I � � I I Eps I I — I a----- J11 o ----- ------------ --- os h m -------------------------- ------------- s � I I w I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I a--- --"——�tl— ------------------ L - - - - - - - - - - g"a I I I I ==a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b I I I I b b I I I I b b = 'o C� a ILJI o O F U a V w w ` w o w F Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I it I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I r J I O ----J---- 1 I ----1-- -------- --- --- a----------------------:. I I I I -- I —----- o ---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I � �� 70! = 1 I ' ma I I ti hti --------------- --------------- I I 8U-------------- I I I I I ---------------------I---- I I I I I ------------- I I I I I I I I ® s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b I I b I I b I I b I I b LO = e� .m �_- � � N ww�a� r--� Twwz---. z z ma i ZW W,, - - oe - - - -g - - - - - - - - oz - - - - - - - - - - - - = a � 3Q� aZ c�a 01@ v o "� O i U Z O o p id Goy B3 -ar=as g�Eom - s z a We §8 H e£ -IN -o� NS. - ho ap$�-� t d Yg_ ga aY oo os§ ,G66 M MI o Y§ - _ ou ��£'�mx 8s 510 sa0 e f 'G sN8 s ka _ MISS Mom yoyn o� e 4ehi was<„ �'Go ! _ <5e^��bw e� R e -a E§ �I'3=tea§000'q� §I - w£_ <� ',q; ? of s' - - eG§ �`z �a `£ <�eF _ _ S .a Is NRIHIM ��oo o�i`so� How N H $goon 6 - - MH '" 3l" �� _ _ 35 (Q - _� <w P '�'^mSNYa§�§ - �� - _ � _ - $o'�r� - Y=oma=_o��='q c=5 g� - SHE= o�N PEN NMI ¢� w =a ¢f' �Y`o m og'=c o oa L� U, 3��g u� oq - � � y _o3=�omE �o oL Rai �6a o = e���cc o�� - o �Yo G d== NS IM: QU! :h i §a __ ���'"��_ 8E6 amu``_ _ __ __ - oo �P§Y Z � �c 3�� �3 1�e��= o`g - Gm o� 01 - _ ¢' - £52� gym' Y"�'.�o mss= _ 6Y? - ego=`moo ���m3C3 �ag; =i o£o i=i NE e q_a« g ipo c oY -sa ;foo ¢ r£�, --o8g� ¢- ewe - - wi€��e§�`=�.. x§�` -- ��' _ ;�gE _- - _ W! _ �=¢`>a�=4 _ oo $e - a�?=§fie - - - �u'a"=o"<a<W^` Ulu "E. mow 36§ e a "E away _ -0100 x�„fig < =GaseU opt§ - amau¢os= o- aaaaxs �p$g� m u„_ � Gm o 8yi m _g '"tee« lie; h co�3 Hyl _- �3 � o�:.' �.. a¢�om ogQao - - yea: .:ic �m �c __ e s�=` No q=_- e § me 3�`.s 3 -off 3& - _ e�'a __ �g-'iEae z4 - �� a� m > - pq= _ 04 ly an spm _ ay _ m,.��e o G•w,o6��0 _F� _ o - -N `o'er"=`'` 0�6� - g` �'Y ` - - -oY _ - - -_ s§ice€ _ Ma H _N '�I c,=§ §` -'�s�g<`m m boa ao - - MPH = ° - F _3$N�_-�i§mow�§`���a`qY - Sao -o„,6,Y ooho;m�- -- fWH103:e_ _ €e- - --__-_ ”=a��sYs � o <4= g�3IYq��� �i INRHO HE asca a., ai8�-' a i£NnF�MO < a mC, = a o7z N o O W 0ZW ME z Z Z W Z W Z U W O W Q W Q Z z I I I I W I I I W d 1 rl I= I I I �+ W � ,,---- a W — W a 1 W LU a � 1 Eu -o- W 7 V O Z IZ �►—dam v uLJ � I I I I 3Ya -1 I NW b = a —❑ o °j� a pP�YD C� �e _ o O U D�aZz oowa N v m 6 w woo�o Z O W O o LL Z _ Z Z U N � � Z O Q^ Z I ------ ------ - � W H w C O� xs Vi=a �s o9- is oa 72 mo W = w Z ON a rrte" 5 J O w U ZE U Y F • w �� O a Xz (`" N omo _ _-_-_- -_-_ _- --_-O ------ --------- JEi i �j co--- ---- -- j — --- — -- -------------------------- J N ------ to O wa §� Ho� o yo = 'p Om a Ere m �v O O U aZ¢ O a z m o Q. z I I I I I I I I I I I Fwmw 3= mwm w Como I I I � I I IV I I I II I I I� `U §o ------------- o-- ----- jl ---- - -- -- — — — — — ---- j j j j j j j j b = a w o DO ma ZN U N� Z i ��oa ppI E>a moi — o0o K Via`-ab'z zmwso z�� w�� yi, e�o�Upopi�a. �za z$zo r 6:y pmn� hFoCs� �a64 � Y`=s OH Of 1 ppb 8�p LI =m 3 obi — G �x w� � �o :w G - eo ,,.- - apo mu .om -11D — N"m Ufj) I �iap X33 �n emit ��` ori bggp y�Z3��� — , �✓Q e� r e o � �� C 2- gill', ®®O© — 00© O© a� a R uN$ a� a m � C �a� GFo'$s GFo'$s ergo§¢ m3�GQN mw<o as��=$o § § aeb§�� �e =3e O � m w Z _ `�6 S � 3 P P m P y s§ e e e e g� d ao MS Y3 uaa=5 e m s Y s < § - �/ .. \ \ \ 2>=: \��\/ /::; > �}; b \ \\\\ z�\ \ :�( !� 2 ;_: y� J ~� < \ _ [ \ Wn .: } . ^ y> : ^� y: � _ \ » 1 0 CD " 0 IS - HE \ \ } \ \ \\\\ :,),{{)) -- Nn = a y o 'p ca � � a o4 D �m vm C7 O O U Z a Z ora �. 0 d � x W_ 7 % O a ;moo z rvns— � o R-1 0 � 4 d C `U " W 7 _ CD O_ CD oia p = a w O lz m z v IIS a_ o- �o 0 = ya �o �s eo _❑ o `R HYD C � e A,oz o O F N a Z w N (? w w z /`// ' w O Z Z °� I I I I I I I I I II I --_-_- - - I I I I I IW 7 0 --------------- --------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- W Ir L W NJ m r co7 I ;o _—_� _—_—_—_ I I I J¢ § I I I I aE I I I 3 i oVo g I I I o I 0 0 00000 000 � � � b = a �m oa z= C6w� �wo�o _>oU Q NN O O m aZW Z N \ ZOr' z 8 E¢ 4- § 'g- n ¢ ami Ga ma m-oo� e6�sm § �i_iw ��m i3 ......�_� =3rciiaem 8G �oY �goosi �o z o — - -E o_ p ¢ii ep3o X I �a o O¢ «B� 3 O e� o§ 3a 8 E¢ 4- § 'g- n ¢ ami Ga ma m-oo� e6�sm § �i_iw ��m i3 ......�_� =3rciiaem 8G �oY L� �g - -E o_ ep3o X Edo= 8 S _ U a 8 6 � m � 6 i 8 8 18 � mS= - Z 8i $o$ En m" z d P sou; w_masm< __ mE s; 8 E¢ 4- § 'g- n ¢ ami Ga ma m-oo� e6�sm § �i_iw ��m i3 ......�_� =3rciiaem L� �g - -E o_ X Edo= 8 o -ISE a a 8 6 $$ Y 1—' � 6 i 8 8 18 soda _==de - 8 E¢ 4- § 'g- n ¢ ami Ga ma m-oo� e6�sm § �i_iw ��m i3 ......�_� =3rciiaem - -E o_ Edo= o -ISE a H - Z 8i i F°1 of O �2 Z Oc rG7W _ w Q UY mo w cR U� a w w 3Z� o o O F a p S1 z � U h Y w Na Q z ZLO Q�= w Iz �_ _o m m� P G d a _ o 4? o a� N O O foo a � � w a P G d a _ o 4? o O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ® ® j e j C2 F I I I W I I I I I I I I d I I I I I I II I ® I I ----J-----------1--------------------L----------- I I I I I I I I I I o I I .. W ----y---------t---------7--I-- a F6 0 I I I I I I I I I I -- + + I I I I CL W I I I � I 2M I I I I e I I I v I I W W z CL 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------------------------L----------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +W F c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b b b b b = a UNiO W ca Oo o a o�ND�x C� o Q z 00MO Q�3 � •6 >� �= Q O o O U N 0 V m� `a p G 0 b b LT 4? 9L a� N O O 8 s F --- ------ 1---- -----J----------- ---------- o---- n 1 `a p G 0 b b 4? O O --- ------ 1---- -----J----------- ---------- o---- n 1 b b b b b b b b m� g G 0 a o 4? o I I j $I + j LT O O ---J ------I 1----I ------ — — — — — — — — ---1 8 s P �m o= a Z o0 my I ! Ie 1. `- lz> g G 0 a o 4? o I I j $I + j LT O O �m o= a Z o0 my I ! Ie 1. `- lz> ---------------- I I I I la I I I KEN ----------I I I I I dFMI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o-----�---------------------------------- L ---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I d I I I I 7 I I I I X I I I I i I I I I ] I I I I j I I I I ] I I I I i I I I I T I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b b b b I I j $I + j ---J ------I 1----I ------ — — — — — — — — ---1 I I I o I I ---------------- I I I I la I I I KEN ----------I I I I I dFMI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o-----�---------------------------------- L ---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I d I I I I 7 I I I I X I I I I i I I I I ] I I I I j I I I I ] I I I I i I I I I T I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b b b b mCC a �❑ 'o �� �e � � � wQ��z� �w w oQw�aw LL¢oPo z z w y LL w w Z w I I I I I I I I I W C, I I J I W — coi — — IM i . W I � W _ I I a - W � �_ W a - - w F W N V o 0 = W W 2 I I I I I D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b O U �OaZz N Q z U Q �Qo°'o _� w 23 Lu LL w O w z m z z Iw I o x Im mW s 3 a W = co _-_----i-------------- I 1 I I I I I tiQ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b -❑ O o� a P�YD m �a A,Lu o O Q Q F z 03Q� R'< 0Qo°'o o _ O a m 0 O LL zoo J w a \ Z I I I I I I — — — -- — ------- — - — - — - — o m m o WPI o y a m o I —--------' b —❑ o cin a P�YD �e o O Q Q F z �OQZz ¢_ w: O Q w7z W O�am m 0 p wzw w ` w o a I I M ------ --- -- ^ I�I� - I o ro m� 4�-s ® j 0 I m m - ------------------------- -------------------------- W 0 r ------------------- h m ? 0 W I 0 b LU O W LLJ ti O o�am�p gp �pZ TT cc JOQ y pae g g o s Q = 2 F. Wco nfl Z �jos a s� aa== CII) ca ciz14 �Z w N, WLL, WO r ti W Am os gra _LiE W-1 _z Gaa zg�,QOQwao�z�Qaa�EzpaGa� - - wP3 MN - -_ 81 - 'E _Qs < _ ws OD �mJ YgEa� Guo '. Ep 15Ls10 - - - LLaa�oazz zoo w�E3�a3_z�as- z aoaa�ao m� aav�_s �oEF aa��o �a�a o Ej 5 Is81C�a 5 - - 2 2 Z - - a w of fw - �9 J 2 ow y (1 w LU W O 0 �Z a T GC GC u h Q p g go 0 oN $' 0 4yp E --JO 2 co V O p W j W O Ml <E o �Ga ae am�ao m o o a o K G - AS Go - og pq AE - o - - - - - - s s _ -x 6 5 R - - - - _ - No - _ - �o�N�`oo ��o<w�«o�iEao�o:GB��i�s���m6�EG9 �Gc� 3moomo �m m. ����ooGzay000< o Gz o- rcErc _ M uzGoo- .a o- - __ - -- - og pq _ - - - - - - - - - _ - No - _ - �o�N�`oo ��o<w�«o�iEao�o:GB��i�s���m6�EG9 �Gc� - og pq - - - - - - No R, Y §_ N w a J 2 2 nl €gap e �_� W 0Z�O - W opo p g p amp �L J j N T s s Q 2 I. Wco 21 e O 4o g o ao ms a W W ti W V C ' y lu o�G8 A, x� U J p c U W G o O W LM W <� J W fq i 2 oGa KES "-E 2 W m m = o o E —E 3Ew3Eww3 Q 00 y 0 V yo m wE oho m IEN w fq - 02 In ¢ D W 0 3a2 W n _ ogo yg - -<<- - g 4J NNo� N 3Eao z� TI -\,- \of U J p c U LM <� W fq i oGa KES "-E 2 W m m = o o E —E 3Ew3Eww3 Q 00 y 0 V yo m wE oho m IEN w - 02 ¢ D W 0 3a2 W n _ ogo yg - -<<- - g 4J NNo� N 3Eao z� TI -\,- \of U J p c U LM <� W fq i oGa "-E 2 W m m = o o E —E 3Ew3Eww3 Q 00 y 0 V yo m wE oho m IEN w - 02 W - -<<- g 4J U J p c U LM <� fq m a 00 y m \�(/(( `.. ��^ : (\)_( }� �C) 2 q\ 2 \F.� < y \_ �ca�ods Lu ?\ , k� �LC \ oas Y� §_ a w a J 2 ow w sa a` €gaLLJ p o 4a a am € p �LQQz_ Z J 40 0 o N 4op w $_ 2COZ (9 y W 2 a4o ga m a m¥o bm pooh _ ¢ m • a ap cW ' LU I� o ga€ CO LC gp9 �� p :E, tl Man Y � Y J. � IW til 2 N ^_- ? }(` •- LUP,{ ��K N RR §Z/ 2�£ kko® kV- LU �o \\\}\ =,y LL 2\%)21 \ ■ �' � �� - | | | | | | ■ | � . �� ............ X }\\( ■ �' � �� - | | | | | | ■ | � . �� ............ X p J Z o w z_H a ti O 4I g� m 3p Wm gI S 3og'� m � J O d wco co t S A� rycCQ�i T Wg LL O W o W a� a s aog _ �GQZ ZWcc �e y oa a £s E A 5� S 3og'� m QO o w co 2 `. CC `G ¢ V 4 4 a r 0 - 2 I - I I I I I I I _ I - _ N I I - - J - 2 J 2q Uf � N mN m�p ��ad 33 WH N mx W a a s a. aog ZLU N �LQZ � T W € = gm 3p Wm gi S 3og'� m E= O d w pC V- W ¢yIN ZW u Iv O J o U. Ly Go O� V2 aaWW\\ o o R y W J 0 p� EEE W 2 _ OW J 0 " 20 VW V U. m ti Dooms°¢k' s o� oa� Qga 4 0 W 2 0 o 0 " ti , T, m w 2 U o J W w a a 0 T ¢ o --- — —— — -- — 0 m yT 4 J U W aG W M H to 0 _TO da" o3 T ZEl G U 4 o w Li ILL 11, -. CD CD EIN "No k" .H—EH E M� MtUE OR 11, -. CD CD Lu� zm CO CM zm El El o t A- IJJ� Ue � a nnoa m$ Q� 6 r rr r r r r r rra r rr r o a El El Y _ z5mm5o�aa�o<�o`<o���zm<o 6 M r M r r n M rrrr r r r n Co Y _ z5mm5o�aa�o<�o`<o���zm<o 6 M r M r r n M rrrr r r r n (Da D- L a oN oP c. ? 9 dbLVo a O 8 5 5 w z z....Iz ��555�5 z z z.z Z e i i iii _❑w o 7N ryep� �� r � o O zN U � i pZo O � � � RSNJY • ��m `W/ W a o ° ry p � z Q a U w w rNnO Z W Q `opo O V 0, o oN O N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I ��• I I• I I I _� i• •„ I• r — I � m I I I I I I I L I W I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I e I W I I I I I I I I I I J I I _ I I I I o----- s� I I I I — � �7Js I 0 a v ¢s =aEo des G_ a ¢s o H RO nos b b b b b e a rile- ����� � o_ _goo Sa 000 U Y —❑w ��N �„ � o pN � pZ 0 0 s� J l ep • m W W (V Q a w O O O O m � s m o 2 � � a sss Ssm 5 x vii Z $� E� U Y w NO a O W NG fR � U d "epo> � RS�J�i •a �W w N G N w U �Na OHO p0 � V 20� — � V N e z 's?o=F S3 HIS S1 e gF ear o - � sa s ams o4 P sQ MINMu ss ��� a=_�ee's -� Qs�� �Wx �= Wok w 0=���3��so H I o ie M oil =pa �e�ao$ �dmHIS =5RK8m8==3_�a ion", - - - - - 3 _ ?z ia 1 lip Z O x u���s Buo Y¢sw a�go -- Y� y�c � o� - �__ __- OHM, OEM N- =5y<o<� - &m - � l ff` - e'§� omh"m�Qi�'ae�`;�'S3$�3 og2 _�� �5 5„ �5 uG _ Num ¢uS a3 - 1 - v _ ��¢ _¢ - PL j1 ��.', E� Rc wFm��Y�o pE � - - - -0 3s 3- y___ Ku_E� - - 'Gm§aa o _ m_G =M �.._�£� W. §o a� - ogo S. - m�6 o Rill U _ _ �y a i<o `�= =`�'�¢ Y - -�§_E - S'�mo `'> des ue -- ,�'"§�SY.,�soE - ,.a - �m S o��Qo� m �e �" so `, W oseas�,= -3g3�s3<„€oaxS=Yo�o§€���EE��€_”=�- e -4s< - - Y a7��e-a�a� HAH ���_MINI11111 21HI - og�w,ooaon`xwoo'a�^�_� Ic_- - -_€-- of - =€mow= m - e€����o�Ho`a's sE==a$&Y - - �m���Soo��__�a'z.,omY208s dao B��§as�_<_xu lZ�u&tea mas doom �d �x;mo e �. _ - 41a _�_� ^ j Es�ye� �� Y -3 i 8 =Sus / V I G �S o` ''� a�o� o - Ga £oma �e� a maom Sm o§£ _ o °€�'s�^ - '� � �;`�' So 4=<§ a���=�� as _ 8< 5��63 - � oYo 1A1915 o s� ;fid SAN Y��� R 1 IM O _ �o: S' - �§� � �£� oWNm Mi sa8�§u9 Z Hill!§G Em e Y ag io $o N S<a og b 4 _ Gwu - -'e Em Ne Y�' pp <Ye c" Goa= 3 H §�w 4 R G,G 1Q=o== mss' _ Hip! �_ u�_ mY6o oY gEo �Gd S'o g<�S eNa �£u 3�Y=sw'S8 s 3`< - ¢E¢ � - ,� G 1#�o CSG Amis �_ Yo oa a�§¢� z�.. ^¢¢ uo�§ _ 86_0 N - So.,.�. _ - _ <§Z -=udo5 �8o£s6 �o ��5- WON 08 §�- 3v <Powo _��Ys ��G���E - - _om�< - TY�� m#= -- - w=� _- Sym'= Ng o -- =�5s __§&. _ &G �� iW i¢=� d IMP �mws VSs €�o o�oV6§��oe �a oda _ �3§em oda=o€ _- o'<��� 5§ §'g� eY"owe ��� G wso=o ogY oc - - -e�9 �s S§B �m�s� 000 deo n .,- §oY� Y3 m3o��6s epi§ oEoe m4`.