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 - 2023-08-01
Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, August 1, 2023, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair - J. Haalboom Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 3.1 Item 4.1 - Dan Currie and Rachel Neiser, MHBC Planning 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment - 10m 3 1254 Union Street - Construction of a Maintenance Facility, DSD -2023-316 4.2 Notice of Intention to Designate 64 Water Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2023-317 itsa [eIe7 4.3 Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review — 25 m 130 August Update, DSD -2023-309 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 6. Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Administrator 182 Page 2 of 182 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: August 1, 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: July 3, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-316 SUBJECT: Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street Construction of a Maintenance Facility RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated May 2023, prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding a proposal to construct a one - storey maintenance/warehouse facility on the subject property municipally known as 1254 Union Street. The subject property is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage interest or value on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject property is also located adjacent to the Union Street Cultural Heritage Landscape. The cultural heritage value of the property lies in the existing two-storey building built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The landscaping of the property has also been identified for its contextual value. The applicant is proposing to construct a one -storey maintenance/warehouse facility located towards the rear of the property, with no alterations being proposed the existing two-storey building (Fig. 1). The submission of a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of a Site Plan Application to construct the warehouse facility. *** 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 182 Figure 1: Proposed Concept Plan. Source: Draft HIA The draft scoped HIA has concluded that the subject property meets only one (1) out of the nine (9) criteria for designation and could remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. Due to the timelines associated with processing planning application due to Bill 109, the Site Plan Application has received conditional approval, subject to several heritage conditions, including the approval of the scoped HIA. Heritage Planning staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing detailed comments to the application to address any areas that require further assessment and discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning staff are seeking the committee's input on the draft HIA and these comments will be taken into consideration as staff continues to review the HIA and the associated planning application. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the August meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Page 4 of 182 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 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - 1254 Union Street Page 5 of 182 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (DRAFT FOR SUBMISSION) 1254 Union Street Kitchener, ON Date: May 2023 Prepared for: Prepared by: MlacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MIHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our Fife:l5183C' c L; 410 ' rlray�� r' l Irt. pop MHBC P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE A.RCNiTECT,;PE Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 PropertyOwner............................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities...................................................................................................................................3 ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................6 1.1 Description of the Subject Lands...............................................................................................................................................6 1.2 Heritage Status......................................................................................................................................................................................7 2.0 Policy Context..........................................................................................................................................................................................11 2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement.......................................................................................................11 2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe............................................................................................................12 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06.......................................................................................................13 2.4 Region of Waterloo Official Plan..............................................................................................................................................14 2.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan.....................................................................................................................................................15 2.6 City of Kitchener CHL Study........................................................................................................................................................19 2.7 Terms of Reference..........................................................................................................................................................................19 3.0 Historical Overview................................................................................................................................................................................21 3.1 History of Indigenous Peoples..................................................................................................................................................21 3.2 County &Township of Waterloo.............................................................................................................................................21 3.3 Subject Lands......................................................................................................................................................................................23 4.0 Description of Subject Lands.........................................................................................................................................................35 4.1 Description of Buildings................................................................................................................................................................35 4.1.1 Building 1: Former Warehouse......................................................................................................................................36 4.1.2 Building 2: Former Machine Shop...............................................................................................................................41 4.1.3 Building 3: Utility Building................................................................................................................................................42 4.1.4 Temporary Structure............................................................................................................................................................43 4.2 Description of Landscaping........................................................................................................................................................44 4.3 Description of Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL.....................................................................................................47 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources..............................................................................................................................49 May 2023 MHBC I i Page 7 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 5.1 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest..........................................................................................................49 5.2 Statement of CHVI............................................................................................................................................................................52 6.0 Description of Proposed Development....................................................................................................................................54 7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development...........................................................................................................................................55 7.1 Classifications of Impacts.............................................................................................................................................................55 7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1254 Union Street............................................................................56 7.3 Impact Analysis of Proposed Development on Adjacent Lands.........................................................................57 8.0 Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations ..........................................................58 8.1 1254 Union Street.............................................................................................................................................................................58 8.1.1 "Do nothing...............................................................................................................................................................................58 8.1.2 Alternative Location.............................................................................................................................................................58 8.1.3 Design...........................................................................................................................................................................................58 8.2 Alternative Development Approaches Regarding Adjacent Lands..................................................................59 8.3 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations.........................................................................................................59 9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions........................................................................................................................................60 10.0 Sources....................................................................................................................................................................................................61 AppendixA — Location Plan..............................................................................................................................................................................63 Appendix B — City of Kitchener's Statement of Significance.........................................................................................................64 AppendixC — Heritage Context Plan...........................................................................................................................................................65 Appendix D — City of Kitchener CHL Study Map..................................................................................................................................66 Appendix E — City of Kitchener CHL Study Data Sheet.....................................................................................................................67 AppendixF —Terms of Reference..................................................................................................................................................................68 AppendixG — Site Plan.........................................................................................................................................................................................69 AppendixH — Curriculum Vitae.......................................................................................................................................................................70 May 2023 MHBC I ii Page 8 of 182 Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAH P Rachel Neiser, MSc Lucy Chen Paul Jae Woong Lee Property Owner Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Associate/Heritage Planner Heritage Planner Technician Technician Acknowledgements Project Manager, Senior Review Field Analyst Author, Research Site Plan Mapping This report acknowledges that assistance provided by the City of Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History. It should be noted that the copying of images and Fire Insurance Plans for commercial purposes which are intended far publication is restricted. Therefore, this report provides a written review of Fire Insurance Plans, but does not provide images of such in this report. Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) acknowledges that the subject lands are located on the traditional territoryof the Haudenosaunee, Mississaugas, Anishinaabe and the Neutrals.The subject lands are associated with the HaIdimand Treaty (1784) and the Simcoe Patent (Treaty 4, 1793) (Native -Land, n.d. accessed February 2023). May 2023 MHBC 13 Page 9 of 182 Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment 7254 Union Street; City of Kitchener Executive Summary MHBC was retained by to undertake a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development on the subject lands addressed as 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener. The proposed development of the subject lands includes the construction of a 650 square metre warehouse/maintenance facility to the rear (north) of the existing two storey building on the subject lands. The subject lands are listed (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (the "Register„) and are adjacent to the inventoried Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) of Union Street/Union Boulevard, as provided in the City of Kitchener CHL Study (2014). The property located at 1254 Union Street includes buildings associated with the Ontario Sugar Company, later the Dominion Sugar Company, including: the warehouse building (1902), wings of the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former machine shop (1902). The Ontario Sugar Company was a major contributor to employment and development in Waterloo Region. The factory represented the greatest investment in development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903 and was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets. Further, the establishment and operation of the sugar -beet refinery is partially accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Furthermore, the design and construction of the buildings established in 1902 on the property is associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America. The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original industrial vernacular architectural style; however, these buildings are no longer representative and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic Inspired alterations to the buildings. Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The property meets one of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 pertaining to its associative values which renders it a candidate to be listed (non -designated) on the Register as per the Ontario Heritage Act. The Statement of Significance is included in Section 5.2 of this report. The development of an independent maintenance/warehouse building on the property will not result in impacts to heritage resources on the subject lands or on adjacent lands. As a result of the absence of impacts, alternative development approaches are not warranted. Provided normal construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed maintenance/warehouse building, including protective construction fencing around the existing buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required. A Conservation Plan and Mcy2023 MHBC 14 Page 10 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener summary of applicable heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed development given the absence of impacts. May 2023 fi MHBC 15 Page 11 of 182 Scoped Heritoge impactAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 1.O Introduction MHBC was retained by Moser Landscape Group Inc. to undertake a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 1254 Union Street, Kitchener (subject lands). is proposing to construct a 650 square metre, 7.3 metre high detached maintenancelwarehouse facilityto the north (rear) of the existing two storey building on the subject lands. The purpose of this HIA is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located on-site and adjacent and provide mitigation measures, as necessary. This report has been prepared as input to the Site Plan Application pertaining to the subject lands. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. 