� Y 2 a8 sg d it _ _ s 8 00 onto § § Y 3 8a S a duo Y z m� m 3 �oY � un! o - oho �m _ Noun! _� F�ar��� = § Y oYp� _ _ �o S F�����o'�� _ _ � ��., ��'e � __ Why W h - �� - 04 - - Ge oa =40 Asea �_ �' �� ��.. €4 �asm�o�E � sS � ��a° o�=�� - � - - � u� � a �-<� � o�< a� �`- _ a�mogm� _ - - �'� as =�omn� mwa o _ m �e� N topa �a "M E3 Fo 358§:38m-m§ p-oYma - m Hj Y<oo og= 111 SCId�YNaopm4s€ N w~ O O w NG �U a IrrI C9 w = U S Q¢ � °s�J�f ryepo, Me w ry ¢ �a uZj Z pip p0 _ V o Na w ' I I• I � I I Sd J¢ I I I $U s` I — ¢c�avv U " Z b 0 NO O ❑� w O NG �N �U C� rIC9 �_ � o w ON = U a SQ¢ �Zo N o'a w ■V cJ O I I I I I I I I I I I `I I= I 1lI LJ I I =sol I --- -------------------------- -'�------------------------- o--- As As --- — ---------------------- j I j jI j j j j I j b w~ a _❑ w 'p 7 N �a � o p w � 0 ¢ Z O � � ~ o� Y ry epos, • a W W w � � w D� N a 0 0 sY s T4s os5� Sz G a p aWo� 3 "o os¢eN _ - - 3 m�cGw� F s��z"rc'zoG: qua 5�u� 2`so o ss... e.wb�i�ipa<u =a<s zeds 5 IT B n E6.- 1 � m�= <5e La,� x3,�aaa g z �a=om M, ��� �g SEE :n Y — �El ke = 3 o o ' O k ^G ®O ®0 8 o� �v oa�o ee© 00 c'za - ode m`4os U s 5gg m8Nmn og w � � m z � � a I s m 5=` P - - �\ =- ww . /agl( : (} \ \ ° })_ / Hj TIE-- � -- -- ..:::.. - Nis 9 8 e 8 7 rrr. �I rr� r� i1II`"`��� 111;®`II� \I VI i is llil' 'i II u_ O O O O t� 10 o O U _❑W o `�N rrI �= ZN oOoZo�w w o O F °°N JJ Y. nepo�� •a �W w N� �a w 0 O ms O U N \ �� o�� - - iso ok'w " Ym g� �o'm '� Hui - _� a 'ate ¢'- =two His �_ , ui H �o G� �a� '§ 3� 3o Nip „�m = � =00000 a$ s3 - - ` ip is � °'gado x Za -14 o4 1 og oG ¢4e - ao� - 8� 11 6S ym w8 s _ �� 3w�G� - - ��€�a&m u= S __ - o§E 3 ow e9 _ pig = a 8 MUM �`s o �"'6 �'� a€poa MOTO ?G ��_- - w o a z o �ooVa \c $ 5Yo �x �3g §o sa�Y - �N � L Il r ¢aSsu�G'� w ��o Z -zg o G`B O \ 3 O sa3z a� -16 ""*IF 38 �So � p€ £� :�� =3� ggo;g5�6 m s 5$ o ANG M �� o�� - - iso ok'w " Ym g� �o'm '� Hui - _� a 'ate ¢'- =two His �_ , ui H �o G� �a� '§ 3� 3o Nip „�m = � =00000 a$ s3 - - ` ip is � °'gado x Za -14 o4 1 og oG ¢4e - ao� - 8� 11 6S ym w8 s _ �� 3w�G� - - ��€�a&m u= S __ - o§E 3 ow e9 _ pig = a 8 MUM �`s o �"'6 �'� a€poa MOTO ?G ��_- - w o a z o �ooVa \c $ 5Yo �x �3g §o sa�Y - �N � L -zg 3a3z �� o�� - - iso ok'w " Ym g� �o'm '� Hui - _� a 'ate ¢'- =two His �_ , ui H �o G� �a� '§ 3� 3o Nip „�m = � =00000 a$ s3 - - ` ip is � °'gado x Za -14 o4 1 og oG ¢4e - ao� - 8� 11 6S ym w8 s _ �� 3w�G� - - ��€�a&m u= S __ - o§E 3 ow e9 _ pig = a 8 MUM �`s o �"'6 �'� a€poa MOTO ?G ��_- - w o a z o �ooVa \c x - �N 0 L -zg 3a3z �g sa3z �E p€ £� :�� �E ggo;g5�6 m s 5$ o ANG M — ipy 1pa�s oV �md - o ozz asci .ozz as isfl€ - moo h6 O6 aG Ac W � S a 8 (U/1 H X Hal �o Sm m j a Ya 4G o,om4po 8a 50 _a oa o0 No F�-_ pSa�>a G� - o - wax q'o 8 5 �� o�� - - iso ok'w " Ym g� �o'm '� Hui - _� a 'ate ¢'- =two His �_ , ui H �o G� �a� '§ 3� 3o Nip „�m = � =00000 a$ s3 - - ` ip is � °'gado x Za -14 o4 1 og oG ¢4e - ao� - 8� 11 6S ym w8 s _ �� 3w�G� - - ��€�a&m u= S __ - o§E 3 ow e9 _ pig = a 8 MUM �`s o �"'6 �'� a€poa MOTO ?G ��_- - w o a z o �ooVa \c x - �N 0 L C� C� p€ £� :�� s 5$ o ANG M — ipy 1 e I / E lion i S¢ oV �md �� o�� - - iso ok'w " Ym g� �o'm '� Hui - _� a 'ate ¢'- =two His �_ , ui H �o G� �a� '§ 3� 3o Nip „�m = � =00000 a$ s3 - - ` ip is � °'gado x Za -14 o4 1 og oG ¢4e - ao� - 8� 11 6S ym w8 s _ �� 3w�G� - - ��€�a&m u= S __ - o§E 3 ow e9 _ pig = a 8 MUM �`s o �"'6 �'� a€poa MOTO ?G ��_- - w o a z o �ooVa - �N p€ £� :�� W 5$ o ANG M oe §c"5 ate$ oV �md - o - moo h6 O6 aG Ac w~ a mepo F � ooN Y • o � .. a w N `opo 0o I I I I I ® ®; o • I ? I ;• ~ I I `° --- ---�--I 1----I-----J-- ---- -- — -------- , I I W I I I I I i I � 0 W I I I I I ° � I I =goy_ I I a - I I o 0 I I s= § s I oa s�� 33ou 00 oa ok EE min R7 oP H Q. N- Hm 0 �a Z w U Y � ��� v`'sva�l�, ryes= • �� �ms W w w o� O� 2 a U w tNd � Q wLLwI��F o vo M o I ��■ I I I■ O a • I I■ ° I - I I a o---- I I x W H I I a z I I 5oe o< W W I I Li J L Li - N - -Elo W CD LLJ _ C w El w - CD-- f�t� wNw �1� Il�ll1;��l1 II I' Illi ��� i IIII!! ll i r. i 4 O O O - ` \ m r% i« M ■• t w2a ca — Cc. 'g Z Z°fie o \ F o �ai ¢ w w z I I I I I e§4 E000e s" os j o as sus emx 7 e=� sumo ��so o- — — — — — maga § m o o R8 y= a�J ----------------- �=az6 a og� s g< ¢a j o- — — — — — 'esu' Lposu oa §h ous Off c-- --- -_ _-_-_-_ s a _ s P- _ €8 e� - _I��� s; eye - § spm o 8s "€se s- ssga a� - oo� �m $ EA H aas ;, �G ses 0e o O o�m06o O e Jis Ym Rw �� nub ^So §ao'= oss N� oa e� ao dg 0 0 U z O m El Ls los I s 0 U U _ Ed El e RE El LE E Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 6, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 DATE OF REPORT: May 18, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-225 SUBJECT: Bill 23 — City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register Review RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized, and designation be pursued for the following properties: • 24 Courtland Avenue East; • 26 Courtland Avenue East; • 2-22 Duke Street East; • 70 Francis Street North; • 54-68 King Street West; • 144-150 King Street West; • 58 Queen Street South; and • 73 Young Street BACKGROUND: On January 1St, 2023 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) came into effect through Bill 23, the More Homes Build Faster Act. One of the primary changes introduced was the imposition of a new timeline which requires "listed" properties on the Municipal Heritage Register to be evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria for heritage designation before January 1St, 2025. Listed properties are properties that have not been designated, but that the municipal council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. The criterion for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario Regulation 9/06, which has now been amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22) and a minimum of two must be met for a property to be eligible for designation. A work plan to address these changes has been developed by Heritage Planning Staff with consultation from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7t", 2023. Implementation of the strategy has now commenced. This report provides a summary of the findings for the first properties fully reviewed, and recommendations for next steps. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 394 of 507 REPORT: Ontario Regulation 569/22 (Amended from Ontario Regulation 9/06) Among the changes that were implemented through Bill 23, the Ontario Regulation 9/06 — which is a regulation used to determine the culture heritage value or interest of a property, was amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22 (O. Reg. 569/22). Where the original regulation had three main categories — design/physical, historical/associative and contextual - with three (3) sub -categories for determining cultural heritage value, the amended regulation now lists all nine (9) criteria independently. The new regulation has been amended to the following: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has 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. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Also, among the changes brought about by Bill 23 are how properties can now be listed or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They include: - Properties would warrant being listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register if they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). - Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). Pursuant to O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22), the subject properties meet the following criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. 24 Courtland Avenue East Page 395 of 507 The subject property municipally addressed as 24 Courtland Avenue East meets 5 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). The existing building is a three- storey row townhouse built in 1889 in the Vernacular Victorian Gothic Architectural style. • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • This property has historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, believe, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • This property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 26 Courtland Avenue East The subject property municipally addressed as 26 Courtland Avenue East meets 5 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). The existing building is a three- storey row townhouse built in 1889 in the Vernacular Victorian Gothic Architectural style. • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • This property has historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, believe, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • This property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 2-22 Duke Street East The subject property municipally addressed as 2-22 Duke Street East meets 6 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • This property has historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, believe, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • This property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Page 396 of 507 • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 70 Francis Street North The subject property municipally addressed as 70 Francis Street North meets 5 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • This property has historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, believe, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • This property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 54-68 King Street West The subject property municipally addressed as 54-68 King Street West meets 8 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • The property has 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. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings • The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. 144-150 King Street West The subject property municipally addressed as 144-150 King Street West meets 8 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Page 397 of 507 • The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. • The property has 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. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. • The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. 58 Queen Street South The subject property municipally addressed as 58 Queen Street South meets 4 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has 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. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings 73 Young Street The subject property municipally addressed as 73 Young Street meets 8 of the 9 criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). The existing building is an early 20th century church built in the Gothic style of architecture, also known as the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has historical or 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. Page 398 of 507 • The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings • The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Heritage Kitchener Committee Options for Designation Option 1 — Pursuing Designation for these properties Should Heritage Kitchener committee vote to start pursuing designation for these properties, staff will then contact the respective property owners to inform them and to start working with them towards designation. Staff will then bring back Notices of Intention to Designate back to the Committee to get the designation process started. Should a property owner object to their property being designated, they can submit an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) to rule on the decision. If the OLT determines that the property should not be designated but remain listed, it will be removed from the Municipal Heritage Register on January 1, 2025. Option 2 — Deferring the Designation Process Should Heritage Kitchener vote to defer the designation process for these properties, they will still remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register under January 1, 2025, after which they will have to be removed. The process of designating these properties can be started at any time until January 1, 2025. Option 3 — Not Pursuing Designation for these properties Should Heritage Kitchener vote not to pursue the designation of these properties, they will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which they will be removed. Once removed, these properties will not be able to be re -listed for the next five (5) years i.e. — January 1, 2030. It should be noted that currently staff are undertaking evaluations for high priority properties that are in located in areas of the City undergoing rapid change. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT AND COLLABORATE — The Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) have been consulted at previous meetings regarding the proposed strategy to review the Municipal Heritage Register of Non -designated Properties and participated in the assessment of the properties subject to this report. Page 399 of 507 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 — DSD -2023-053 Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 PREVIOUS REPORTS APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — 24 Courtland Avenue East Statement of Significance Attachment B — 26 Courtland Avenue East Statement of Significance Attachment C — 2-22 Duke Street East Statement of Significance Attachment D — 70 Francis Street North Statement of Significance Attachment E — 54-68 King Street West Statement of Significance Attachment F — 144-150 King Street West Statement of Significance Attachment G — 58 Queen Street South Statement of Significance Attachment H— 73 Young Street Statement of Significance Page 400 of 507 �o 15 340 VICTORIA PARK 341 :6550 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 24 COURTLAND AVENUE EAST r -' '351 . ! ! 2 - MILL CCURTLAN❑ 1N(sC1pSIGE PARK 9 - 361 11 1 I�TcxEr�ER 10 25 Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value []Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 24 Courtland Avenue East Legal Description: Plan 398 Part Lot 20 GCT Part Lot 175 Year Built: 1889 Architectural Style: Vernacular Victorian Gothic Original Owner: Martin Nelson Original Use: Residence 4 Page 401 of 507 1 I�TcxEr�ER Condition: Good Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 24 Courtland Avenue East is one unit of a three storey late 19th century brick row house building built in the Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style. Part of a walk-up row housing block known as "Nelson's Terrace" - the building is situated on a 0.05 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Courtland Avenue between Queen Street and Benton Street in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the 9 -unit walk-up row house building. Heritage Value 24 Courtland Avenue East is known for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the unique Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The design value also relates to the walk-up row house building. Walk-up row housing is rare in the context of Kitchener, with not many examples of such housing in the City. The building features: • yellow brick Construction (which has been painted in a salmon colour); • Decorative brick work, including brick voussoirs, brick label trim and tri -brick keystones on the front fagade of row -house; • Flat roof with cornice, fascia and frieze; • 2nd floor segmental door opening with voussoir; • Segmental window openings; • Original1/1 hung windows and window transoms on the basement and ground level of the front fagade. • Stone Foundation Historical/Associative Value The associative and historic values relates to the buildings original owner, purpose and relationship to adjacent industrial buildings. The building was built by Martin Nelson to accommodate the female workers from the adjacent Williams, Greene and Rome Shirt and Collar Factory on Queen Street South. Nelson also established the Nelson & Forsyth Foundry on King Street West at College Street. The Foundry produced furnaces, boilers, pipes, and heaters. Significant later Page 402 of 507 1 I�1 R owners of the row house building included: Isaac Shantz, A.O. Boehmer, and Joseph Bingeman. Isaac Shantz took over Nelson's Foundry and the Shantzes operated it until 1910. He also bought the row -housing block. The units of the row house were individually sold beginning in 1947. This walk-up row housing is also representative of the development that was taking place in Kitchener to support the industrial development that was taking place in Kitchener in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the buildings historic and visual link to the adjacent industrial buildings, including the former Williams, Green and Rome Shirt and Collar Factory (now known as the Bread and Roses Cooperative) and the Arrow Shirt Factory. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 24 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style of the building, including: o Yellow brick construction; o Original windows and window openings, including: ■ Segmental window openings; ■ 1/1 hung windows; and, ■ Transoms; o Original door openings, including: ■ 2nd floor segmental door opening; ■ Stained glass transom inscribed with the number 2; o Roof and roofline, including: ■ Flat roof; ■ Cornice, fascia, and frieze; o Decorative brickwork, including: Page 403 of 507 ■ Brick voussoirs, ■ Brick label trim; and, ■ Tri -brick keystones. Photos 1 KrTcHEN�R Page 404 of 507 �.� J- r r e - Front Fagade of 24 Courtland Avenue East Page 405 of 507 Page 406 of 507 1 KrT HEN�R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 24 Courtland Avenue East Deeksha Choudhry Address: Recorder: Row Townhouses, c. 1800s Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Date: February 15, 2023 ❑X Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade X Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 407 of 507 1 Krrrr•uFNFR * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical values N/A XUnknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Page 408 of 507 1 KIT('HF:NF.R designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Adjacent townhouses all designated under Part IV. Has already been evaluated by the Designation Sub- committee. Staff is doing further research to confirm cultural heritage value as per the Heritage Kitchener workplan 2022-2024. Page 409 of 507 1 KrT(:HF:NF.R Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A XUnknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑ Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if Page 410 of 507 possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential X Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 411 of 507 Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 412 of 507 1 I�TcxEr�ER STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 26 COURTLAND AVENUE EAST >r` 15 cv -" <. f 3 6 ,1, L F� 340 342 VIc ToRlk PARK J 360 30 32 is r; PtL,:,- IF -7 flC 'i., -C rc peek 12 l ki[ l k� Summary of Significance 0 Design/Physical Value ❑Social Value 0 Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value 0 Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address- 26 Courtland Avenue East Legal Description- Plan 398 Part Lot 20 GCT Part Lot 175 Year Built- 1889 Architectural Style- Vernacular Victorian Gothic Original Owner- Martin Nelson Original Use- Residence Page 413 of 507 1 I�TcxEr�ER Condition: Good Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 26 Courtland Avenue East is one unit of a three storey late 19th century brick row house building built in the Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style. Part of a walk-up row housing block known as "Nelson's Terrace" - the building is situated on a 0.05 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Courtland Avenue between Queen Street and Benton Street in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the 9 -unit walk-up row house building. Heritage Value 26 Courtland Avenue East is known for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the unique Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The design value also relates to the walk-up row house building. Walk-up row housing is rare in the context of Kitchener, with not many examples of such housing in the City. The building features: • Yellow brick Construction; • Decorative brick work, including brick voussoirs, brick label trim and tri -brick keystones on the front fagade of row -house; • Flat roof with cornice, fascia and frieze; • 2nd floor segmental door opening with voussoir; • Segmental window openings; • Original1/1 hung windows and window transoms on the basement and ground level of the front fagade. Historical/Associative Value The associative and historic values relates to the buildings original owner, purpose and relationship to adjacent industrial buildings. The building was built by Martin Nelson to accommodate the female workers from the adjacent Williams, Greene and Rome Shirt and Collar Factory on Queen Street South. Nelson also established the Nelson & Forsyth Foundry on King Street West at College Street. The Foundry produced furnaces, boilers, pipes, and heaters. Significant later Page 414 of 507 1 I�1 R owners of the row house building included: Isaac Shantz, A.O. Boehmer, and Joseph Bingeman. Isaac Shantz took over Nelson's Foundry and the Shantzes operated it until 1910. He also bought the row -housing block. The units of the row house were individually sold beginning in 1947. This walk-up row housing is also representative of the development that was taking place in Kitchener to support the industrial development that was taking place in Kitchener in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the buildings historic and visual link to the adjacent industrial buildings, including the former Williams, Green and Rome Shirt and Collar Factory (now known as the Bread and Roses Cooperative) and the Arrow Shirt Factory. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 26 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Vernacular Victorian Gothic architectural style of the building, including: o Yellow brick construction; o The original height, scale, and massing of the townhouse; o Original windows and window openings, including: ■ Segmental window openings; ■ 1/1 hung windows; and, ■ Stained glass transom; o Original doors and door openings, including: ■ 2nd floor segmental door opening; ■ Stained glass transom; o Roof and roofline, including: ■ Flat roof; Page 415 of 507 ■ Cornice, fascia, and frieze; o Decorative brickwork, including: ■ Brick voussoirs; ■ Brick label trim; and, ■ Tri -brick keystones. ■ Stone Foundation Photos 1 KITC�NER Page 416 of 507 Page 417 of 507 J �t 26 w x Front• - of • Courtland Avenue Page 417 of 507 Page 418 of 507 1 KrT HEN�R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 26 Courtland Avenue East Deeksha Choudhry Address: Recorder: Row Townhouses, c. 1800s Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Date: February 15, 2023 El Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 419 of 507 1 Krrrr•uFNFR * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical values N/A XUnknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Page 420 of 507 1 KIT('HF:NF.R designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Adjacent townhouses all designated under Part IV. Preliminary evaluation has already been done by the designation sub -committee. Staff are doing in-depth research to confirm cultural heritage value as per Heritage Kitchener work plan 2022-2024. Page 421 of 507 1 KrT(:HF:NF.R Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A XUnknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑ Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if Page 422 of 507 possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential X Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 423 of 507 Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 424 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 2-22 DUKE STREET EAST Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address: 2-22 Duke Street Legal Description: Plan 401 Pt Lot 11 Pt Lot 12 Year Built: 1931 Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: W. H. Breithaupt Original Use: Commercial Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource []Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑Environmental Value 2-22 Duke Street East is a two-storey early 20th century brick commercial building built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.09 -acre parcel of land located on the north side of Duke Street East between Queen Street North and Frederick Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Page 425 of 507 Heritage Value 2-22 Duke Street East is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. Design/Physical Value The building as 2-22 Duke Street East has design and physical value, being a notable and unique example of the Art Deco architectural style as well as displaying a high degree of craftmanship through the many detailed elements of the structure. The building is two -storeys in height and possesses approximately 50 metres of front along Duke Street East, creating a long horizontal backdrop for the streetscape. Front South Fagade The front of the building faces Duke Street East and is comprised of thirteen pilasters that create twelve bays of varying widths. The two bays on the west and the three bays on the east may be additions that were added after the original construction period, as the height of the roof is slightly lower, and the pilasters differ in appearance. Further, they create an unsymmetrical composition and lack masonry detailing about the second story windows that is visible on the seven center bays. The three western -most pilasters and four eastern- most pilasters appear to be made from cast -concrete, while the remaining six pilasters in the center are brick. Each of the thirteen are capped with decorative stone detailing, with the two central most containing stone finials and floral motifs as well. Each bay except the central portion contains two single hung windows with soldier course heading and stone sills on the second story. The center -most bay contains a two-storey semi- circular opening that serves as a central entrance. Stonework with the Breithaupt Family Grant of Arms tops this semi -circular arch. West Side Fagade The west side fagade faces Queen Street North and is framed by two pilasters composed of cast -concrete and topped with a decorative stone cap. A stone belt course divides the two storeys. The rest of the fagade is covered with angel brick. East Side Fagade The east facade directly abuts the adjacent building and is not visible. Rear North Fagade The rear north facade is primarily composed of brick, though a portion of the eastern end has vinyl cladding. Casement windows with stone sills are placed in a symmetrical pattern along the second storey, except for the vinyl-cladded portion. Historical Value The property has historical and associative value as it relates to the theme of economic growth and development in the downtown area as well as has direct association with the Breithaupt family. The building was built and originally owned by William Henry Breithaupt. The Breithaupt's were a prominent family in the history of Kitchener, being involved in numerous businesses including the Breithaupt Leather Company, the Berlin Gas Company, and the Berlin and Waterloo Railway. The family also had a strong political presence, with different members acting as mayors of then -Berlin as well as being members of the House of Commons. Page 426 of 507 William H. Breithaupt was a civil engineer by education, graduating from the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York in 1881. At the time of his death, he had lived to be one of the oldest graduates of the school. Upon his return from the United States to Berlin in 1900, he carried on the family interest in both the Berlin and Waterloo Railway and the Berlin Gas Company, which had been previously managed by his late brother Carl. In addition, W.H. Breithaupt took grate interest in both city planning and heritage preservation, being the first chairman of the City Planning Commission from 1917-1921 as well as a past president of the Ontario Historical Society. He directly contributed to the organization and establishment of the Waterloo Historical Society in 1912, acting as the first president and holding the position for twelve consecutive years. W.H Breithaupt built the Bridgeport Line in 1902, which were later taken over by the city as public enterprises along with the Waterloo line and the Gas Company. Other notable builds of his include the casino for the Bridgeport Railway Park and the Grand River Country Clubhouse, which was the site that first introduced golf to Kitchener. He was directly involved with the initiative which led to the erection of the Memorial Tower and was a part of the development of the Grand River Conservation Scheme, pioneering flood control and conservation through storage reservoirs. Through his efforts the opening of Duke Street from Queen to Frederick Street was also secured. Mr. Breithaupt was recognized by membership in the Engineering Institute of Canada (past member of Council), the Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain), the American Society of Civil Engineers (Life Member), the American Institute of Consulting Engineers and the academic fraternity of Sigma Xi. Since its construction in 1931, 2-22 Duke Street has been home to numerous businesses. The sites first tenant was Herman Ahrens, who worked as a local tailor. Other early shops included Freddie and Jack's Sporting Goods, Grip Tite Roofing, and the Sheehy Brothers. The commercial use of the building continues to this day. Contextual Value The contextual value of the property relates to its physical, historical, functional, and visual link to its surroundings. The building sits on the intersection of Queen Street North and Duke Street East, in its original location. It retains its original use as the home to multiple local businesses. It is surrounded by other historic buildings, including 49 Queen Street North (St Peter's Lutheran Church) to the south, 10 Duke Street to the west (the former head office of the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Kitchener), and 15-29 Duke Street East to the north (the Federal Building, which is both a Recognized Federal Heritage Building and listed on the Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 2-22 Duke Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Art Deco architectural style of the building, including: o Roof and roofline; o Windows and window openings; o Door openings; o Concrete sills and soldier course headings; o Two central brick pilasters topped with finials and decorated with floral motifs; o Two-storey semi -circular opening; o Breithaupt Family Grant of Arms; and, o Pilasters and decorative stone caps. Page 427 of 507 References Biography: William Henry Breithaupt. Waterloo Historical Society, Thirty -Second Annual Report. Page 428 of 507 Side Elevation (West Fagade) Page 429 of 507 Close up of one .U� WHOLE g the different pilasters and decorative brickwork above the second -storey windows Page 430 of 507 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 2-22 Duke Street East Address: The Food Block Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Jessica Vieira Recorder: — Date: February 15, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade X Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Heritage Kitchener Committee Recorder- Heritage Planning Staff 1. This property has design value or N/A ElUnknown ElNo ElN/A ElUnknown ElNo El physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ElUnknown ElNo ElN/A ElUnknown ElNo El physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value o r N/A El Unknown El No XN/A El Unknown El No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 1 of 6 Page 431 of 507 1 KrT HEr ER * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occurred. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, Page 2 of 6 Page 432 of 507 1 KrT HENER artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Left and right portion of the building may be an addition? Different roof height, different pilasters Page 3 of 6 Page 433 of 507 1 KrT HEN�R Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑ Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity - Page 4 of 6 Page 434 of 507 building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required 1 KrT HENER N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial X Office ❑X Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 5 of 6 Page 435 of 507 1 KrT HENv R Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 6 of 6 Page 436 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 70 Francis Street North V ,o, I L GORE Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address: 70 Francis Street North Legal Description: Plan 374 Part Lot 125 & 126 Year Built: c. 1898 Architectural Style: Queen Anne Original Owner: Albert Ruby Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource ❑Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑Environmental Value 70 Francis Street North is a two -and -one-half storey late 19' century brick house built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The residence is situated on a 0.24 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Francis Street North between Duke Street West and Water Street North in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Page 437 of 507 Heritage Value 70 Francis Street North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. Design/Physical Value The building at 70 Francis Street North has design and physical value, being a representative example of a late - 19t" century residential dwelling constructed in the Queen Anne Revival architectural style. It utilizes a mix of materials in its design, including buff brick — now dark and weathered in appearance — cedar shake along the gables and turret, and black asphalt shingles. Front South Fagade The building is asymmetrical in its massing, with projecting bay windows to the left and an octagonal turret with an eight -sided conical roof to the right. The projecting bay has a gambrel roofline, and the rest of the roof is steeply pitched. Frieze board decorated with a foliated scroll wraps around the turret, while frieze board with a simpler dentil pattern is present along the rest of the second -storey roofline. Fan brackets with ornamental pendants are also present at the corners of the projecting bays. A porch spans the full width of the front, and its roof is supported by six square posts. The main entrance is in the centre of the front fagade. The door has a large centre window and 12 raised panel detailing. There is a transom and sidelights surrounding the door. The windows on the front are mostly rectangular in shape and are a mix of casement, single -hung, and double -hung. The windows not located on either the turret or the gables have soldier course heading and either concrete or stone sills. There are two windows on the first floor that have semi -circular stained and leaded glass transoms with radiating voussoirs and molded brick trim. West Side Fagade The west side fagade maintains the asymmetrical massing. There is a two-storey bay with three windows on each storey to the left, and a brick chimney flute and chimney to the right. The windows are single hung with solider course heading and stone or concrete sills. A portion of the rock -faced stone foundation is visible on this side of the structure. Modern additions including cables and gas -metres are also visible. East Side Fagade The east side fagade possesses an asymmetrical massing. The octagonal turret which forms part of the front fagade also forms the left side of the east fagade. To the right, there is a two-storey protruding section with gabled roof, cladded in wood siding. The windows on this section are casement. There is also a semi -circular window with a radiating voussoir and brick sill on the ground floor. Rear North Fagade The rear of the property was not accessed. Historical Value The property has associative value due to the original ownership of the home and historical value in relation to economic development within the City. The residential dwelling was built for Albert Ruby, a prominent citizen and life-long resident of Berlin (now Kitchener) and a major contributor to the furniture industry within the area. The property itself was obtained by Nelson Ruby, Albert Ruby's father, in 1881, with the house constructed by Albert Ruby in 1898. It remained in the Ruby family until 1966. Page 438 of 507 H. Krug Furniture Company was established in the 1880's by Albert Ruby in partnership with Hartman Krug. The Rub -Krug business relationship lasted many years, and their connection developed further when Albert Ruby and Hartman Krug later married sisters Frances Dunn and Mary Ann Dunn and became brothers-in-law. Albert Ruby acted as the First Secretary Treasurer of Krug Furniture Co. until his death in 1932 at the age of 66. The position was then superseded by his son Leonard W. Ruby, who later became the Vice -President of the company in 1954, the President in 1962, and Chairman to the company in 1971. The Ruby family still retains a prominent presence and remains actively involved with Krug Furniture, with Len Ruby being the President of the company as of 2023. The establishment of Krug Furniture was instrumental to the growth and development of the City and its economy. In the early 1900's the company was reputed to be the largest furniture plant in the British Empire, and consequently by 1920 the Town of Berlin emerged as the furniture capital of Canada. Major furniture shows were hosted within the City and buyers would travel across the country to Berlin in order to view new trends. Krug Furniture continues to be a leader in the design and manufacture of furniture solutions, specifically now for offices and healthcare, and it remains one of the oldest businesses still operating in Kitchener. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the buildings physical, historical, and visual link to the surrounding area. The building is in its original location along Francis Street North and is surrounded by other historic buildings. This includes 64 Water Street to the south (the First Church of Christ Scientist), 97 Victoria Street North to the north, and 42 Francis Street North further to the west. Though the house is now used as an office space, it continues to contribute to the continuity and character of the Francis Street North streetscape. Further, it is historically linked to the Krugs Furniture factory located in proximity at 111 Ahrens Street West/135 Breithaupt Street. Heritage Attributes ■ All elements related to the construction and Queen Anne architectural style of the building, including: o irregular building plan; o buff brick laid in a common bond; o rock -faced stone foundation; o Projecting two storey bay on south elevation with gambrel roof; o modified gable roof; 0 octagonal tower with an eight -sided conical roof; o plain fascia, moulded soffit, and frieze with dentils and mouldings; o windows and window openings, such as the 1/1 windows with flat rusticated lintels, the large first floor windows with half -round transoms, the 1/1 round topped windows with decorative surrounds and keystone, the three part oriel window; the three section window with a two section elliptical -arch transom and brick label and, the two storey bay window with a bracketed pediment gable above; o main entrance door with single light, sidelights and transom with beveled glass; and, o verandah. Page 439 of 507 r <� f ✓ r, `i �1van� Lrcrrox r <� f ✓ r, `i 'Al:r i� 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 70 Francis Street Address: The Ruby House — Queen Anne Style Residential Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Recorder: Date: Jessica Vieira ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade X Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade X Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Heritage Kitchener Committee Recorder -Heritage Planning Staff 1. This property has design value or N/A ElUnknown ElNo ElN/A ElUnknown ElNo El physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ElUnknown ElNo ElN/A ElUnknown ElNo X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value o r N/A El Unknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 1 of 6 Page 443 of 507 1 KrT HEr ER * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, Page 2 of 6 Page 444 of 507 1 KrT HENER artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Page 3 of 6 Page 445 of 507 1 KrTcHEN�R Additional Criteria Heritage Kitchener Committee Recorder -Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑ Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards Page 4 of 6 Page 446 of 507 equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required 1 KrT HENER N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑X Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 5 of 6 Page 447 of 507 1 KrT HENv R and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 6 of 6 Page 448 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 54-68 King Street West Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value i 62� a4 aP ot,��sT 10 48 o W ..�36 / /// iii'?'ip;�i•'��i: •' 30 � Eleotrohonte Mural ' � � v � i :•, RooF ' i2 - � • , � � Vo % i874n - ,'fi/F r 18 16 9 166J60564 48 8 L4h'F. �P Th encu seu m Conrad Centre I ;� i • _ � � ;y For The Per"ngf, AAs /ir,•,!i •10 !:i Oueen St '• 1 1 Stili a Markery�" 55 i !f: 4541 30 ❑Social Value ® Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 54-68 King Street West Legal Description: PLAN 383 PT LOT 5 PLAN 401 PT LOT 2 PT LOT 7 Year Built: 1963 Architectural Style: Modern with influences from different eras of architecture Original Owner: Bank of Nova Scotia Original Use: Bank Condition: Excellent Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 54-68 King Street West is a one -storey 20th century commercial building, built in the Modern architectural style with influences from different eras of architecture. The building is situated on a 0.36 -acre parcel of land and is located on the north side of King Street West, between Ontario Street North and Queen Street North in the City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Heritage Value 54-68 King Street West is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value in addition to its economic value. Page 449 of 507 Design/Physical Value The design and physical value of the building resides in its architecture and physical construction. The building is a unique expression of Modernist architecture that also utilizes classical and neo-classical motifs. It is this sophisticated blending of different styles from varying eras that make the subject property a significant piece of architecture within the community. Through its material use and other detailing it also displays a high degree of craftmanship. The facades are composed of Indiana limestone and green and white marble as well as bronze detailing. The building is only one -storey in height, but the ground floor possesses 30 -foot -high ceilings which gives the appearance of two -storey's. South Front Facade The front of the building faces King Street West, and is a limestone facade with five bays. The four bays off -set to the west are original, while the fifth to the east is an addition. The addition is identifiable by the differing colour of the surrounding masonry, and further it visually alters the composition of the front facade. The first and third bay from the west as well as the fifth bay addition are composed of a screen of twelve white marble panels set in bronze mullions, with triple windows below. The marble panels are arranged three across and four high, and where the mullions meets there is a projecting pyramidal decorative element. The second bay from the west contains glazed double -entrance doors flanked by a window and located above the entrance, a limestone slab inscribed with the Bank of Nova Scotia Coat of Arms. The first three bays and the fifth additional bay are framed by green marble. The fourth bay is limestone arranged in an ashlar pattern. A modeled cornice adds further interest to a flat roofline. West Side Facade The west side facade faces Ontario Street North and is composed of five bays, evenly spaced and similar in appearance to the white marble bays on the front facade, with triple casement windows below. The molded cornice continues along the roofline. East Side Facade The east side contains the new bay addition. The east facade directly abuts the adjacent property, and most of this facade is not visible. The molded cornice from the front and rear extends briefly on either side, before terminating. It then becomes a flat parapet. North Rear Facade The rear fa4ade is composed of white brick, except for a narrow vertical strip of limestone on the western side that is arranged in the same ashlar pattern as that of the front and west side facade. The molded cornice continues along the roofline. There is a small brick addition one -storey in height that contains a door — this is the only opening on the rear facade. Historical Value The historic and associative values of the building relate to its association with banking institutions, most significantly the Bank of Nova Scotia. The original building of this branch of the bank was established in 1912 and located north down the street, at the property municipally addressed as 100 King Street West within the Canadian Block. The bank moved from its original location to its current corner location in 1926, into the building formerly known as the Merner Block. The Merner Block had been a bank since the turn of the century, being formerly occupied by the Union Bank prior to its occupation by the Bank of Nova Scotia. Page 450 of 507 Due to a need for increased space, the Merner Block was demolished in 1962 and replaced with the existing one -storey building. Construction of the new building began in 1963 and lasted approximately a year, and the branches official reopening occurred early in 1964. The project cost approximately $500, 000 and provided almost twice the floor area as the original building. According to John S. Proctor, then the executive vice- president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, the new building reflected the continuously improving economic climate in Canada. The bank was designed by Kitchener architect Carl Albert Rieder. Over the 47 years of his career, Carl Rider made significant contributions to the development of the Modernist style of architecture in Southwest Ontario and in the Waterloo County region specifically. His name can be linked to over 400 buildings, including collegiate and university projects, public buildings, ecclesiastical works, industrial facilities, and private residents that display innovative designs. Within Kitchener some of his most notable work includes Eastwood Collegiate Institute (1955-56), Highland Baptist Church (1958), and the Kitchener Public Library (1959-61). His completed design for Eastwood Collegiate gained internationally recognition, being one of the few Canadian buildings to be featured in the issue of leading British Architectural Journal The Architectural Review, and in Nikolas Pevsner's book, New Buildings in the Commonwealth. In 1968 this branch location was selected to be one of fifteen branches to implement Scotiabank's new Cheque Guarantee Card, which was the first instance in which coloured photographic ID was used in banking operations. In 1969 it became the last branch in the area to stock gold in the form of coins, wafers, and bars. In 1995 it became the centralized location for Kitchener -Waterloo Commercial Business Activities, staffing specialized teams to service Mid -Market and Corporate clientele as well as the area's Independent Business sector. This site and building have significant association with banking institutes, as well as association with programs and initiatives undertaken by the bank that reflect how such institutions and their processes have changed and developed over time. It reflects the economic client of both the area and, to some degree, the country at the time. Further, the building is a demonstration of the work and skill of an important local architect, who has been recognized by the Ontario Association of Architects for his contributions to the field. Thus, 54-68 King Street West has significant historical and associative value. Contextual Value The contextual value of the building relates to its importance in maintaining the commercial character of the surrounding area, as well as its physical, functional, visual, and historical link to its surroundings. The building is located at the intersect of King Street West — a primary road within the downtown core area — and Ontario Street, and it has occupied this site since 1926. It is within the Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape, which is within the City Centre District and is an area that has historically been recognized as the heart of the downtown and a focal point of the Region. The area is occupied by a mix of uses, with hotels, banks, and other commercial enterprises being the original anchors of the commercial core. While this area has continued to evolve, many of the late -19th century and early -20th century commercial structures remain today. In addition, the distinct architectural style of 54-68 King Street West and its location on a corner lot along a primary road makes the building prominently visible and easily recognizable. Page 451 of 507 Other Values Economic Value Within Canada, banking institutions act as both major employers and essential contributors to the Canadian economy, contributing approximately 3.8% to Canadas Gross Domestic Product. As of January 1, 2023, Scotiabank specifically has over 90, 000 employees and assets of over $1.3 trillion. As such, branch locations possess and reflect economic value. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 54-68 King Street West resides in the following: ■ All elements related to the construction and architectural style, including: o Limestone facade; o White marble panels set in bronze mullions; o Bronze mullions with pyramidal projection at each intersection; o Limestone slab inscribed with the Bank of Nova Scotia's coat of arms; o Moulded cornice; o Roof and roofline; o Windows and window openings; and, o Doors and door openings. References • Steven Mannell, "Images of Progress 1946-1996: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region" • Kitchener -Waterloo Record, "Old Bank Building May be Replaced" (April 3, 1961) • Kitchener -Waterloo Record, "Bank Official Sees Uptrend Continuing" (February 29, 1964) • Kitchener -Waterloo Record, "K -W Commercial Business Activities now centralized as Scotiabank's K -W Commercial Banking Centre" (December 6 1995) • Waterloo Historical Society, Volume 95 Page 452 of 507 '774E .:a Page 454 of 507 Detailing of Limestone Inscription Above Front Entrance Page 455 of 507 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: 54-68 King Street West The Bank Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Andrew & Danny Recorder: — Date: March 15, 2023 ❑X Front Facade ❑X Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑X Rear Facade ❑X Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 1 of 6 Page 456 of 507 1 KrT HES ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it Barnett & Reider demonstrates or Page 2 of 6 Page 457 of 507 1 KrT HENER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is a Yes ❑X Yes ❑X landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes A metal cornice is missing on the south side of the building. Mike Wagner Heritage Award. Page 3 of 6 Page 458 of 507 1 KrT HEr ER Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A El Unknown El No XN/A El Unknown El No X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑X Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑X Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ features that should be Yes ❑X Yes ❑X added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Page 4 of 6 Page 459 of 507 Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial X Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required 1 KrT HENER N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes El X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Co mmercial X Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 5 of 6 Page 460 of 507 1 KrT HENER and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Eastern portion of the building is an addition, notably by the coloration, and in the rear it is all cinder blocks. Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 6 of 6 Page 461 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 144-150 Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value KING STREET WEST 54 j! d Clay C�° /Berlin,Tawc •,oaie/�85 r�r� �X } _ 52,' �/ArJace ��jj•jI/ /j"`,, •'... rr r dd/ Municipal Address: 144-150 King Street West Legal Description: Plan 362 Lot 4 & 5 Pt Lot 3 Year Built: 1895 Architectural Style: Classical Revival Original Owner: - Original Use: Commercial and Office Building Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value L Ele 144-150 King Street West is a four -storey late 19th century cast concrete commercial building built in the Classical Revival architectural style. The building is situated on 0.15 acre parcel of land located on the north side of King Street West between Young Street and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener in the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the four - storey commercial building. Heritage Value 144-150 King Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Page 462 of 507 Design/Physical Value The design and physical value of the building resides in its architecture and physical construction. The building is a representative example of the Classical Revival architectural style in a commercial building. The structure is four -storeys in height. Renovations to the front were completed in the early 21St century, which included covering the original pre -cast concrete cladding with a different cladding. Though some original detailing was lost, the work largely maintained the original appearance of the structure. Front South Fagade The building fronts onto King Street West. The front fagade is divided vertically by five piers three storeys in height, creating four bays. Each bay contains a single -hung window on every storey save the ground floor. The structure is divided horizontally by a corbel table above the first storey, with a second corbel table sitting above the fourth storey and below the parapet. Crenels are cut into the parapet, giving the roofline a unique and distinct shape. The parapet also contains an inscription that reads "Weber Chambers", which gives the structure its name. West Side Fagade The west side fagade directly abuts the adjacent building and is not visible. East Side Fagade Due to the proximity of the adjacent building, only a portion of the east side fagade is visible. The east side fagade is composed of buff brick. There is three windows with stone sills and lintels along each storey save the first floor. A fourth window opening along each storey appears to have been closed up. There are two exposed ducting systems that are visible on this fagade. Rear North Fagade The rear fagade is comprised of buff brick. Each floor contains a symmetrical fenestration pattern and can broadly be classified into two styles. Towards the left portion of the fagade, each storey has two windows with upper and lower sashes. The upper sashes are fixed, and the lower sashes can be opened or have an air conditioning unit installed. Towards the right portion of the fagade, each storey has a window with a single upper sash and portions of the lower sash that can be opened. Next to the windows is a recessed door entry with side transoms. These doors and windows have a fire escape staircase. All doors and windows have concrete lintels and sills. The second to fourth storeys contain three casement or single -hung windows with stone sills and concrete headers, as well as a door and door opening on the west side, with a flanking window. Each door opening also has a stone header, and the openings lead to a fire escape. It appears that five different openings on the ground floor have been closed, as the bricks are different colors, do not seem as weathered, and stone headers remain. The building also demonstrates a high degree of technical and scientific achievement. The King Street West fagade is likely the first in the City to be built with a precast concrete fagade. The current fagade is clad with an exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) similar to stucco; however, the original precast concrete fagade still exists behind the new cladding. In addition, It is believed that this building was the first building within the City to install an elevator. Historical Value The subject property has historical value due to its connection to the theme of economic development in the downtown area. Page 463 of 507 In 1840 David Weber sold a one -acre parcel of land north of King Street and east of Young Street, all within Lot 16 and part of the 3 -acre trade made by his father-in-law in 1833 to Frederick Gaukel. This parcel became the site of the Mayfair Hotel and the Weber Chambers, which is the inscription seen on the parapet of 144-150 King Street West. The Weber Chambers building originally housed storefronts on the ground floor and office spaces above. Notable tenants of the property have included: London Life Conservatory of Music (1912); Met Life Insurance Co. (1912); Wm. Cairnes, Real Estate (1912); H.L. Staebler Co. Ltd., Insurance (1924 and 1933); Salts and Chemicals, Ltd. (1924); Bricker & Sons, Ltd., Wholesale Jeweler (1924); R.W. Ripley, Dental Laboratory (1933); and, G.E. Schlee, Advertising (1933). The site was the long-time home to the Palladium Restaurant, whose "Candy, Ice Cream, Palladium Restaurant" sign was easily recognizable by locals at the time, and which served downtown Kitchener well into the 1980's. Also operating for many years under the Palladium was William G. Sahli, a watchmaker -jeweler. William. G. Sahli's career spanned 68 years, concluding with his retirement in 1978 at the age of 83. He had serviced three generations of the same family and other locals within the area, and, like the Palladium Restaurant, became a staple of the Kitchener downtown. In 1985 the second to fourth storey office spaces were converted to residential uses, but the ground floor retains its commercial uses. Contextual Value The contextual value of the building relates to its importance in maintaining the commercial character of the surrounding area, as well as its physical, functional, visual, and historical link to its surroundings. The subject property is located within the Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape, which is within the City Centre District and is an area that has historically been recognized as the heart of the downtown and a focal point of the Region. The area is occupied by a mix of uses, with hotels, banks, and other commercial enterprises being the original anchors of the commercial core. Though the upper storeys are now residential units, the groun floor maintains its original commercial use and continues to support the commercial character of the area. In addition, while this area has continued to evolve, many of the late -19th century and early -20th century commercial structures like 144-150 Weber Street remain today and further contribute to the character of the area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 144-150 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Classical Revival architectural style, including: o Rectangular plan; o Yellow buff brick on the side and rear elevations; o Roof and rooflines; o window openings; o Stone lintels and sills; o door openings; o EIFS (Stucco) fagade; o Tall three-storey piers; o Storefronts with plate glass windows and doors; o Corbel table above the storefront and below the roofline; o Crenellated parapet; and o Inscription on parapet reading "Weber Chambers." Page 464 of 507 Photographs Page 465 of 507 i1ll�,`k'l i� j V Rear Elevation (North Facade) Page 466 of 507 Side Elevation (East Facade) Page 467 of 507 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Andrew Portegen, Address: 144-150 King Street West Recorder: Donny Vongphakdy Four -Storey Classic Revival Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Date: March 15, 2023 ❑X Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑X Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 1 of 7 Page 469 of 507 1 KrT HES ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or Page 2 of 7 Page 470 of 507 1 KrT HENER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑X Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Page 3 of 7 Page 471 of 507 1 KrT HENER Stone fagade painted black at ground level, including cornice. No longer tallest building or landmark. Windows in the rear have been bricked off. Venting systems on east elevation covered with foam and aluminum. Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A El Unknown El No El N/A El Unknown El No El original outbuildings, Yes ❑X Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑X Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X original materials and Yes ❑X Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the • Front fagade underwent Statement of Significance extensive renovations in and indicate which early 2000's — some original elements are still existing details were lost. Original and which ones have been pre -cast beneath existing removed. stucco cladding Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ features that should be Yes ❑X Yes ❑X added to the heritage attribute list? Page 4 of 7 Page 472 of 507 Condition: Is the building in good condition? *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential X Commercial X Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required 1 KrT HENER N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential X Co mmercial X Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 5 of 7 Page 473 of 507 1 KrT HENER * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes Page 6 of 7 Page 474 of 507 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: 1 KrT HENER Page 7 of 7 Page 475 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 58 QUEEN STREET SOUTH 41, � FS ine V4;. 