1 .1 Description of the Subject Lands The subject lands have frontage on the northeast side of Union Street where Union Street and Sereda Road merge. The subject lands contain 2.29 hectares (5.55 acres) and have a two storey renovated warehouse building, two single storey buildings to the east, a temporary structure to the southeast and various landscape components. A descriptive review of the buildings and setting of the subject lands is provided in Section 4 of this report. The subject lands are legally described as follows: TRACT GERMAN COMPANY SUB LOT 59 PT LOTS 1 & 10 RP 58R1977 PTS 1 2 & 8. The lands back onto the Conestoga Parkway (Highway 7185) to the north which includes a vegetation buffer along the northerly property line of the subject lands. The subject lands are located in a primarily industrial area with various warehouse, automotive and outdoor storage uses In Its vicinity. Figure T, below, illustrates the context of the subject lands. May 2023 M H QC 16 Page 12 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 1: Aerial image (2022) with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS Locator). The Location Plan is attached as Appendix'A'. .2 Heritage Status The subject lands are listed (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener's Municipal Heritage Register (Index of Non -Designated Properties of Heritage Value or Interest). The lands were listed on June 1, 2015. The City's Statement of Significance for 1254 Union Street provides the following description of the subject lands' heritage value: 1254 Union Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the warehouse building. The building is a notable, rare and unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: main hip roof, flat and shed rooflines on additions; yellow and red brick May 2023 MHBC 17 Page 13 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener including decorative details; brick pilasters between bays; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; various multi -pane windows; two-storey front entrance portico with parapet, segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and, exterior archways. The contextual value relates to the setting. The factory was situated in close proximity to both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand River. The railway was used to bring beets from farms to the refinery and the river was used to power the refinery and discharge effluent. The factory was built on a slight rise oflond providing it prominence in the landscape. Today, the property features buildings, ponds, patios, fountains and 20,000 square feet of gardening beds, including the Hacienda Sarria Market Garden operated by The Working Centre. The Hacienda Sarria Market Garden is a volunteer -driven initiative to develop on inclusive, hands-on learning environment to demonstrate, promote, and share knowledge about sustainable local food production and environmental stewardship. The historic and associative values relate to the original use of the building. The building was a warehouse to the former sprawling three-storey sugar beet factory (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). The warehouse supported the factory that was built in 1902 as a result of a government movement to encourage the creation of new industry in Ontario. The movement provided bonuses to certain industries willing to enter Ontario, including the sugar beet industry. Berlin (now Kitchener) encouraged the construction of the sugar beet factory as a new form of industry for the community, making great investments into the project in hopes of becoming the home of Canada's first sugar beet mill. Although its life was short-lived, the factory did indeed become Canada's first sugar beet factory (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was opened in 1902 in Berlin and operated for 6 years between 1902 and 1908 under the ownership of the Ontario Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was moved from Benton Harbour, Michigan and erected by E.H. Dyer and Co. of Cleveland in 1902 (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory stimulated new residential construction in the area (Bloomfield, 1987). Upon the Ontario Sugar Company becoming bankrupt the factory was sold to the Erie Coal company who quicklysold the factory to the Dominion Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 1987). The Dominion Sugar Company operated the factory for another 7Oyears until it closed in 1923 and sold the factory to Guggenheim Distilleries of Canada Ltd. in 1927 (Bloomfield, 1987). The factory was never used for sugar production again and its unsuccessful history mirrors that ofjust under 30% of the enterprises which received bonuses from Berlin, and either failed or were closed within 10 years of operation (Bloomfield, 1987). The following heritage attributes are provided: • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences, including: May 2023 MHBC 18 Page 14 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener o Main hip roof, o Flat and shed rooflines on additions; o Yellow and red brick including decorative details; o Brick pilasters between bays; o Segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; o Various multi -pane windows; o Two-storey front entrance portico with parapet, o Segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; o Flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and. o Exterior archways. • All elements related to contextual value, including: o Buildings; o Ponds; o Patios; o Fountains; and, o Gardening beds. The City's Statement of Significance is attached as Appendix'B'. Further, the subject lands are not adjacent to any listed or designated heritage resources and are not within a heritage conservation district, as illustrated in Figure 2, below. Heritage register 1 • Intend to Designate CATEGORY Listed Properties JPart IVDesignation Part V (District) Designation EJPart IV and V Designation Z Heritage district Figure 2: Excerpt of City of Kitchener On -Point Map (Heritage Layer) with the subject lands outlined in red. The Heritage Context Plan is attached as Appendix'C'. May 2023 MHBC 19 Page 15 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The subject lands have frontage on Union Street which is recognized as an inventoried cultural heritage landscape (CHL) (transportation corridor) in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (2014). The Study identifies the following character defining features for Union Street and Union Boulevard: Features include: the part of the street that is centred on King Street with its 19th and early 20th Century homes and institutions; its passage through Breithoupt Park; the alignment of Union which reflects the curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township; the vertical rise and fall with the gently rolling topography; the curvilinear alignment through Westmount as part of the neighbourhood design; the Grand River Hospital and Sun Life institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the Westmount neighbourhood. Figure 3, below, identifies the location of the subject lands in relation to the inventoried CHL of Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14). Figure 3: Map of the Central Neighbourhoods CHLs noting approximate location of subject lands in red (City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study, 2014). The CHL Context Plan is attached to this report as Appendix 'D' and the Data Sheet for the inventoried CHL of Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) is attached as Appendix'E'. May 2023 MHBC 110 Page 16 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 2.O Policy Context This section provides an overview of the provincial and municipal policy framework which has guided the assessment contained herein. 2.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 provides a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage and land development, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or through Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. The Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that relevant authorities in the planning process must consider. Regarding cultural heritage, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofprovincial interest such as ... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological orscientific interest. The Planning Act provides the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS provides for the following for cultural heritage planning: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The PPS provides definitions of the following relevant terms: May 2023 MHBC I I I Page 17 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Built Heritage Resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value orinterest as identified by community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers. Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. 2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Grown Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 ("Growth Plan"), was approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through Order in Council No. 641/2019. The Growth Plan came into effect on May 16, 2019. Amendment 1 (2020) to the Growth Plan was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through Order in Council No. 1244/2020 and took effect on August 28, 2020. As per Schedule 2 of the Growth Plan, the subject lands are within the Conceptual Built-up Area. Section 2.2.1 of the Growth Plan generally provides that growth will be directed to settlement areas that have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater services and that can support the achievement of complete communities. May 2023 MHBC 112 Page 18 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan provides the following policies for cultural heritage resources: 1. 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. 3. Municipalities are encouraged to prepare archaeological management plans and municipal cultural plans and consider them in their decision-making. 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act and Ontario Regulation 9/06 The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 (OHA) remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. Part IV of the OHA provides that a municipality shall maintain a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) which may include designated and non -designated properties. Part V of the OHA provides that a municipality shall maintain a register of all heritage conservation districts (HCDs) that are designated under the Part. As per Section 29 (1) of the OHA, the municipal council may, by by-law, designate a property that is of CHVI provided the property meets the prescribed criteria contained within Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Ontario Regulation 9/06 provides that a property may be designated under Section 29 of the Act if it meets two or more of the following criteria for demining whether it is of CHVI: 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 value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. May 2023 MHBC 113 Page 19 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 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. Ontario Regulation 9/06 further provides that a property may be listed on the Register if it meets one or more of the above criteria. 2A Region of Waterloo Official Plan The Region of Waterloo Official Plan Amendment No. 6, applying to all lands within Waterloo, was adopted by Council through By-law 22-018 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on April 11, 2023 (ERO 019-5952). As a guiding principle, Section 1.5 provides that cultural heritage resources will be conserved and promoted to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including Indigenous peoples. Section 3.G of the Official Plan provides policies explicitly related to cultural heritage, including: 3.G.7 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 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. 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 May 2023 MHBC 114 Page 20 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. 3.G.73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G. 7 7 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; (0 schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations These policies have guided the preparation of this report and the analysis contained herein. 2.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan The City of Kitchener Official Plan was approved by the Region of Waterloo in 2014. Map 9 (Cultural Heritage Resources) identifies the HCDs, Heritage Corridors, the Canadian Heritage River, and significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the City. The subject lands are not within or adjacent to any HCDs, Heritage Corridors, the Canadian Heritage River or recognized Cultural Heritage Landscapes (see Figure 4, below). May 2023 MHBC 115 Page 21 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 4: Excerpt of Map 9 (Cultural Heritage Resources) of the City of Kitchener Official Plan with the approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red. Section 12 of the Official Plan provides the policies that are specific to cultural heritage resources. Relevant to the objectives of this HIA, the following is provided: 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 Wand V of the Ontario Heritage Act; c) cultural heritage landscapes, and, 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 May 2023 MHBC 116 Page 22 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Buildings until such time as these properties are re-evaluated and considered for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register. 12.0.1.4. The City acknowledges that notall 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. 12.01.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources of potential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.01.7. 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. 12.C.1.8. The City, in cooperation with the Region and the Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC), will identify, inventory and list on the Municipal Heritage Register, cultural heritage landscapes in the city. 12.01.9. Significant cultural heritage landscapes will be identified on Map 9 in accordance with the Regional Official Plan and this Plan... 12.01.10. The City will require the conservation of significant cultural heritage landscapes within the city. 12.01.20. 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. 12.01.21. 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. May 2023 MHBC 117 Page 23 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 12.0.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan fordevelopment, redevelopment and site alteration thothos 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 13.04.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to on identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.01.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of 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 orpotentiol adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C. 7.27. 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. 12.01.33. 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. May 2023 MHBC 118 Page 24 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 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. 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. These policies have guided the preparation of this report and the analysis contained herein. 2.6 City of Kitchener CHL Study The City of Kitchener CHL Study provides an inventory of 55 sites that have the potential to be cultural heritage landscapes. The Study has identified nine types of landscapes, including: residential neighbourhoods; parks, natural areas and other public/private open space; transportation corridors and streetscapes; institutional landscapes; commercial, industrial and retail landscapes; agricultural landscapes; large lot residential/estate landscapes; cemeteries; and, Grand River valley landscapes. As per Appendix 4 of the Study and Figure 3 of this report, the subject lands are adjacent to the inventoried transportation corridor of Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14). The excerpt of Appendix 4 (Maps) and Data Sheet from the City of Kitchener CHL Study for the Union Street and Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) inventoried CHL are attached as Appendix'D' and'E', respectively. 2.7 Terms of Reference This HIA has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Scoped Terms of Reference provided with the Record of Consultation, dated January 19, 2023. Generally, the following have been required for this HIA: • Present owner contact information; • Summary of site history; • Description of buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject lands, including history of development; • Statement on the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) and heritage attributes for subject lands; • Documentation of the subject lands, including historical photographs; • Overview of proposed development; • Assessment of potential negative impacts as a result of the development; • Consideration for alternative development approaches; May 2023 MHBC 119 Page 25 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener • A summary of heritage conservation principles; • Mitigation recommendations; and • Qualifications of persons completing HIA. The Scoped Terms of Reference have been attached to this report as Appendix'F'. May 2023 MHBC 120 Page 26 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 3.o Historical Overview This section contains a description of the broad historical development of the subject lands and their context. 