91 Onc_Jne P.—`; _ Of m3my M-1 ti Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value s,. ❑Social Value ®Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address- 58 Queen Street South Legal Description- Plan 391 Part Lot 6 RP 58R-9667 Part 3-5 Architectural Style- Renaissance Revival Original Owner- Weber Hardware Original Use- Commercial Condition- Good Page 476 of 507 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 58 Queen Street South is a late 19th century building built in the Renaissance Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.06 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Queen Street South between Charles Street East and King Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Heritage Value 58 Queen Street South is recognized for its design/physical, significant historical/associative and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Renaissance Revival architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: a rectangular plan; brick construction; decorative brick work; and, paired 1/1 hung windows with transom and stone headers and sills. East (Front) Facade The existing building is 3 storeys in height in brick construction and has a flat roof. The ground floor of the front fagade is currently occupied by The Working Centre, and includes a floor -to -ceiling windows with a recessed entry. The second and third storeys include three windows each with decorative stone headers and sills. The windows are not original and have been recently replaced. Above the third storey windows are three rectangles with decorative brickwork. This fagade also has a brick buttress on the left side that extends all the way up to the roof of the building. North (Side) Facade This fagade abuts the neighboring building at 54 Queen Street South. West (Rear) Facade This fagade has been extensively altered since it was first constructed. On the first storey, there is a door with multiple building system units installed. The second storey contains three row windows in a one-on-one orientation with stone sills and brick soldier course on the left side of the building, and on the right side there is a single window with stone sills. The third storey contains three windows placed at equal distance from each other with stone sills and brick soldier coursing. The window on the right -most side has a small balcony. South (Side) Facade Page 477 of 507 This fagade abuts 66 Queen Street South to the left, and only a portion of the third storey is visible. This fagade contains brick construction and another brick buttress towards the end of the fagade. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin (now Kitchener). This building has significant historical/associative value because of its historic and current use. John Fennell The building was once used as a hardware company. The hardware company was founded on June 1, 1863 by John Fennell and carried his name for 60 years. John Fennell was born on August 8, 1837, in Cobourg, Ontario. John Fennell arrived in Kitchener, known as Berlin at the time, on June 1St, 1863 and was a young hardware merchant at the time. He was a prominent and one of the most successful businessman in the community at the time, and his hardware company sold plated ware, paint, glass, oils, etc. In addition to being a successful businessman, he was also an important member of the society at the time. He was the founding present of the Board of Trade and the founding organizer of the Economical Mutual Fire Insurance Company. In addition to all these achievements, he also served as a Councillor on Berlin's Council from 1881-1882. In 1886, the Berlin Board of Trade was established, with John Fenell serving as it's first President. He was instrumental in preparing the by-law, some of which stand today as they were prepared. He also served as a Justice of the Peace. In addition to these activities, John Fenell also served as a Church Warden of St. John's Church for many years. John Fenell died in 1922, the property and firm was purchased by Carl Nicholas Weber from John's widow, Alicia Jackson. Carl Nicholas Weber After Carl N. Weber purchased the property and firm, he renamed it to Weber Hardware Co, Ltd in 1923. Carl N. Weber was born on January 19, 1899, in Elmira. For many years, he operated Weber Hardware Co. Ltd. In addition to his business interests, he was also a long-time member and President of the Kitchener Board of Trade, and he was also elected as a chairman of the Kitchener Urban Renewal Committee in 1971. He has also served as a Director for Canada Trust, the Equitable Life Insurance Company, and the Economical Mutual Insurance Company. Beyond his business interests, he also served Kitchener's community as a member of the K -W Hospital Commission for twenty-two (22) years and was chairman for twenty Page 478 of 507 (20) of those years. He was a member of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo from the time it was founded in 1957, till his death in 1978. Carl Weber was also an active member of the Lutheran Church. He served as a Canadian delegate to the World Council of Churches in India in 1961, representing Kitchener and Canada on a global platform. He was also a member of the executive council of the Lutheran Church in America, a member and chairman of its board of publications, and a member of its pension board. Carl's company, the Weber Hardware Co. Ltd., operated out of the building at 58 Queen Street South from c. 1918 until 1927 when it moved to the building at 66 Queen Street South. The company moved to the building at 675 Queen Street South in 1987 and the company is currently known as C.N. Weber Ltd and still continues to operate today, becoming of the rare businesses surviving from the time when Kitchener was still Berlin. The Working Centre The existing use of the building is for The Working Centre. The Working Centre has been operating out of this building since the mid 1980s. According to The Working Centre's website: "The Working Centre was established in the spring of 1982 as a response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. The Centre grew roots in the Kitchener downtown through the dedication of Joe and Stephanie Mancini, a young married couple who had just graduated from St. Jerome's College at the University of Waterloo. They saw the potential for building a community of interest around responding to unemployment and poverty, developing social analysis and engaging in creative action." Contextual Value This building has contextual value as being built in the downtown commercial core of Berlin, before it became Kitchener, and is a part of a group of buildings that were built at a time when industrial and commercial development in Berlin (now Kitchener) was happening. Today, these buildings are located in the downtown commercial core of Kitchener, and greatly contribute to the character of the area. The building is in its original location, and maintains historical and visual links to its surroundings. Economic Value The existing building has economic value as being representative of a building with a history that contributes to the economic development that was taking initially in Berlin, and then in Kitchener in the late 19th and early 20th century. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 73 Young Street resides in the following heritage attributes of the Gothic architectural style: Page 479 of 507 The heritage value of 58 Queen Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Renaissance Revival architectural style of the building, including: o a rectangular plan; o Flat roof; o brick construction; o Decorative brick buttresses; o decorative brick work; and, o window openings with stone headers and sills; ■ All contextual elements related to the building including: o Its original location on Queen Street South streetscape and its contribution to the Kitchener downtown commercial area. Page 480 of 507 PHOTOS 9 ~� m - 58 2ueen Street South b3 s, The Working Gentre 58 Queen Street South — Front East Fa ade Page 481 of 507 Page 482 of 507 i.! A 12 62-66 The Working Centre ' I 58 Queen Street South 158 Queen Street South E Page 483 of 507 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: Description: 58 Queen Street South c. 1900, Renaissance Revival (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Andrew Portegen Recorder: — Date: March 10, 2023 ❑X Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade X Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 484 of 507 * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑ because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical values N/A El Unknown El No XN/A El Unknown El No X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist Page 485 of 507 who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Access from 3rd floor at rear face of building onto roof of adjacent property. Recent window replacement evident on 2nd and 3rd floors Page 486 of 507 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X original outbuildings, Yes ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑X Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑X Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Page 487 of 507 Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes to Indigenous heritage ❑ ❑ and history? ❑X Additional Research Required ❑X Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial X Office ❑ Other ❑X - Social N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Notes about Additional Criteria Examined N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑X Office ❑ Other ❑ - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X ❑ Additional Research Required Page 488 of 507 Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 489 of 507 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 73 YOUNG STREET Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value Municipal Address- 73 Young Street Legal Description- Plan 401 Part Lots 1, 3-5 and 7 Year Built- 1900 Architectural Style- Gothic Original Owner- St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Original Use- Church Condition- Good ®Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Page 490 of 507 44 57 g. 111 _ ,.. 36 32 52: - � I. i•. Al .. 46 31 fF .A 1, 42 ...``, ...."".�: h... 40 .. -120 GG t 22 •� •++�. it G //, ,� 19 Dder or n G-Irnun1N CwW 2, CITY' _COIAMERCIRL CORE _ 5117 ala4Fr� Fa7i rci f11 -,� "+.. 72 .Iuall�iu nes Ca ird CIN Centre Renin T --r One 05 A rtw_ .. hl 1t18 - 4 141 . 1 •''e ,�� I i y.... I.•. I 22[7 71C , Y1C � .. 4G. .ku; .. 0�,. ..�i.:a .:1 [art:•::• E�nk CI::.rtii.I, - .. 198 �•` �,q...,: 96 _ �i��•��!