3.1 History of Indigenous Peoples The pre -contact period of history in Ontario specifically refers to the period of time prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America. The pre -history of Ontario spans approximately 11,000 years from the time the first inhabitants arrived in the Paleo-lithic period to the late Woodland period, just before the arrival of Europeans and the "contact" period, in the 1611 and 17th centuries. The periods (and sub -periods) of Indigenous history in Ontario include the Paleo period (beginning approximately 11,500 B.P.), the Archaic Period (9,500 B.P. to 2,900 B.P.), and the Woodland period (900 B.C. to approximately the 16th century). The Attawandaron (Neutral) people were one of the earliest known Indigenous communities to live in Waterloo Region. The Attawandaron peoples lived in villages that would migrate every 10 to 30 years dependent on the land's ability to support agriculture and hunting. The population of Attawandaron peoples greatly diminished towards the end of the 1600s as a result of famine and disease brought by the Europeans and causalities during conflict. Thereafter, remaining Attawandaron peoples assimilated with various nations, including the Haudenosaunee (Waterloo Public Library, 2016). The Haudenosaunee, also known as the Six Nations and Iroquois, lived in the valley of the Great Lakes in parts of Ontario and New York. At the turn of the 16th century, the Haudenosaunee faced conflict with the Mississauga peoples which resulted in their migration south. The Mississaugas, an Anishinaabe nation, inhabited land in the valley of the Great Lakes into the 18th century when land was lost to European settlement (Waterloo Public Library, 2016). 3.2 County &Township of Waterloo The County of Waterloo formerly contained six townships: North Dumfries, North and South Waterloo, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich. The subject lands are located within the former Township of North Waterloo, within the historical County of Waterloo. The County was formed in 1863 by an Act of Parliament which served to disunite the United Counties of Waterloo and Brant. May 2023 MHBC 121 Page 27 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Previous to their incorporation in the United Counties, the lands of the County were part of the Wellington District forjudicial and electoral purposes (Sutherland, 1864). Wr 51, t t a J JC.WWI ti Figure 5: Image of Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, 1861, with the approximate location of the subject lands indicated by the arrow (Courtesy of University of Toronto). The County was serviced by various rivers and tributaries of the Grand River which were utilized to supply hydraulic power for industries in the area into the latter half of the 19th century. The Grand Trunk, as well and the Guelph and Galt Branch of the Great Western Railway intersected the County to support transportation related to industry (Sutherland, 1864). In 1973, the County of Waterloo became the Region of Waterloo. May 2023 MHBC 122 Page 28 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 3.3 Subject Lands The subject lands form part of Lot 59 on the German Company Tract and are legally described as follows: Firstly: Part Lot 10, Subdivision Of Lot 59 German Company Tract Kitchener, As In 1581227 (firstly); Secondly: Part Lot 202, Streets And Lanes And Part Lots 1 And 10, Subdivision Of Lot 59 German Company Tract Kitchener; Designated As Parts 1, 2 And 8 On 58r-1977 ; City Of Kitchener. In 1798, Lot 59 in the Township of Waterloo was patented by the Crown to Richard Beasley, James Wilson and John B. Rosseau (Patent B-46291; LRO 58; (Figure 6, below)) and was sold in various configurations thereafter. TOWNSHIP OF WATERLOO Lot No. 6-?__ instr+�r+.R �sev Date a?�7:P GR.L':'FR Qnan_ ctcy inilrahl;s AFL �� -..• �� �is.k7FJ �'f-�.:s� ��F,T.e+6 ' �ilf�, rp 71r � q ., T L O /i�!'rf..�...Gr.d""/ v.a'c'Y�e. �:G7j_.�:.:�Y�,=/..m..•.a�,;..e.G •Yx+.�. C`=�,s'_.�..: +-w,..�G Figure 6: Excerpt of abstract index for the Registry Division of Waterloo North (LRO 58) with Patent of Lot 59 highlighted in red. The 1861 Tremaine Map of the County of Waterloo (Geo. R. & G. M. Tremaine) (Figure 7, below) does not depict any development on the subject lands and further provides that the subject lands represented a portion of the lands occupied by E. and J. B. Eby. +a � l - { {f? ot ' AY;�� Figure 7: Excerpt of Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo, 1861, with the approximate location of the subject lands indicated in red (Courtesy of University of Toronto). May 2023 MHBC 123 Page 29 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener In 1901, there was consideration by local businessmen forth eestablishment of a sugar -beet factory in Berlin. In that same year, there were various experiments to assess the cultivation of sugar -beets in Waterloo by Professor Shuttleworth of the Ontario Agricultural College who determined that sugar -beets grow well in the County (Berliner Journal, 1902a). To attract the investors of the Ontario Sugar Company to Berlin, there was a by-law to provide a $20,000 bonus, tax exemptions, a grant of $5,000 to purchase farmland and there were investments from townspeople to incentivise the Company's local establishment (Mills, 2017a). Thereafter, the president of the Berlin Board of Trade, Samuel Williams, announced on Boxing Day of 1901 that the Ontario Sugar Company elected to build its new half -million dollar sugar beet factory in Berlin and that the Company wanted to be refining sugar by the fall of 1902. In support of this effort, the Ontario Agricultural College assisted with signing up local farmers to ensure that 5,000 acres of sugar beets would be planted in the spring of 1902 for processing that fall (Mills, 2017b). In March of 1902, the Ontario Sugar Company finalized its purchase of 69 acres of farmland on Lot 59 in the Township of Waterloo with 49 acres being from Daniel Fries and 20 acres being from the Breithaupt family. This land was used to establish the sugar beet factory (Mills, 2017b). The establishment of the factory at this location was supported by the Grand River which was able to be used to deliver 5,000,000 gallons of water daily to the factory and by the nearby Grand Trunk Railway which was accessible via the establishment of six branch lines on the property (Berliner Journal,1902a).This location also allowed forthe discharge of effluent containing vegetable residue and lime to flow back to the Grand River (Mills, 2020). The Breithaupt family whose land formed part of the original factory site was involved in establishing the Company in Berlin (Berliner Journal, 1902a). Namely, Louis J. Breithaupt, Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet cultivation tests conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in this location through the use of his political influence (Mills, 2017a). Furthermore, in advance of the closure of the Ontario Sugar Company at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H. Briethaupt was its president (Mills, 2017b). The Briethaupt family were well known in the community and the family's local political, social and business contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener (Canada's Historic Places, 1986). As per "Progress in Berlin" (Berliner Journal, 1902b), the total investment in new buildings and improvements in Berlin for the year 1902 was $792,655 with $600,000 of that value being from the construction of 10 buildings to establish the sugar beet factory owned by the Ontario Sugar Company, as follows: "main building, store -houses, boiler -house, machine and copper workshops, seed -house, 2 beet sheds, weight -house and pump -house." As a result of the investment in the factory, the total investments in buildings in Berlin in 1902 was three times higher than previous year recordings, with the one exception of 1899 where investment totalled $265,450 (Berliner Journal, 1902b). The plant had a daily capacity of processing 600 tons (Mills, 2017b). May 2023 MHBC 124 Page 30 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The design and construction of the aforementioned plant buildings was contracted to E.H. Dyer Co. of Cleveland (Berliner Journal, 1902b). The E.H. Dyer Co. was founded by Ebenezer Herrick Dyer who established the first successful sugar beet plant in the United States in the latter half of the 19th century and was responsible for the design and construction of over 50 sugar refining factories globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America (Swenson, 2015). The Ontario Sugar Company's sugar -beet factory in Berlin was partially constructed using the steel framework and machinery from a failed beet plant in Benton Harbor, Michigan (Mills, 2017b). As confirmed by "Scope of the Sugar Beet Industry in the United States" (Utah Rail), the re -used materials and machinery were moved from the Wolverine Sugar Company in Benton Harbor, Michigan, which was constructed by Dyer and operated from 1899 to 1900 with a 350 ton -capacity. Figure 8: Picture of main factory building (centrally located), office building (central foreground), warehouse (left) and portion of beet bins (right) in 1903, facing east (Reesor). On October 6,1902, the factory opened and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar - Beet Capital of Canada". Weekly updates were provided on the success of the factory via the Record (local newspaper) (Koch, 1983). The opening and processing within this factory represented the first sugar produced in Canada from Canadian sugar beets. The operation of the plant at this time required 225 workers to keep the plant running at full capacity (Berliner Journal, 1902a). The plant also created hundreds of seasonal jobs to meet the harvesting needs (Rych, n.d.). The processing factory on the subject lands was one-third of a mile long (Rych, n.d.). The 1894, revised 1904 Fire Insurance Plans for Berlin, Ontario (Goad) provides that the subject lands were operated by the Ontario Sugar Company and that the following buildings were located on the site (as labelled on the Fire Insurance Plan)': ' Image not included due to copyright permissions. May 2023 MHBC 125 Page 31 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener • No. 1: A two to three storey brick building located centrally on site which includes various rooms, crystalizing and pan floors, a battery floor, a cutter floor, various tanks and an 80 horsepower steam engine. This building is connected to Building No. 2 to the north and has a rail spur to the east. • No. 2: A two storey brick warehouse building with a rectangular form to the north of Building No. 1. This building is connected to Building No. 1 and is separated by a brick wall with one fire proof door between. A rail spur is located to the east. • No. 3: A single storey brick building to the east of Building No. 1 with a room to the south that contains two lime kilns, a centrally located room that contains three pumps, and a room to the north that contains 19 boilers set in brick and a 135 foot tall brick chimney. This building has a limestone bin to the south and a covered spur line attached to the east followed by an open coal bin. • No. 4: A single storey building located to the east of the warehouse building (No. 2). This building has a cooperage room to the south constructed of brick and a storage room to the north with stone veneer. There are spur lines located on either side (east and west) of the building. • No. 5: A single storey rectangular building constructed of brick with wooden cornice, located to the east of Building No. 4. This building was used as a machine shop and is noted to have concrete floors. • No. 6: A single storey building with one room, constructed of brick with wooden cornice, located to the north of Building No. 5 and to the east of Building No. 4. This building was used for seed storage. • No. 7: A single storey rectangular building with three beet bin bays, each with a driveway passage on either side. This building is located to the south of Building No. 1 and has a rail spur to the east, followed by Building No. 8. • No 8: A single storey rectangular building with two beet bin bays with a driveway passage between each bay. The building is located to the south of Building No. 3 and has rail spurs on either side (east and west). • No. 9: A two storey building with a square form, constructed of brick with a porch to the west, located to the west of Building No. 1. This building is used as an office. • No. 10: A single storey building constructed of brick located approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the factory site, adjacentto the Grand River. This building functions as a pump house with two broilers and a well. • No 11: A single storey brick building with single storey scales on either side (east and west), located along the frontage to the south, adjacent to the Grand Trunk Railway (G.T.R) Elmira Branch line. The three-storey main plant on the property (Building No. 1, as referred to in Fire Insurance Plans) was seen as a landmark in Kitchener and was locally referred to as the "white elephant" (Koch, 1983). May 2023 MHBC 126 Page 32 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener follow ttry...... 11,01, 1 d Figure 9: Postcard without date, facing northeast towards the main building (Building No. 1) with the office (Building No. 9) in the foreground and the two storey warehouse (Building No. 2) in the background to the left (provided by owner). In 1909, the Ontario Sugar Company was declared bankrupt and the operations on the subject lands were taken over by a Wallaceburg company which operated the production under the prefix: Dominion Sugar Company. This company operated on the subject lands until 1923 when cheaper product became available from the Caribbean which forced its closure (Rych, n.d.). The 1925 Fire Insurance Plan (Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited) provides the following changes on the factory site, in comparison to the 1904 Fire Insurance Plan (Goad): • A single storey brick wing has been constructed on either side (east and west) of the warehouse building (Building No. 2). • A single storey brick addition was constructed to the north of Building No. 3 which contains three boilers. Furthermore, a one to two storey brick building was constructed to the east, on the opposite side of the G.T.R. rail spurs which functions as a dryer building. • A single storey brick addition was constructed to the north of Building No. 5 which contains a fire hydrant. • Two single storey wood additions were constructed to the south of Building No. 6 which functions as a seed storage building. May 2023 MHBC 127 Page 33 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener • A single storey addition has been constructed to the west of Building No. 7 to provide an additional beet bin bay. The 1925 Fire Insurance Plan also notes that the roofs of Buildings No. 1 and 2 were constructed on steel trusses and that Buildings No. 7 and 8 do not have a roof. This Plan provides that the site was "silent" in March of 1925. The 1930 aerial (Figure 10, below) shows two entrances to the subject lands from Lancaster Street. The aerial confirms that the structures shown in the 1925 Fire Insurance Plan were still located on the lands in 1930. Figure 10: Excerpt of 1930 aerial photograph with approximate outline of the subject lands represented by the polygon and approximate extent of development on the former factory site represented by the circle (courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre). In 1941, Brown Steel purchased the former factory site and operated their business from the former warehouse building (Building No. 2 in Fire Insurance Plans). Brown Steel also sold some of the land to developers and had some of the land expropriated by the City for the extension of Union Street (Koch, 1983). May 2023 MHBC 128 Page 34 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 11: Image of warehouse building during or after the use of the warehouse building by Brown Steel (provided by owner). The 1945 aerial (Figure 12, below) shows that the majority of buildings associated with the former sugar beet operations on the broader factory site were removed. Based on the location, scale and form of structures, the warehouse, including the single storey wings on either side, and the buildings to the east were existing at this time. Figure 12: Aerial image dated 1945 with the approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre). May 2023 MHBC 129 Page 35 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The 1955 aerial (Figure 13, below) shows that Union Street and residential development to the east of the site were established. �■ Figure 13: Image of 1955 aerial photograph with approximate location of subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre). The 2003 aerial (Figure 14, below) shows that the subject lands largely remained unchanged from the former 1955 aerial image. May 2023 MHBC 130 Page 36 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpactAssessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener I' L S A# 4 y r Figure 14: Image of 2003 aerial with the approximate location of the subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS Locator). In 2005, the warehouse building on the site was renovated by the owner at the time, Ron Doyle, to serve as a private residence that was inspired by the "Road to Santiago de Compostela", a century - old walk in Northern Spain. Shortly thereafter, the property was used as an event space under the prefix of "Hacienda Sarria" (Doyle, 2017). May 2023 MHBC 131 Page 37 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 15: Image of building prior to 2005 alterations, facing southwest (provided by owner). Figures 16 and 17: Image of west portico addition under construction (left); Image of southwest corner of building during renovations (right) (provided by owner). Figures 18 and 19: Images of interior of warehouse building during renovations (provided by owner). In 2011, Ron Doyle, the owner of the property at that time, partnered with The Working Centre to establish a market garden at the Hacienda Sarria. The garden included 8000 square feet of interlocking brick pathways, a water tower and an irrigation system (Mancini, 2015). The 2014 aerial May 2023 MHBC 132 Page 38 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener image (Figure 20, below) shows the 2111 century alterations to the subject lands which includes the additions to the main warehouse building, the landscape items (fountains, ponds, pathways) and the market gardens. Figure 20: Image of 2014 aerial with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS Locator). The most recent aerial image available of the subject lands, being the 2022 aerial (Figure 21, below), provides that the single storey utility building to the northeast of the existing warehouse was constructed by this time and that the addition to the south of the single storey building to the east was constructed by this time. May 2023 MHBC 133 Page 39 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 21: Image of 2022 aerial with subject lands outlined in red (courtesy of Region of Waterloo, GIS Locator). The subject lands are currently owned by Moser Landscape Group Inc. The market gardens on the eastern and southern portion of the subject lands have been removed. The main warehouse building on the property is used as office space by the owner and as a venue to host corporate events, films and cooking classes. The two secondary buildings to the east are used for residential purposes (south building) and utility purposes (north building). May 2023 MHBC 134 Page 40 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 400 Description of Subject Lands The subject lands are located to the east of the intersection where Union Street converges with Sereda Road. The subject lands contain three permanent structures: the large former warehouse with a two storey mass, a single storey converted residential building and a single storey utility building, as described in this section. The lands also contain various landscape items and a temporary structure. 4. 1 Description of Buildings The former warehouse building (referred to as Building 1, herein) is located on the western portion of the developed area on the subject lands. There are two single storey buildings located to the east of this main building (Buildings 2 and 3, herein). The evolution of the buildings and their titles, as referred to in this report, are depicted in Figure 22, below. Figure 22: Aerial image with overlay of construction dates and building titles, as referred to in this report (courtesy of City of Kitchener OnPoint Map). May 2023 MHBC 135 Page 41 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 4.1.1 Building 1: Former Warehouse Building 1 is partially visible from Union Street and Sereda Road to the southeast. The south elevation of Building 1 includes a series of additions onto the partially visible original building (hipped roof), including a centered two storey portico and the flat -roofed two storey structure behind the portico. Figure 23: South elevation of warehouse building (Building 1) (MHBC, 2023). The portico addition includes an arched double door main floor entry, a second floor balcony and curved parapet with draped shoulders. The portico was constructed with a tan brick that has varying colours and rounded edges that differentiate the addition from the rest of the building. The brickwork includes voussoirs and horizontal banding. Cement caps are provided along the top of the parapetand columns.The addition includes various metal details, including railings and fixtures. The doors on either floor are constructed of wood and the upper storey opening has a wood lintel. The portico addition was constructed between 2003 and 2006 as a part of the building renovation and remodelling by Ron Doyle. Immediately to the north of the portico is a two storey addition constructed of tan brick with a concrete foundation that covers the majority of the south elevation of the main hipped building, leaving one bay visible on either side of the original building. This addition has imitated some of the features from the original building, including the colour of the brick, pattern of large ground level windows and smaller upper storey windows, arched window openings, brick voussoirs, sills, horizontal banding, and pilasters. The elevation of the addition furthermore incorporates a flat roof May 2023 MHBC 136 Page 42 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener with parapet and protruding columns on either corner. This addition was likewise constructed between 2003 and 2006 as a part of the building alterations undertaken by Ron Doyle. Figure 24: Image of additions on south elevation of Building 1 (MHBC, 2023). The original warehouse building has a two storey mass with a hipped roof. There is one bay on either side of the addition which is visible on the south elevation. Each bay contains pilasters on either side, horizontal banding in the brickwork, a smaller upper storey window and a larger lower storey window. The original warehouse building was constructed in 1902; however, the south elevation appears to have been re -constructed as a part of the 2005 site alterations undertaken by Ron Doyle, as visible in the differentiation of brick on the remaining segments of the original building. The wing on the west side of the building has a single storey mass with two bays separated by brick pilasters.The wing contains arched window openings in each baythat have been filled with murals. The east wing has a single storey mass with a single door opening which has been provided off - May 2023 MHBC 137 Page 43 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener centered. This wing has various patches of brick that have been replaced with darker coloured brick and the wing includes horizontal banding and pilasters. These wings were constructed between 1904 and 1925. Figures 25 & 26: Images of either side of visible south elevation of original building and wing additions on either side (west on left; east on right) (MHBC, 2023). The east elevation of the original hipped -roof building is visible above the single storey wing addition which spans the length of the building. There is a two storey addition that was constructed between 2010 and 2012 which is located in the middle of this elevation with a flat roof and protruding columns. The east elevation, including the original building and wing, is constructed of tan brick with arched window and door openings, brick voussoirs, brick pilasters between pilasters, and horizontal banding. There are various patches of replaced brick (apparent in colour differentiation) which are primarily located along the lower half of the first storey. There are skylights on the eastern facing hipped roof structure which were added between 2006 and 2009. Figure 27: Image of east elevation of Building 1 (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 MHBC 138 Page 44 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The north elevation of the original hipped roof building has four bays which contain brick pilasters between bays, horizontal banding between pilasters, arched window openings and is intersected by an external chimney which was added between 2010 and 2012. The east wing has one baywhile the west wing has two bays constructed with tan brick with pilasters and horizontal banding between pilasters. Figure 28: Image of north elevation of main building (MHBC, 2023). The storage containers to the north of the building are not attached to the structure. There is an external freezer that is clad with wood that is attached to this elevation as a lean-to structure. There are various patches of replaced brick on the corners of the original building and the wings, as visible in the colour differentiation of the brick. Figure 29: Image of northwest corner of building and external storage structures (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 MHBC 139 Page 45 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The west elevation of the building is intersected by a portico and two storey bump -out from the west wing that was constructed between 2003 and 2006. The original portion of the building has a two storey mass with a hipped roof, arched window openings with brick voussoirs, brick pilasters and horizontal banding between pilasters. The single storey wing to the west that spans the length of the original building is a lean-to structure from the original two storey warehouse that is constructed of tan brick with arched window openings with brick voussoirs, brick pilasters and horizontal banding between pilasters. Figure 30: Image of west elevation of main building (MHBC, 2023). The interior of the building has been altered to accommodate the former use by the Hacienda Sarria. The front of the building was altered to serve as a two storey residence with high ceilings, stone finishes, and a grand centred staircase and fireplace. Beyond the residence area, the building was altered to accommodate events with a main hall, secondary hall and kitchen and bar rooms in the wings. The building includes stone work and rounded arches throughout. Figures 31 and 32: Image of interior of front of building (left); Image of main hall (right) (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 MHBC 140 Page 46 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 4.1.2 Building 2: Former Machine Shop The main hipped -roof portion of Building 2 was constructed in 1902 and an addition to the south was constructed between 2017 and 2018. The building has a single storey mass, tan brick construction, a hipped roof, arched window and door openings and it has various patches of brick that were replaced with an orange -hued brick. The addition to the south was constructed with a light tan brick and has a lean-to structure against Building 2. This addition includes a brick wall to the south that is enclosed against the lean-to structure to provide a gated outdoor court. Figure 33: Image of southwest corner of Building 2, showing west elevation (left) and south addition (right) (MHBC, 2023). Figures 34 & 35: Image of north elevation (left) and south elevation (right) of Building 2 (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 AN M Page 47 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 36: Image of east elevation of Building 2 (MHBC, 2023). The interior of this building has been renovated to provide residential apartments. 4.1.3 Building 3: Utility Building Building 3 was constructed between 2016 and 2017 to serve as a utility building. This building has a stone veneer with a brick wall to the south, has a single storey mass and has a hipped roof. The elevation to the west includes various small window openings in an irregular arrangement. There is a courtyard between this building and the building to the south (Building 2). Figure 37: Image of west elevation of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 MHBC j 42 Page 48 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figures 38 & 39: Image of north (left) and south (right) elevations of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023). Figure 40: Image of west elevation of Building 3 (MHBC, 2023). 4.1.4 Temporary Structure There is a single storey temporary structure to the east of the parking lot that appears to be constructed of storage bins and/or mobile trailers. This building has an elongated rectangularform and formerly was used for washrooms as per the signage. This structure was added to the property between 2010 and 2012, likely as a part of the garden market alterations by Ron Doyle. Figures 41 & 42: Image of west elevation (left) and east elevation (right) of temporary structure (MHBC, 2023). May 2023 MHBC 143 Page 49 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 4.2 Description of Landscaping The property includes various landscape features that were added to the property between 2006 and 2016. The southwest corner of the property includes a retaining wall and gated entrance from Union Street that was constructed between 2006 and 2009. The frontage along Union Street/Sereda Road is landscaped with a row of shrubs and trees. A second main entrance is provided to the east from Sereda Road which provides access to both the west and east surface parking lots. Figure 43: Image of west gated entry from Union Street (MHBC, 2023). Figure 44: Panoramic image of south entry from Sereda Road (MHBC, 2023). The landscaped area to the west of the main building, across the surface parking area, includes a fountain and a row of shrubs that were added to the property between 2006 and 2009. May 2023 MHBC 144 Page 50 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 45: Image of west fountain located across the drive -aisle from the west portico addition on main building (MHBC, 2023). The subject lands include a courtyard space to the south of the main building, including a fountain, gardens and pathways. Figure 46: Image of south courtyard space, facing south (MHBC, 2023). The area directly to the east of the main building includes two ponds that generally reflect the foundation outline of the former cooperage rooms. These ponds were constructed between 2006 and 2009 and have a walkway around the pair which includes columns that protrude from the curbs around the walkway. May 2023 MHBC 145 Page 51 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 47: Image of ponds to the east of the main building (MHBC, 2023). Further east beyond the buildings on the site, the land is vacant. The former gardens that were added to the property between 2012 and 2014 have been removed. Figure 48: Image of eastern portion of property (MHBC, 2023). The northern portion of the property is developed with a paved parking field. May 2023 MHBC 146 Page 52 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Figure 49: Image of northern portion of property, facing west (MHBC, 2023). 4.3 Description of Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL The Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL, as identified in the City of Kitchener CHL Study (2014), is located adjacent to the subject lands to the southwest. The subject lands have frontage this identified CHL. The CHL Study provides the following description of this identified CHL: "The various parts of Union Street are historically important because they were and remain, in part, the boundary between the Cities of Waterloo and Kitchener. Currently the combined street traverses the City in an east/west alignment terminating in the west at the Westmount Golf and Country Club and in the east just beyond Lancaster Street. The oldest part of the street centres on King Street where late 19th and early 20th Century homes and institutions straddle the streetscape. It is from this portion of the street that it derives its name, Union Street, because it is here, that the two cities were first joined in the latter part of the 19th Century. The western portion, Union Boulevard travels through the Westmount neighbourhood. The Westmount Improvement Company extended the street incrementally through the neighbourhood between 1912 and 1945. The eastern part of the street was agricultural land until after World War II. The street was part of farms that fronted onto Bridgeport Road. As Union Street East passes through Breithaupt Park, it cuts through a forested area that was a former farm woodlot which was at the rear of a farm whose house and barn were located on Bridgeport Road. The middle portion of Union is in the City of Waterloo and was developed in the 40s, 50s and 60s. The alignment of Union again reflects the same curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township. The vertical alignment rises and falls with the gently rolling topography of north east Kitchener. The exception to this is the alignment through Westmount which is curvilinear but done deliberately as part of the design of the neigbourhood to add character to the planned community. Highlights along the street include: an interesting section through Breithaupt May 2023 MHBC 147 Page 53 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Park where it traverses the former farm woodlot; the high point of land west of Erb Street; the Grand River Hospital and Sun Life institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the Westmount neighbourhood terminating in the Westmount Golf and Country Club." The character defining features are listed as follows in the CHL Study: "Features include: the part of the street that is centred on King Street with its 19th and early 20th Century homes and institutions; its passage through Breithaupt Park; the alignment of Union which reflects the curvilinear street pattern characteristic of Waterloo Township; the vertical rise and fall with the gently rolling topography; the curvilinear alignment through Westmount as part of the neighbourhood design; the Grand River Hospital and Sun Life institutional campus; and, the divided lanes through the Westmount neighbourhood." The Data Sheetfor the Union Street/Union Boulevard CHL is attached as Appendix'E'to this report. May 2023 MHBC 148 Page 54 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 5.O Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following provides an evaluation of the listed property of 1254 Union Street as per the legislated criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 (as amended) for determining cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI). 