�i/` . III C Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value Municipal Address- 73 Young Street Legal Description- Plan 401 Part Lots 1, 3-5 and 7 Year Built- 1900 Architectural Style- Gothic Original Owner- St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Original Use- Church Condition- Good ®Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Page 490 of 507 Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 73 Young Street is an early 20th century building built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.98 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Weber Young Street between Duke Street West and Weber Street West in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 73 Young Street is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative and contextual values. Desi_gn/Physical Value The design/physical value of this building resides in its Gothic architecture, laid out in the shape of a Latin Cross with extensive use of decorative brick and stone moulding, buttresses, and circular brick tiles and overall symmetry of the church with similar fagade and fenestration patterns on the facades. Front/Main Facade (West Elevation) The main fagade of the church can broadly be divided into three sections: The left most section is a three-storey tower of red brick construction with two brick buttresses on either end and with a brick corbel table on the third storey. There are two long arched windows with tracery on the arches. The first -storey has a single two -over - two arched window. The ground floor level also has a big arched window with decorative detailing and tracery. There is a band of decorative stone bandcourses on each storey. All the windows have decorative stone moulding and trefoil detailing. The central part of this elevation contains two big arched doors with tracery with stone detailing. The first storey has a gable end with a cross at the top and brick quoining one the roof slopes towards the peak. Above these doors is a statue of Virgin Mary in the centre, with two circular rose brick tiles on each side. One the second and third storeys, there are two decorative stone arches with gable peaks on either end, with a large central decorative stone arch containing a large central rose window with tracery, and a decorative rose brick wall tile and smaller arched windows underneath it. This section also has a gable end with a cross with brick quoining. The right most section of this fagade includes two square buttressed towers with conical peals topped with small crosses with a total height of four (4) storeys. The first storey includes a door with decorative tracery and stone detailing. The second and third storeys also contain arched windows with tracery with the top of the tower containing three arched but segmented windows. There are decorative stone bandcourses on each storey of the tower. Page 491 of 507 Side Facade (North elevation facing Weber Street) This fagade includes a three-storey tower following the same fenestration and decorative pattern from the left-most section of the front fagade, except instead of a door, the first storey has a small arched window with decorative stone moulding. The central part of this fagade is only one -storey, and has four (4) buttresses, with gable peaks and decorative brick arches, dividing the fagade into 5 bays. Each bay contains a large arched stained glass window with tracery with two small arched windows on either side of them. At the end of this fagade is a large rose window with a gable peak with decorative brick quoining. There also seems to be an arched entry way on this fagade infront of the left hand side corner -most bay. Rear Facade (East elevation facing Ontario Street North) This fagade is generally semi -circular with brick buttresses on the upper storey, dividing this fagade into five (5) bays on each storey. There is a circular window with tracery, with a chimney with decorative brick detailing. There also seems to be wooden addition on this fagade which was added probably after the church was built. One the ground storey, each bay contains three (3) arched windows with a soldier course and sills. At the end of the fifth bay, there a rectangular extension with arches windows and sills. Side Facade ( South Facade Facing Duke Street) This fagade includes a circular window with tracery on one end, with a section protruding from the rest of the fagade. This section has a gable peak with a cross and a large circular rose window with tracery, stone moulding and a small arched window underneath that. Following a similar fagade pattern as the elevation facing Weber Street, the central part of this fagade includes four (4) buttresses with brick gable peaks and brick arches, dividing this section into 5 bays. Each bay contains large arched stained-glass windows with tracery and decorative stone moulding. On the other side of this fagade are two squared buttressed towers with conical peaks topped with small crosses. The first storey includes a small arched window with decorative stone moulding. The second -storey includes a larger window with decorative stone moulding and tracery. The third storey includes two windows with trefoil tracery and decorative stone detailing. The tower peak includes three arched windows with decorative stone moulding and brick corbelling. Page 492 of 507 Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin (now Kitchener). This land has always been used a church, with that use continuing till today. The church today sits on land that was purchased on August 16, 1854 from David Weber for $200.00. Prior to the formation of St. Mary's Parish, the few Catholic families travelled to St. Agatha Church to attend Mass. In 1852, Kitchener, which at that time was Berlin, was chosen to be the county seat. Since this was chosen to be the leading community, the Jesuits chose the this area to make a community centre. Father Rupert Ebner S.J., who was the spiritual leader from 1848 to 1856, encouraged the Catholics of Strassburg Williamsburg, Bridgeport, and Lexington to unite with those of Berlin to build a church, and the group agreed. On September 17, 1854, the cornerstone was laid by Bishop DeCharbonnel of the Toronto Diocese. The church was completed in 1856, blessed by Bishop Farell, the first Bishop of Hamilton, and was given the title of St. Mary of the Seven Dolors. The original church measured 80 by 40 feet with additions being constructed in the next few years. On June 26, 1892, a meeting held in the church resulted in a discussion for funding the construction of a new church because of crowding and it was decided that the church would collect monthly funding to fund the new church. By 1899, the church had sufficient funds to purchase the adjoining land from John Fenell for &7,500.00. On September 30, 1900, Bishop T. J. Downing laid the cornerstone and in the late autumn of 1903, the church was completed. It had been planned by Arthur William Holmes of Toronto. It's date of construction, having been built at a time when Kitchener was Berlin, makes this church is one of the oldest churches and buildings in Kitchener, thus having significant historical and associative value. Arthur William Holmes This building also has significant associative builder due to Arthur William Holmes, the architect of the Church, who devoted most of his career to designing buildings for the Roman Catholic Church in Southern Ontario. Holmes was born in London, England in 1863 and received his early education there. He then went on to train with George Edmund Street (1824-1881), the `innovative master of the High Victorian style' in England. Holmes emigrated to Canada in 1885 and opened an office on Adelaide Street in Toronto. Initially, he worked with Joseph Connolly, first as a student then as a draftsman. During this time, he converted from Protestant to Catholic, which would have profound effects on his career. Upon entering into a partnership with Albert A. Post in July 1891, together they executed several designs for Catholic churches in communities around the Toronto Region. With the death of Joseph Connolly in 1904, Holmes became the successor of his former mentor, and Holmes then dominated the field of ecclesiastical design for Roman Catholic Churches in southern Ontario until 1940. Page 493 of 507 Some of his works include: Holy family Roman Catholic Church at King Street West in Toronto, St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church on Queen Street East in Toronto, St. Helen's Roman Catholic Church in Toronto, St. Clement's Roman Catholic Church in Preston, St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church in Welland. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to physical, historical, functional and visual link to the buildings surroundings. The building is located on the block bounded by Duke Street, Young Street, Weber Street and Ontario Street. The west portion of this block was historically owned by St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. Historic buildings still present on the block include: the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church; the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Presbytery; and, the Lutherwood's Betty Thompson Youth Centre (historically known as the Notre Dame Convent). In addition, the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church has a strong visual presence, including important views, on Duke Street and Young Street as the building occupies a large site slightly elevated on a hill. This church has also been recognized as a landmark within Kitchener. Social Value St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church has significant social value as a place of worship that has been Kitchener for over a century. This building has been providing these services for over 100 years and as mentioned in its contextual value, has become a landmark and a place of importance in the community. Places of worship often provide intangible community value as a place where people gather during, and is often a central piece of a community. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 73 Young Street resides in the following heritage attributes of the Gothic architectural style: ■ All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the building, including: o all elevations of the building o The scale and massing of the building; o Roofline; o plan of building in the shape of a Latin cross; o red brick, including brick buttresses and other brick details; Page 494 of 507 o stone decorative details, including surrounding windows, on the buttressed towers and sills; o gothic pointed arch door and window openings, including: ■ gothic pointed arch windows with tracery; ■ four sets of double wood doors with hinges on the front elevation; ■ stained glass windows; ■ rose window and statue of the Virgin Mary above front doors; ■ rose windows on the transepts; o two square buttressed towers with conical peaks topped with small crosses; and; o decorative circular brick tiles above rose windows and on either side of statue of Mary; o trefoil stone details; o Rusticated stone foundation; and o All other decorative elements on all elevations of the building. ■ All elements related to the contextual value of the building; o The original location of the building at the intersection of Weber Street West and Young Street. Page 495 of 507 PHOTOS Page 496 of 507 Page 497 of 507 73 Young Street — Architectural Detailing Page 498 of 507 F-7 sPuk .ave' w 73 Young Street — Architectural Detailing Page 498 of 507 N8 TR 11 1 73 Young Street —East Facade (looking towards Ontario Street North) Page 499 of 507 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: Description: 73 Young Street Roman Catholic Church, c. 1900 (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Andrew Portegen, Recorder: _ Donny Vongphakdy Date: March 14, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade X Right Fagade X Rear Facade X Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 501 of 507 * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical values N/A El Unknown XNo El N/A El Unknown El No El associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it A.W. holmes demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist Page 502 of 507 who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is a Yes ❑X Yes ❑X landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Breezeway connects church to parish office at 56 Duke Street, Wooden addition/lean-to at rear/ left of building. Left face, new brick entrance for elevator entrance, roof appears newer— black metal roofing Page 503 of 507 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑X Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original outbuildings, Yes ❑X Yes ❑X notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original site? Yes ❑X Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ original materials and Yes ❑X Yes ❑X design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ features that should be Yes ❑X Yes ❑X added to the heritage Stone Foundation attribute list? Stone Foundation All other architectural detailing on all facades not yet included within the Statement of Si nificancc Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards Page 504 of 507 equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the present function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X _-_Place of Worship N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X - N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X ❑ Additional Research Required Page 505 of 507 Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 506 of 507 c 0 m m 3 c - o O Oi i (6 lL p_ a) W 0 c O N m O w oo -O C O CO Ecu° o f m Q U .o u❑ – C -O cN Y i CD -O .0CU-O = .� O CDCL N •V c O cu'p C (6 Y c o C 2 p o rA 7�1 i .�. OU a) (6 a) >, c6 -O -p / ❑ (B -O o C O a� N -O - nIS,I o ocOpw c o oO . CLo Yo -O pC Y UN= o❑ a) O – 3 CO V N 00_ o a) O N ❑ pd E c a a a u 3 ❑ Q o o bq p, i+ 0 I/1 lf' d V N 1—x1 Q Y 0 0 U u a � y c m c c m c V o > as U U '� bq •^�" M co M M ai"i '3i y M N N N N N 1�1 � WpXk W 7 6 r N N 04 N N N N x o 0 0 0 0 p W N ❑ N ❑ N Cl N ❑ N ❑ M N c a � � o N •� U Q v y v _ (1) z Cif `n (n o yQ H LL 2 oo p it v �o M r 6 ❑ co po W N M � it O O O O O O O O w G o 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 z N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q a a a a a x x x x x r N N N N N N N N N N M M