5.1 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property of 1254 Union Street has associative value pertaining to the use of the property by the Ontario Sugar Company, the involvement of the Briethaupt family in its operations, and the involvement of Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) in the design of the original factory buildings. Physical/Design Value The original warehouse building (1902), its lean-to wings (1904-1925) to the east and west, and the single storey former machine shop (1902) located on the property addressed as 1254 Union Street have some attributes that are reflective of their original industrial vernacular architectural style. These attributes include their massing, hipped roofs (warehouse and machine shop), original arched window and door openings, and Victorian -influenced brickwork (brick voussoirs above arched openings, pilasters (warehouse and wings), and horizontal banding between pilasters (warehouse and wings). All other buildings and landscape components of the sugar beet factory have been demolished or removed. The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer machine shop have been altered and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic inspired alterations to the buildings that occurred in the early 2000s. The 21St century alterations include the construction of porticos on the south and west elevations, flat roof additions and bump -outs, the interior arrangements of the buildings, and various replaced patches of brick and window and door openings. The Spanish Eclectic alterations are not authentic and were not designed to respect the historic fabric and expression of the buildings on the property. The alterations have diminished the integrity of the original industrial vernacular buildings. Likewise, the landscape features, including the fountains, ponds and walkways, were constructed in the 2000s and are not authentic components of the design of the May 2023 MHBC 149 Page 55 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener property. It is not clear if the alterations to the building are reversible; a more detailed and invasive investigation would be required in order to determine this. The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, technical or scientific achievement. Historic/Associative Value The property is directly associated with the Ontario Sugar Company (later the Dominion Sugar Company) which was a major contributor to the development of Waterloo Region. The sugar -beet factory employed over 200 people year round and hundreds more seasonally for the harvesting of beets. The establishment of the factory in 1902 represented the largest recorded investment in development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903. This was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar Beet Capital of Canada" as a result of its development. The establishment and operation of the sugar beet refinery on the subject lands is partially accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Namely, Louis J. Breithaupt, Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet cultivation tests conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in this location through the use of his political influence. The original factory site included lands from the Briethaupt family farm. Furthermore, in advance of the closure of the Ontario Sugar Company at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H. Briethaupt was its president. In addition, the warehouse building and former machine shop that were established in 1902 are associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was contracted to design and construct the buildings. Dyer was responsible for the establishment of the first successful sugar beet processing factory in the United States and the design of over 50 factories in the late 19th and early 20th century globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America. Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The recent uses of the property, including for the Hacienda Sarria event space and the Market Gardens operated by The Working Centre, do not contribute to the CHVI of the property due to their more recent development. The property does not have potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture and the property has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. Contextual Value May 2023 MHBC 150 Page 56 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener The property is no longer physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings in a significant way. While the location near the Grand River remains, the property no longer relies on the Grand River and later development in the area, including the Conestoga Parkway, have altered any physical relationship. Similarly, the railway tracks have been removed and those linkages have been lost. Within the site, aside from the two remaining buildings, all other buildings and components of the site associated with the original industrial use of the property have been removed. The current landscape features are recent developments. The property is outside of the identified cultural heritage landscape (Union Street/Union Boulevard), as per the City of Kitchener CHL Study, and does not contribute to its character. The property is not a landmark in relation to its original industrial use. Table 1, below, provides an overview of the evaluation conducted under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Table 1: Evaluation of CHVI of 1254 Union Street • •-. 0. Criteria 1254 Union Street 1. The property has design value or physical No. As noted above, it is not clear whether the value because it is a rare, unique, alterations to the buildings are reversible; if representative or early example of a style, through more investigation it is determined type, expression, material or construction that they are reversible, it may be that the method. buildings could be considered to have design value. 2. The property has design value or physical No. value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical No. value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or Yes. 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 value or No. associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. May 2023 MHBC 151 Page 57 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 6. The property has historical value or No. 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 No. it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because No. it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because No. it is a landmark. O. Reg. 569/22, s. 1. Based on the above evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06, as amended, we conclude that the property addressed as 1254 Union Street has CHVI pertaining to its associative value. 5.2 Statement of CHVI The property located at 1254 Union Street is associated with the former Ontario Sugar Company, later the Dominion Sugar Company, and includes two former industrial buildings from that time: the warehouse building (1902), wings of the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former machine shop (1902). The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original industrial vernacular architectural style. These attributes include their massing, hipped roofs (warehouse and machine shop), original arched window and door openings, and Victorian - influenced brickwork (brick voussoirs above arched openings, pilasters (warehouse and wings), and horizontal banding between pilasters (warehouse and wings). Nonetheless, the original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storey former machine shop have been altered and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic alterations to the buildings. The property is directly associated with the Ontario Sugar Company (later the Dominion Sugar Company) which was a major contributor to the development of Waterloo Region. The sugar -beet factory employed over 200 people year round and hundreds more seasonally for the harvesting of beets. The establishment of the factory in 1902 represented the largest recorded investment in May 2023 MHBC 152 Page 58 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903. This was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets and the Town of Berlin began to refer to itself as the "Sugar Beet Capital of Canada" as a result of its development. The establishment and operation of the sugar -beet refinery on the subject lands is partially accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Namely, Louis J. Breithaupt, Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP), assisted with having Berlin included in the beet cultivation tests conducted by the Ontario Agricultural College and with establishing the factory in this location through the use of his political influence. The original factory site included lands from the Briethaupt family farm. Furthermore, in advance of the closure of the Ontario Sugar Company at this location, J.C. Briethaupt was a director of the Company and W.H. Briethaupt was its president. In addition, the warehouse building and former machine shop that were established in 1902 are associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was contracted to design and construct the buildings. Dyer was responsible for the establishment of the first successful sugar beet processing factory in the United States and the design of over 50 factories in the late 19th and early 20th century globally thereafter. Dyer was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America. May 2023 MHBC J 53 Page 59 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact A ssess men t 1254 Union Street City of Kitchener 6.o Description of Proposed Development Is proposing to construct a 650 square metre, 7.3 metre high maintenancelwarehouse facility to the north (rear) of the existing two storey building on the property addressed as 1254 Union Street, Kitchener. The land that the building is intended to be constructed on is currently paved as a part of the surface parking lot. The proposal does not involve the demolition or alteration of any buildings on the subject lands. Figure 50: Excerpt of Concept Plan with proposed building outlined in red (MH BC, 2022). The Site Plan is attached as Appendix'G'. May2023 MHBC 154 Page 60 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development 7.1 Classifications of Impacts The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. Asper the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (OHTK), the following constitutes negative impacts which may result of a proposed development: • Destruction: of any, or part of any significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration: that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; • Shadows: created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation: of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or Indirect Obstruction: of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; • A change in land use: such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances: such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The above noted adverse impacts will be considered as it relates to the scope of this HIA. Furthermore, this report utilizes guides published by the International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS), Council of UNESCO, from the World Heritage Convention of January of 2011. The grading of impact is based on "Guide to Assessing Magnitude of Impact" as a framework for this report: • Major: Change to key historic building elements that contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) such that the resource is totally altered. Comprehensive changes to the setting. May 2023 MHBC 155 Page 61 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener • Moderate: Change to many key historic building elements, such that the resource is significantly modified. Changes to the setting of an historic building, such that it is significantly modified. • Minor: Change to key historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly different. Change to setting of an historic building, such that is it noticeably changed. • Negligible/Potential: Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it. • No Change: No change to fabric or setting. 7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1254 Union Street The cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the property of 1254 Union Street pertains to the associative value related to the use of the property by the Ontario Sugar Company, the involvement of the Briethaupt family in its operations, and the involvement of Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) in the design of the original factory buildings. The property has been altered to the extent that the remaining original factory buildings are no longer representative of their industrial vernacular architectural style and no longer reflect the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The addition of a new building on the property will not have any impacts on the CHVI of the subject lands. The proposal does not generate any physical or relative impacts to the CHVI of the subject lands. Even if the Spanish Eclectic inspired alterations to the buildings were determined to be reversible and the buildings considered to have design value, the proposed development would have no significant impact given that it does not involve any alteration to the existing buildings and does not isolate or obstruct views of those buildings. Table 2 provides an analysis of the adverse impacts to the heritage attributes of the subject lands, as identified in Section 5 of this report. This impact assessment is solely for the proposed development of the 650 square metre maintenance/warehouse building to the north of the existing two storey building on the subject lands. TableImpacts Potential ImpactsImpact No Change. Destruction No Change. Alteration No Change. Shadows No Change. Isolation Obstruction No Change. May 2023 MHBC 156 Page 62 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Change in Land Use No Change. Land Disturbances No Change. There are no further impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 7.3 Impact Analysis of Proposed Development on Adjacent Lands There are no impacts anticipated to occur to the adjacent inventoried cultural heritage landscape of Union Street/Union Boulevard as a result of the proposal. The subject lands do not contribute to the character defining features of Union Street/Union Boulevard (L -RD -14) as per the description and features identified in the CHL Study. The construction of a new building on the subject lands will not impact the features of the CHL. May 2023 MHBC 157 Page 63 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 8.o Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives and mitigation measures that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. These options have been assessed in terms of impacts to cultural heritage resources as well as balancing other planning policies within the policy framework. 8.1 1254 Union Street 8.1.1 "Do nothing" The "Do Nothing" option would preclude the development of the proposed maintenance/warehouse building on the subject lands. This option would limit the ability of the property owner to operate their business on the subject lands. This option is not recommended due to the absence of impacts to cultural heritage resources on the subject lands as a result of the proposed development. 8.1.2 Alternative Location This alternative involves selecting a different location for the proposed building on the subject lands. The proposed building location is to the rear (north) of the existing two storey building on the subject lands and has been situated to respect the required Ministry of Transportation setback along the rear property line. The existing buildings on the subject lands are not visible from the north due to the vegetation screening along the rear property line. The east and west elevations of the proposed building are generally geographically aligned with those of the existing two storey building which contributes to the screening of new development from the south entrances to the property. An alternative location would generally have a greater visibility from Union Street and Sereda Road and is not warranted given the absence of impacts. 8.1.3 Design This alternative would involve altering the form, style and/or materials of the proposed building. The proposed building location is generally screened from the public right-of-way (Union Street and Sereda Road) and does not impact the cultural heritage resources on the subject lands or adjacent lands. This alternative is not warranted due to the absence of impacts. May 2023 MHBC 158 Page 64 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 8.2 Alternative Development Approaches Regarding Adjacent Lands The proposed development will not result in impacts to the adjacent inventoried CHL of Union Street/Union Boulevard; therefore, no alternatives are proposed for the potential adjacent resources. 8.3 Mitigation and Conservation Recommendations Provided normal construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed maintenance/warehouse building, including the use of construction fencing around existing buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required given the absence of impacts to cultural heritage resources on the subject lands. A Conservation Plan and summary of applicable heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed development given the absence of impacts. Moy2023 MHBC 159 Page 65 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 9.o Recommendations and Conclusions The property located at 1254 Union Street includes buildings associated with the Ontario Sugar Company, later the Dominion Sugar Company, including: the warehouse building (1902), wings of the warehouse building (1904-1925) and the former machine shop (1902). The Ontario Sugar Company was a major contributor to employment and development in Waterloo Region. The factory represented the greatest investment in development in Kitchener between 1873 and 1903 and was the first sugar beet factory in Canada that refined Canadian sugar beets. Further, the establishment and operation of the sugar beet refinery is partially accredited to and associated with the Briethaupt family whose local political, social and business contributions were highly significant to the development of the City of Kitchener. Additionally, the design and construction of the buildings established in 1902 on the property is associated with Ebenezer Herrick Dyer (E.H. Dyer Co.) who was known as the father of the sugar beet industry in America. The original warehouse building, its lean-to wings to the east and west, and the single storeyformer machine shop located on the property have some attributes that are reflective of their original industrial vernacular architectural style; however, these buildings are no longer representative and no longer express their intended industrial vernacular style as a result of the later Spanish Eclectic alterations to the buildings. Although the property is associated with Dyer, the property has been altered to the extent that it no longer reflects the design by E.H. Dyer Co. The property meets one of the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06 pertaining to its associative values which renders it a candidate to be listed (non -designated) on the municipal heritage register as per the Ontario Heritage Act. The Statement of Significance is included in Section 5.2 of this report. The development of an independent maintenance/warehouse building on the property will not result in impacts to heritage resources on the subject lands or on adjacent lands. As a result of the absence of impacts, alternative development approaches are not warranted. Provided normal construction practices are employed for the development of the proposed maintenance/warehouse building, including the use of construction fencing around existing buildings, no mitigation or conservation measures will be required. A Conservation Plan and summary of applicable heritage conservation principles is not required for the proposed development given the absence of impacts. May 2023 MHBC 160 Page 66 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 1254 Union Street, City of Kitchener 10.0 Sources Canada's Historic Places. (1986). Sonneck House. Berliner Journal. (1902a). The Sugar Factory: Berlin's Newest and Largest Industry. History of the Undertaking. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. Berliner Journal. (1902b). Progress in Berlin, 1873-1903. Translated and transcribed by the Kitchener Public Library staff. Dodsworth, E. (2013). Digital Historical Air Photos ofKitchener- Waterloo - Photo: IM6. University of Waterloo: Geospatial Centre. Doyle, J. (2017). Historyofthe Hacienda Sarria. Courtesy of Linkedin. Goad C.E. (1904). Kitchener. Berlin, Ont. (Fire Insurance Plan). Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. Irwin & Burnham. (1867). Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Waterloo. Toronto: Henry Roswell. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. Koch, H. (1983). Steelfirm born, sugar plant died in 1923. The Record. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. Land Registry Office 58. (n.d.). German Company Tract; Lot59 (Abstract Index). Courtesy of On Land. Mancini, J. & S. (2015). Transition to Common Work: Building Community at The Working Centre. Wilfred Laurier University Press. Mills, R. (2020). Historical bits and pieces along the Grand River. Toronto Star. Mills, R. (2017a). Sugaring Waterloo's Economyin 1901. Inside Ottawa Valley. Mills, R. (2017b). Sugar was sweet while it lasted. Waterloo Region Record, Etcetera, E8. Mills, R. (n.d). A Rych History. Victoria Commoner: Vol. 1, Issue 2. Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. May 2023 MHBC 161 Page 67 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. (2006). InfoSheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Parks Canada. (2010). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Reesor. (1903). Sugar Beet Factory in Belin (Image). Reesor Collection, St. Mary's Museum. Surveys and Mapping Branch. (1968). Kitchener East. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources. Courtesy of Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project. Surveys and Mapping Branch. (1976). Kitchener -Breslau. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources. Courtesy of Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project. Sutherland, J. (1864). Countyof Waterloo Gazetteer and General Business Directoryfor 1864. Mitchell & Co.: Toronto. Swenson, T. (2015). Alvarado Sugar Beet Factory and the Dyer Family. Courtesy of Museum of Local History. Tremaine, G. R. and G. M. (1861). Tremaine'sMap of the Countyof Waterloo. Courtesy of County Maps University of Toronto. Underwriters Survey Bureau Limited. (1925). Kitchener, Ont. (Fire Insurance Plan). Courtesy of Kitchener Public Library. UtahRails.net. (2019). Scope of the Sugar Beet Industry in the United States. Waterloo Public Library. (2016). A Brief History of the Land in Waterloo Region. May 2023 MHBC 162 Page 68 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix A - Location Plan May 2023 MHBC 163 Page 69 of 182 P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MH B C ARCHI� CTURE 200-5406iNGF„Awa5C;:•mQj,-)R l rr H4*R.1714.N. -53x9 P;519.576.3650 F:5191-576.0121 I www.AAHBCPIftN.COM Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix B - City of Kitchener's Statement of Significance U Moy2023 MHBC 164 Page 71 of 182 1214 464 Statement of Significance 1254 Union Street 1254 '1'13'1212 1.,, Municipal Address: 1254 Union Street Legal Description: GCT Lot 59 Part Lot 1 &10; 58R-1977 Part Lot 1, 2 & 8 Year Built: 1902 Architectural Style: Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences Original Owner: Ontario Sugar Company Original Use: Beet Sugar Factory (Warehouse) Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1254 Union Street is a two story early 201h century yellow and red brick former warehouse built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is situated on a 5.63 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Union Street just before Union turns into Sereda Road in A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 33 Page 72 of 182 the Northward Planning Community in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former warehouse building. Heritage Value 1254 Union Street is recognized for its design, contextual, historic and associative values. The design value relates to the architecture of the warehouse building. The building is a notable, rare and unique example of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with Spanish Eclectic influences. The building is in good condition. The building is two storeys in height and features: main hip roof; flat and shed rooflines on additions; yellow and red brick including decorative details; brick pilasters between bays; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; various multi -pane windows; two-storey front entrance portico with parapet; segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and, exterior archways. The contextual value relates to the setting. The factory was situated in close proximity to both the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand River. The railway was used to bring beets from farms to the refinery and the river was used to power the refinery and discharge effluent. The factory was built on a slight rise of land providing it prominence in the landscape. Today, the property features buildings, ponds, patios, fountains and 20,000 square feet of gardening beds, including the Hacienda Sarria Market Garden operated by The Working Centre. The Hacienda Sarria Market Garden is a volunteer -driven initiative to develop an inclusive, hands-on learning environment to demonstrate, promote, and share knowledge about sustainable local food production and environmental stewardship. The historic and associative values relate to the original use of the building. The building was a warehouse to the former sprawling three-storey sugar beet factory (Kolaritsch & Horne, 1984-85). The warehouse supported the factory that was built in 1902 as a result of a government movement to encourage the creation of new industry in Ontario. The movement provided bonuses to certain industries willing to enter Ontario, including the sugar beet industry. Berlin (now Kitchener) encouraged the construction of the sugar beet factory as a new form of industry for the community, making great investments into the project in hopes of becoming the home of Canada's first sugar beet mill. Although its life was short-lived, the factory did indeed become Canada's first sugar beet factory (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was opened in 1902 in Berlin and operated for 6 years between 1902 and 1908 under the ownership of the Ontario Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory was moved from Benton Harbour, Michigan and erected by E.H. Dyer and Co. of Cleveland in 1902 (Bloomfield, 2006). The factory stimulated new residential construction in the area (Bloomfield, 1987). Upon the Ontario Sugar Company becoming bankrupt the factory was sold to the Erie Coal company who quickly sold the factory to the Dominion Sugar Company (Bloomfield, 1987). The Dominion Sugar Company operated the factory for another 10 years until it closed in 1923 and sold the factory to Guggenheim Distilleries of Canada Ltd. in 1927 (Bloomfield, 1987). The factory was never used for sugar production again and its unsuccessful history mirrors that of just under 30% of the enterprises which received bonuses from Berlin, and either failed or were closed within 10 years of operation (Bloomfield, 1987). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1254 Union Street resides in the following heritage attributes: A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 34 Page 73 of 182 • All elements related to the Industrial Vernacular with Spanish Eclectic influences, including: o main hip roof, o flat and shed rooflines on additions; o yellow and red brick including decorative details; o brick pilasters between bays; o segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs; o various multi -pane windows; o two-storey front entrance portico with parapet; o segmentally arched door openings with brick voussoirs; o flat headed door openings with timber lintels; and, o exterior archways. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Buildings; o Ponds; o Patios; o Fountains; and, o Gardening beds. References Bloomfield, E. (2006). Waterloo Township through two centuries. St. Jacobs Printery Ltd.: St. Jacobs, Ontario. Bloomfiled, E. (1987). Manufacturing in Kitchener -Waterloo: a long-term perspective. University of Waterloo: Waterloo, Ontario. Kolaritsch, D. & M. Horne. (1984-85). Historic Property Report: 1254 Union Street. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 35 Page 74 of 182 Photos 1254 Union Street A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 36 Page 75 of 182 City of Kitchener - Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 1254 Union Street Period: Field Team Initials: LB/MD Description: former sugar beet factory Date: July 11, 2014 DESIGN OR PHYSICAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular architectural style? Yes Yes Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of construction? No No Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the No No merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Yes Yes Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or No No scientific achievement? No No Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Yes Yes Notes: Field Team — industrial with villa influences CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the community or character of the street, neighbourhood or area? No No Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure or landscaping noteworthy? Yes Yes Does it provide a physical, historical, functional or visual link to its surroundings? No No Landmark Is this a particularly important visual landmark within the No No region, city or neighbourhood? A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 37 Page 76 of 182 CONTEXTUAL VALUE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Completeness Does this structure have other original outbuildings, notable Yes Yes landscaping or external features that complete the site? INTEGRITY FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Site Does the structure occupy its original site? Yes Yes Alterations Yes Yes Does this building retain most of its original materials and Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes design features? Condition Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic alterations that A property or structure valued for the important contribution Yes Yes have taken place over time? Is this building in good condition? Yes Yes HISTORICAL OR ASSOCIATIVE VALUE & SIGNIFICANCE FIELD TEAM EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Does this property or structure have strong associations with and/or contribute to the understanding of a belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant or unique Yes Yes within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? Yes Yes 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? A property or structure valued for the important contribution Yes Yes it makes to an understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 38 Page 77 of 182 Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix C - Heritage Context Plan U Moy2023 MHBC 165 Page 78 of 182 r•. � y�;� ° � '. -� . -r��°'PJB � • ' .�\,�ti�R �A ' GENERASDR BR PGG G ST L �p c PG INGE"�'�, GORES' a = ;.y1 �{ ' ; P r R 8R\D ,x m! cn R . pNEST OGA"PARKwq Yy >, ALF r40/ *r 4. Ov r _n y �g s 0 0, p m p' Zi to s Q S' 7 if, 3 �`; . m 1 PSNS� ,rc �N �• N i xr ''• '�ti lug • F4 , ELIZABETH'ST 6'� g; _ ■ _ CP 0 VIA 1 ,O`,'- 3'� � -MLX FQIRFIELD.IAVE f r `s N ILLt4- P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN SCAPE MH B C ARCHI� CTURE 200-540 B1NGCMAP 5 C;:,Trij_ ,]R, KPi ;H4*R, 014. NQS 3x9 P;519.576.3650 F:5191-576.0121 I www.AAHBCPLAN.COM Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix D - City of Kitchener CHL Study Map U Moy2023 MHBC 166 Page 80 of 182 a SUBJECT LANDS f W aim; WI IVOYW-< t go [] E LRS 3 y- WN P, NBR-12 y 4 L -NBR-2 -3 rn cy4 L-NBR-1 1 LF�"rip -L-COM-2 L-N3R-7 .- Figure LEGEND Kitchener Cultural O Subject Lands Heritage Landscapes Study: Central Neighbourhoods 1254 Union Street City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo L-NBR7 Date: April 12 2023 Map Code Name L -COM -2 Downtown L -INS -2 Civic District L -INS -3 Catholic Block L-NBR-2 Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD L-NBR-4 Pandora Neighbourhood L-NBR-7 Victoria Park Neighbourhood L-NBR-11 Central Frederic Neighbourhood L-NBR-12 Mt Ho a/Breithau t Gildner & Gruhn Neighbourhood L -RES -3 Woodside Homestead L -RD -6 L -RD -14 Jubilee Dr I Union Street and Union Boulevard L -RR -15 ICanadian National Railway Line Scale. 1.15,000 r - File: 15183C Drawn: PL K:Y15183C - 1254 Union Street, Kitchener\GIS\Report Figures.qgz Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix E - City of Kitchener CHL Study Data Sheet May 2023 MHBC 167 Page 82 of 182 N 3 a CA U U0�°''G.. RL UL N V •� T.�L v v c v v c c d a rocm v .v`. °' c v E w w L— R O .c v bA'29 v i C 3 c° C .- v .- ICL 4.✓'e .. C L>- .° Oto T r v T u U in a v o `v L `° Y u vun E 3 °' to •0 3 L @ O V E = L L R L L C u c N N"] E d EC CL v w N bA ti R _0v 7� v N Y a c v v au 1 E L 3 Y u° U c u° to u L O° y cn p m V o v m v v 3 Q E .2p , u' O v"can rc c vvi w` £ r° 3 v m y 3 —0-0 ' y r o v i >C�Y CTL f,�vEy N3L F. R H c— . -L -i Y U d C E E .v+ C b l 2 to a Z r Yr 0 0-3 m� v cL £� o mm` �� m 2L_° c O O CL J� O L c U cn onv v Tc E v E v m 3 c O -o O "°° c Ia O "- v V c V C l v m 3 m V u o 72 U4 1 •i .�I,EZ des°"' d'+�� � 4 G��$`A}, 'PV -3,}g�c �d���a ami i ¢ leS31$uasE1�'"" (!-j)•C�UL',Q$ yS j m 'r , Ma 3 H-37 ' i'NAI CL u a4 •' eE 'ygo S rJ'�y'�S �„`"R� do N•��-r ��" N.- = c w O CL < cS t � �J a !• CS-\ ?' d�o� . PAZ. F I _ Y Cl - -. a "9^� • �O � �� �ggxy _ any pry" c cc d M C & V N N w } Occ U L @ ICyoc - L U O> v M@ '� v@` L O 'Q. o ` UtC H > O L Y v 11 11 4 Z O L v v d it O v v .0 .3 Y c> „ b E r E L N 1� Z d .-. '._, UA w U bA v'i tC U E p 3 C v •;, t N ly .` L bA bA -O .� -O � c. v ce w c 0 p j G It Q ce CL .c C O L H TL L C O a .., L O c W m m �- c -O N O v E E v m �. v U LL U V i Id Y, •.j11 _ � _- ! VVVd, � _ ILI ¢ N H Z z N N H V z Q W 1 Q z Z cn O H O_ U '~ p% W Z Z ¢} Z O O O >¢ D Z LL O W W W M LUA" N C W z Z¢ n U p O z W N p is O '~ ¢ In Z z Y c U P cc < Z W} O m �� �w ~N J m O IyNj O W < ¢cc¢ J�O ceU z'-'-' I-ce n?Z �plz¢O dZ �v vd � �x� }v z vd V u ° o wOw V O O Yp 0 ¢ v w �¢Z �~ 2 m v�Q > v_o O p" z p W Z C V O Z «CL i t c¢ c Q V] to < O < w U < O } ~ J= V J Y J U Z U Z J O V] W Z Z o '� O Y !a c D mdw wvOd » pZU ipw and J J ¢vvcc<cW V z Y pO Z V Z Z L V 4 O OV H d N O OLn V Y f1 CC O O J m O V C V V V V O< J OJ OV OJ > d U d d H d N 3 O C v O N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o o _ L ICE o � w w O O cc Z V O w vl U z o v v m@ R O_ cn H Q Y z ¢ yl ❑ v 16 Oi Q > ¢ Y U J _ �` Y =¢ W ' O p¢ 1 O W ' Y W J W W Z W W N> 7 J W Y J>- Y t6 N ,- U Vl , , V IY W U _~ W O W U O Q J Q p Q Q d Q Z W S~ J p Z J 'r J¢ Y O J> J Z O J} J D N a'Y ICq v bA N L I"' J w J N J U > Z > V V > O w > W ¢ Y ¢ H K ¢ J¢ O O ,n L L L J > > U N a H W ZZ z'-'-' Zwf- IYIY U Q w U Q w W IY �IU„z H Q w� H Q H H V O w�Q w0-'�p v pL 3v U Up U= UccZ Ow W W N pZ W V L O Op=U O= U W �p r �O V w O `" v v N Y fY W W U pOOQ ppN =D N N Q =Q� =JQ0VJ O Q O c = O LL Z U VS J U tC L 0 0 ❑ o o ❑ o o N L'CCOXa0 �•� m u vN } w N N Z v °A Q. U "-' D U Z N W z Zv~-i z cn HUQ p ¢< - Z U dp cn¢ �= z O QCL 2 ¢ wly2 v v v Z - Z U d N D W O ~ , w D~ p H H � vUiO W W¢ V p N zz C ..Q N v -O L J O~ , 0 H Z d ¢ Q z W N W= -w, J C v` u U K W U V Z V] NZ �w"QON �- = U W QzF: ww Y= wW W W O < w Z In =z pw¢¢ C @p Y O L Q pw wzvl ¢ly IYQCCZ �ZIY ��� =¢ HU= Z=~ � Ia pc Ern L m.- v ❑p z -Up w� z U 3 JQOw =gyp w d w O Q p=W Q O� Z Uf-lyZj - 3 Z 0 n¢ v v o o @ L o a v v 2 ¢ Y z W Q w 0 0 0 m 0¢ > d W J¢ Y W V z W Z d W ¢ W Z W W ¢ Y W w= O O > w W z Y p d v v L m m ~a3osu IN ❑ ❑ IN ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix F -Terms of Reference Moy2023 MHBC 168 Page 85 of 182 City of Kitchener Development Services Department - Planning Division Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 1254 Union Street 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future repair, alteration or development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development, alteration or proposed repair. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre - application meeting, followed by written notification. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. A summary of the site history. 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. if applieable, y. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 29 Page 86 of 182 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, ^ r^^+ F'^^F plaRs ap.4 historical photos, dFa gS eF A-ther available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. In particular, the HIA should also assess any potential impacts to the contextual heritage value of the property as outlined in the Statement of Significance provided by the City and suggest mitigation measures. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. 2.7 A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2.8 Omitted. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 30 Page 87 of 182 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: ■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent protected heritage property. ■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 569/22. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. __ the r._r_._.__ ...___ _.._ _..__.._ ._. listing..._n the ..._..._.r_. .._..__o_ .._o.___. as _ .__.. 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 569/22 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 5.0 Approval Process One digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. The digital copy shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review and approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, one digital copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 31 Page 88 of 182 Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully - Building Community 32 Page 89 of 182 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix G - Site Plan May 2023 MHBC 169 Page 90 of 182 N 02 O O) N 01 (6 00 II II II II II II II F W J � M � N 0 O d N z z U a E co o K 0 N � E E ow U) m mG `gym E o ro KZ Q G 0 co E b M4! y E H - m °' v m `=y Q `o N 0 v i.� LL <a W�o CD H 'c ao a -g 'tmm D'° o 00 LO � (� NU �m �Q dn. mO U a 2ro UU Z Zo O '�++ z V wo O C46 *0 w > Q 0 cc U O n J � aw w� TV,"- Q o Z rn �> LC) o rn� A, J 0 J 0 H U h^� C� Cn C7 y F s� egg d w 00 �Q / C°w LU F s cc o Al�P 0� 0 h Q0.2� Rb d LU (n ^ o stOR� � m ahN =o G LU s. `z �pw Pei 0- W Q o o C) H p W H 0- W ui SHR-'l9T PART 3, O �z�To3 0 , ol ART 4, 1-1177 U) 0 CA o z Z Q O C)f z W U 0 Lo Scoped Heritage ImpoctAssessment 7254 Union Street, City of Kitchener Appendix H - Curriculum Vitae May 2023 MHBC 170 Page 92 of 182 EDUCATION 2006 Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo 1998 Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo 1998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (2022) Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon (underway) Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan (2021) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga (2018) Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates (2016) Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Chatham Kent (2016) Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston (2015) Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham (2015) Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka Lakes (2015) Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (2013) Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph (2014) Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto (2014) Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan (2020) Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan (2016) Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan (2016) City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan (2014) Page 93 of 182 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Evaluations MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto (2020) City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update (2016) Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation (2016) Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin (2019) Designation of St. Johns Anglican Church, Norwich (2019) Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County (2018) Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton (2015) Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener (2016) Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener (2016) Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie (2018) Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island (ongoing) Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office (2019) Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo (2016) Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge (2014) Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge (2019) Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton (2020) Demolition of former farmhouse at 10536 McCowan Road, Markham (2020) Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 10 Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto (2019) Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge (2014) Badley Bridge EA, Elora (2014) Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge (2013) Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln (2021) Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County (2021) Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge (2013) Conservation Plan for Log house, Burgetz Ave., Kitchener (2020) Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener (2019) Page 94 of 182 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Tribunal Hearings: Redevelopment 217 King Street S, Waterloo (OLT)(2022) Redevelopment 147 Main Street, Grimsby (OLT) (2022) Redevelopment of 12 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) (2021) Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St. Catharines (CRB) (2021) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) (2021) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) (2021) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) (2018) Demolition 174 St. Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) (2019) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) (2015) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) (2015) Designation of 108 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) (2015) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave., Cambridge (LPAT) (2019) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) (2019) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) (2014) Designation of St. Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway) Master Plans, Growth Management Strategies and Policy Studies Township of West Lincoln East Smithville Secondary Plan (2022) Town of Frontenac Islands Maryville Secondary Plan (2021) Niagara -on -the -Lake Corridor Design Guidelines (2016) Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (2013) Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan (2011) Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study (2012) Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review (2012) Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study and Employment Land Strategy (2011) Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines (2012) Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan (2013) City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy (2010) Development Planning Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: • Secondary Plans • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent Page 95 of 182 CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 4 Page 96 of 182 EDUCATION 2022 Certificate of Completion: Heritage Planning for Practitioners Algonquin College 2021 Master of Science in Rural Planning and Development, specializing in Indigenous Community Planning University of Guelph, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development 2019 Bachelor of Arts (Honours Double Major) in Sociology and Geography McMaster University CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x??? F 519 5760121 rneiser@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Neiser, m sc. Rachel Neiser is a Planner with MHBC. Rachel joined the firm after having gained experience as a researcher in the public realm where she was responsible for working with various non-profit organizations and community groups to produce policy reports and social studies. Rachel graduated from the University of Guelph with a Master of Science in Planning degree, specializing in Indigenous Community Planning. Rachel provides a variety of development and heritage planning application, research, and report writing services for public and private sector clients. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Candidate Member, Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Candidate Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 2021 - Present Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2019-2021 Research Assistant, University of Guelph 2019 Employment Surveyor, Planning Student City of Hamilton SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE Bronte Village Mall Redevelopment, Oakville Mixed Use Redevelopment, 477 Queen Street West, Toronto Villages of Clair Hills Community, Waterloo HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) 1020-1042 Sixth Line, Oakville, impacts to cultural heritage landscape 4452 Wellington Road South, London, impacts to adjacent cemetery 18 Portland Street, Toronto, potential CHVI of Toronto Hydro -Electric Substation, impacts to adjacent properties and proposed HCD Page 97 of 182 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x??? F 519 5760121 rneiser@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Neiser, m sc. CONSERVATION PLANS Partial Demolition — Westclox, Peterborough Relocation — 18 Portland Street, Toronto PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORTS Special Policy Area (Floodplain), Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment — 85 Bridgeport Avenue, Waterloo Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment — 95-101 Cedar Street, Kitchener Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment - 81323 Westmount Line, Huron URBAN DESIGN REPORTS High -Rise Mixed -Use (52 Storeys) — 50 King Street, London High -Rise Mixed -Use — 85 Bridgeport Avenue, Waterloo Industrial Complex — 250 Allendale Road, Cambridge FINAL PROPOSAL REPORTS Draft Plan of Subdivision — 1160 Wharncliffe Road, London DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector clients for: • Heritage Permits • Draft Plans of Subdivision/Condominium • Site Plans • Consents • Minor Variances • Official Plan Amendments • Zoning By-law Amendments RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS (UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH) Canadian Urban Indigenous Planning Involvement — Jurisdictional Scan Rural Response to COVID-19 — First -Hand Data, Policy Report for United Way Multi -Level Governance Responses to COVID-19 — United Nations Database Urban Indigenous Engagement in Wellington County — Practical Framework Page 98 of 182 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM III MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCH!TECTl"E Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: August 1, 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: July 3, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-317 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 64 Water 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 64 Water 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 64 Water Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 64 Water Street North meets 8 out 9 criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource. • The are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing resident by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, consulting and collaborating with the owner regarding designation of this property, 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 the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The property municipally addressed as 64 Water Street North is located on the north side of Water Street North near the intersection of Water Street North and Francis Street North (Fig. 1). The property is currently occupied by a church, also known as the First Church of Christ, Scientist, that was built in 1899-1900. The building has been designed by blending certain architectural styles — the Arts and Crafts, Tudor revival, American Craftsman and the *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 100 of 182 Shingle style. The building is currently listed as a non -designated building of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. 236 234 REPORT: 613 r H.. 4� of, 52k\ -` 42 CITY.C�,1.11,1.� �• Figure 1 r • � Twc a . ,"-a•n� CJ3 i, 43 JJf. Location Map of 64 Water Street North. 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 the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community-, protects the property's cultural heritage value-, encourages good stewardship and conservation-, and promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, but 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 64 Water Street North is recognized for its design, associative, and contextual values. The building is a two- and -a -half storey unique example of a church that has been designed with many different architectural styles blending together (Fig. 2 & 3). Page 101 of 182 I w+ 91,E � Yira!! w ���� �� i i. �.� .�:,,�e yF • -a � `, `��IND � J -rte S -711 The cultural heritage value of the church was assessed using Ontario Regulation 9/06, and it was concluded that the church met 8 out of 9 criteria: 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 historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 4. 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. 5. The property has historical 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. 6. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 7. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 8. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. A detailed explanation of this property's cultural heritage value can be found in the proposed Statement of Significance for the property (Attachment A). Desipn/Physical Value Exterior The existing church has been designed by blending a variety of architectural styles together, which is rare and unique in the context of Kitchener. These architectural styles include the Arts and Crafts style, Tudor Revival style, Old English style, American Craftsman style, and the Shingle style. This church was not built in the Gothic style, which was the norm at the time in Kitchener (known then as Berlin), which makes this church even more unique. The church was built in 1899-1900, and still retains almost all of its original elements, and is in excellent condition. This church was the first Christian Science church that was built in what was then known as the British Empire. The foundation is high and made if large pieces of rough rubblestone, laid with very fine joints. The style and height of rough rubblestone is very unique, as most buildings do not have a foundation design that is neither this high, nor made with such large stones. On the front facade, above the foundation, the exterior of the building is cladded with `half-timbered' stucco, drawing from the Tudor revival architectural style, with shingles at the main gable peak on the front fagade. The building is irregularly shaped, with a low but complex cedar roof. The main entrance portion of the building has a gable end with a large semi -circular original stained-glass sunburst window. The complex roofing system with the use of gable roofs with shingles and the prominent circular tower are representative of the Old English and Shingle styles. Two Page 103 of 182 sets of heavy double oak doors with large decorative black iron hardware and surmounted by semi -circular transom windows provide access to Water Street, with a similar single door leading to Francis Street on the rear facade. A wide variety of leaded and colored glass windows contain small diamond-shaped panes. The sanctuary inside is illuminated from the east by a large semi -circular sunburst window of leaded amber glass. The complex cedar shingle roof dominates the building as does the prominent round tower, positioned at the apex of the triangular lot at the corner of Francis and Water streets. The round tower also includes a granite corner date stone inscribed `1899' was quarried in Concord, New Hampshire, which was the home of Mary Eddy Baker, founder of the Christian Science Society, and laid on October 12, 1899. All the doors and windows of the church are original and operational. The building has two corner towers, one located towards the front corner on the building which extends all the way to the rear fagade, and one located on the rear facade, which partially extends to the front. The rear fagade of the building is also rich in architectural details. It includes a flat-topped, five -sided turret to the circular tower on the right side of the building. Next to this is a small balcony supported by wooden columns on the upper storey, with a rectangular are and the other corner tower and a chimney towards the other end of the building. The design was adapted to fit on this tight triangular building site, with the principal facades facing onto two streets. Turn -of -the -20th -century examples in major cities like Toronto, New York and Chicago resulting in triangular-shaped structures are often known as "flat iron" buildings. Not only can this church be compared to the "flat iron" design found in other major cities, but it is also similar in its siting on a triangular lot to the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston, Massachusetts, built in 1894 (Fig. 5).Overall, the building is in excellent condition, with no major alterations to the exterior. Page 104 of 182 Figure 5. The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts. Source: Sarah Nicols Interior The interior of the church retains all of its original elements — including all the original woodwork inside the entrance hall of the church (Fig. 6 & 7). The design reflects closely the practice of Christian Science and the interior spaces function well. The sanctuary is wide and open with pews aligned in an arc around the dais. Adorned by black ash wainscoting, it can hold up to 400 people and contains a 1,000 -plus -pipe Casavant Frbres organ built in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, installed in 1911 and electrified in 1953. The Christian Science Reading Room was originally located on the ground floor of the circular tower with the board room above. The Reading Room found a new home next door in the 1950s (now known as 58 Water Street North). A Sunday School with a rusticated granite fireplace was established in the lower storey in 1936. The interior of the church also remains largely unaltered, with the exception of two wooden support beams towards the front of the sanctuary that were installed to help support the roof of the building. Page 105 of 182 Historical/Associative Value This building has significant historical and associative value. This church was the first Christian Scientist church built outside of the United States of America, in what was then known as the British Empire. The faith was established by Mary Baker Eddy in the late 19th century, who was from New England. It follows a "set of beliefs and practices" that were formalized by Eddy, who, through her own personal experiences, believed in an alternative method of Christian healing. The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was built in Boston, Massachusetts. It was also built on a triangular plot of land. As mentioned above, the placement and siting of the church mimicked the Mother Church in Boston. Meetings of the Christian Science Society were first held in Berlin in 1892. The faith was brought to Berlin by Sarah and Samuel Williams when she, along with her husband, moved to Berlin from Toronto. Sarah Williams started hosting regular Bible lessons, and in some time, was joined by other influential people in Berlin at the time — Mrs. Agenora Greene, Mrs. Christina M Hall, and Mrs. Mary E. West, and soon enough Christian Science started gaining momentum in the society. The meetings were first held at Sarah Williams' home, but with new members joining, the first public meeting was held in a small office on Queen Street. With the congregation growing quickly, the office on Queen Street became too small, and the meetings started to be held in the Judge's Chambers at the Court House. The need for a dedicated space became imperative, and a building fund was established in May 1896 and within a year, the congregation moved to a house at 11 Roy Street. It took just six years for the fast-growing congregation to acquire the land and funds in order to begin construction on this site at a cost of $6,000. Sarah Williams was instrumental in securing the land for the church, appearing before the Town Council on May 29, 1899, and on her request, Council agreed to donate the land at the corner of Francis Street North and Water Street North. Council's willingness to donate the land at Mrs. William's request showed the popularity and interest in Christian Science at the time. Dedication services were held August 2, 1900. It was the "first entirely new house of praise erected in the British Empire by the Christian Scientists.". However, not only was this the first Christian Science church to be built in present-day Canada, but the influential people who the brought the church to Berlin in the first place- Sarah and Samuel Williams- also contribute to the historical and associative cultural heritage value of the church. Sarah and Samuel Williams Sarah Williams was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1860, and Samuel Williams was born in Madison, Indiana in 1853. They moved to Toronto in 1880 upon their marriage and were part of the first Christian Science meeting that was held in Toronto (it was the first Christian Science meeting to be held outside of the United States). They brought Christian Science with them to Berlin when they moved upon the birth of their first child. Once in Berlin, they founded the church along with other prominent members of the society at the time that included Agenora Greene, William Greene Jr, Elinor Edwards, Christina M. Hall and Mary E. West. In the initial days of the church, Mrs. Williams also acted as First Reader. Page 107 of 182 It was in Berlin that Samuel Williams established many successful businesses and became a prominent member of society at that time. His businesses and contributions to Berlin included the William, Greene and Rome Co. manufacturing company, which was at one time on Queen Street South, and the Arrow Shirt Factory. Sarah Williams hosted regular Bible lessons at her house, and essentially started the movement in Berlin along with her husband. As mentioned above, she also successfully acquired the land where the church was built. It was also Sarah Williams that retained architect, Joseph H. Taft, to design the church. Joseph H. Taft The task of designing the church was given to the one of the most successful architects and firms of that time — Joseph H. Taft who worked at McKim, Mead & White. Taft designed this building blending different styles of architecture together, but also bringing the "Shingle Style" to Kitchener, which was an American style made popular by the New England school of Architecture. Casper Braun, a local builder was the contractor, and Charles Knetchel prepared the working plans. Andrew Taft is also known for designing many Manhattan brownstone terraced townhomes (many of which are now designated and protected), shingled seaside homes in New England, and even laboratories for Thomas Edison. Taft first appears in New York City in 1887 and continues to practice there until 1909. He was a member of the Architectural League of New York, and an Associate of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts & Sciences. Contextual Value The church also has significant contextual value because of its location. The church still exists in its original location, on a triangular plot of land located at the intersection of two streets at a sharp angle. This plot of land was purposely chosen to mimic the Mother Church in Boston. Furthermore, because of its prominent but unique form and architecture, this building has been recognized as a landmark in the community. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of this building are: • All elements related to the construction, architecture, and style of the building including: o Exterior Elements: ■ Rugged Fieldstone raised foundation; ■ Half-timbered upper storey with roughcast stucco panels; ■ Prominent Round Towers and smaller half tower (on the rear fagade); ■ Granite cornerstone inscribed `1899'; ■ Complex Cedar shingle roof; ■ Cedar shingle gable end on the front fagade; ■ Window and window openings, including semi -circular transom windows, large semi -circular sunburst window of leaded amber glass, and leaded and coloured glass windows containing small diamond- shaped panes; Page 108 of 182 ■ Door and door openings, including single and double oak doors with decorative black iron hardware; ■ Flat-topped five -sided turret; ■ Tall yellow brick chimney; and ■ Balcony supported by wooden columns. o Interior Elements: ■ The 1911 Pipe Organ located in the central hallway; ■ Interior woodwork trim and wainscotting, specially in the entrance hall and the central hallway of the church; ■ Tudor-esque detailing surrounding the Pipe Organ. • All elements related to its historical and associative values as the first purpose-built church for Christian Science in present-day Canada; and All elements related to its contextual value including: o Its original location; o The prominent triangular piece of land at the corner of Water and Francis Streets. 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 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. It should be noted that should Council decide not to proceed with a Notice of Intention to Designate, that the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed according to the changes enacted by Page 109 of 182 Bill 23. Once removed, it cannot re -listed on the Register again for five (5) years, i.e. January 1, 2030. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Statement of Significance for 64 Water Street North Page 110 of 182 1 KTCHE�ER STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 64 WATER STREET NORTH 64 1 p i q,1 , 50 , 728 1 56 49 PoA COS 42 1R ^✓ .��,,.• `' ��� CI TY. C[7i11,t[F?Y� � •� � f '�i� 49 46 3 D.. 39 . F 156 Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ®Social Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value ❑x Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address- 64 Water Street North Legal Description- Plan 41, Part Lots 14 & 15 Year Built- 1899-1900 Architectural Style- Shingle Style, Arts and Crafts, Tudor Revival Style, Architect- Joseph H. Taft Original Owner- First Church of Christ, Scientist Original Use- Church Page 111 of 182 1 KTbc E�ER Condition: Excellent Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 64 Water Street North is a late 19th century unique church built by blending a variety of architectural styles together, including the Shingle Style, Tudor Revival Style, Arts and Crafts, American Craftsman Style, and Old English Style of architecture. The building is situated on a 0.13 -acre parcel of land located on a prominent triangular lot at the corner of Francis Street North 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 church building and the triangular plot of land. Heritage Value 64 Water Street North is known for its significant design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desian/Phvsical Value The design and physical values relate to the architectural style that is in excellent condition with many intact original elements. Exterior The existing church has been designed blending a variety of architectural styles together — which is rare and unique in the context of Kitchener. These architectural styles include the Arts and Crafts style, Tudor Revival style, American Craftsman style, Old English Style and the Shingle style. This church was not built in the Gothic style, which was the norm at the time in Berlin, which makes this church even more unique. The church was built in 1899-1900, and still retains almost all of its original elements, and is in excellent condition. This church was the first Christian Science church that was built in what was then known as the British Empire. The foundation is high and made of large pieces of rough rubblestone, laid with very fine joints. The style of rough rubblestone is very unique, as most buildings do not have a foundation design that is neither this high, nor made with such large stones. On the front facade, above the foundation, the exterior of the building is cladded with `half-timbered' stucco, drawing from the Tudor revival architectural style, with shingles at the main gable peak on the front fagade. The building is irregularly shaped, with a low but complex cedar roof. The main entrance portion of the building has a gable end with a large semi -circular original stained-glass sunburst window — which depicts a `rising sun'. The complex roofing system with the use of gable roofs with shingles and the prominent circular tower are representative of the Old English and Shingle styles. Two sets of heavy double oak doors with large decorative Page 112 of 182 1 I�1 R black iron hardware and surmounted by semi -circular transom windows provide access to Water Street, with a similar single door leading to Francis Street on the rear facade. A wide variety of leaded and colored glass windows contain small diamond-shaped panes. The sanctuary inside is illuminated from the east by a large semi -circular sunburst window of leaded amber glass. The complex cedar shingle roof dominates the building as does the prominent round tower, positioned at the apex of the triangular lot at the corner of Francis and Water streets. The round tower also includes a granite corner date stone inscribed `1899' was quarried in Concord, New Hampshire, the home of Mary Eddy Baker, founder of the Christian Science Society, and laid on October 12, 1899. All the doors and windows of the church are original and operational. The building has two corner towers, one located towards the front corner on the building which extends all the way to the rear facade, and one located on the rear fagade, which partially extends to the front. The rear fagade of the building is also rich in architectural details. It includes a flat-topped, five -sided turret to the circular tower on the right side of the building. Next to this is a small balcony supported by wooden columns on the upper storey, with a rectangular are and the other corner tower and a chimney towards the other end of the building. The design was adapted to fit on this tight triangular building site, with the principal facades facing onto two streets. Turn -of -the -20th -century examples in major cities like Toronto, New York and Chicago resulting in triangular-shaped structures are often known as "flat iron" buildings. Not only can this church be compared to the "flat iron" design found in other major cities, but it is also similar in its siting on a triangular lot to the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston built in 1894 Interior The interior of the church retains all of its original elements — including all the original woodwork inside the entrance hall of the church (Fig. 5 & 6). The design reflects closely the practice of Christian Science and the interior spaces function well. The sanctuary is wide and open with pews aligned in an arc around the dais. Adorned by black ash wainscoting, it can hold up to 400 people and contains a 1,000 -plus -pipe Casavant Freres organ built in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, installed in 1911 and electrified in 1953. The Christian Science Reading Room was originally located on the ground floor of the circular tower with the board room above. The Reading Room found a new home next door in the 1950s (now known as 58 Water Street North). A Sunday School with a rusticated granite fireplace was established in the lower storey in 1936. Historical/Associative Value This building has significant historical and associative value. This church was the first Christian Scientist church built in what was then known as the British Empire. The faith Page 113 of 182 1 I�1 R was established by Mary Baker Eddy in the late 19th century, who was from New England. It followed a "set of beliefs and practices" that were formalized by Eddy, who, through her own personal experiences, believed in an alternative method of Christian healing. The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was built in Boston, Massachusetts. It was also built on a triangular plot of land. Meetings of the Christian Science Society were first held in Berlin in 1892. This was triggered by Sarah and Samuel's move to Berlin after the birth of their first child. Prior to this, they had been living in Toronto and were sure to have attended the first Christian Science meeting that took place in Toronto (it was also the first meeting to take place outside of the United Stated) at the home of John Stewart and his wife Isabella Hendry Macmillan Stewart at 83 Denison Avenue. For the next 18 months, Sarah Williams hosted regular Bible study lessons in her home, where she was joined by Angora Greene, Christina M. Hall and Mary E. West. The church was organized on December 25, 1894, which the first public meeting being held in a small office on Queen Street, a former law office. Once the formal organization has taken place, the congregation established a reading room in that building where it held regular services on Friday evening and on Sunday. Through these regular meetings and with time, the congregation began to grow quickly. By 1896, the Queen Street room had become too small for gatherings, so the congregation started meeting in the Judge's Chambers at the Court House, which was provided to them free of cost. Furthermore, a building fund was also established in May 1986 and within a year, the congregation moved to a house at 11 Roy Street. It took just six years for the fast-growing congregation to donate the land and funds in order to begin construction on this site at a cost of $6,000. 1899 was an important year for the congregation as on March 11, three members of the church — Sarah Williams, Elinor Edwards and William Greene Jr) traveled to London, Ontario to attend a Christian Science lecture. Less than three weeks later, that lecturer, Mr. Carol Norton of New York City, arrived in Berlin to deliver another lecture and stayed with Sarah and Samuel Williams. Mr. Norton was a very popular Christian Scientist and had been appointed by Marry Baker Eddy herself, as one of the first five members of the Board of Lectureship. His services in Berlin and Toronto were extremely well-received. Sarah Williams, building on this momentum, went ahead with implementing her plans to build a Christian Scientist Church and appeared before the Council on May 29, 1899. She spoke to Council regarding the triangular plot of land at the corner of Francis and Water Streets. Her request was readily granted with the Council minutes noting: "Moved by Karl Mueller and seconded by Mr. A.L. Breithaupt that the request of Mrs. S. J. Williams secretary of First Church of Christian Scientist [sic] re transferring a certain lot registered in Deed 13286 be granted and the necessary transfer of the lot mentioned be made at once. Carried." Page 114 of 182 1 KITCHE�ER The readiness to approve Sarah Williams request on the part of Council indicates the interest in Christian Science at that time. The cornerstone was laid on October 12, 1899, and was quarried from Concord, New Hampshire, the hometown of Mary Baker Eddy. Dedication services were held August 2, 1900. It was the "first entirely new house of praise erected in the British Empire by the Christian Scientists." The church in Kitchener was the first church to be built outside of the United States, and at a time when present day Kitchener came within the British Empire. At the dedication services were visitors from various Christian Science churches in Ontario, the United States, and even London, England. Mr. Carol Norton also sent a special letter greeting in response to a special invitation to attend. Not only was this the first Christian Science church to be built in present-day Canada, but of note are the influential people who brought the faith to Berlin in the first place; Sarah and Samuel Williams and the architect who designed it — Andrew H. Taft. Sarah and Samuel Williams Sarah Williams was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1860, and Samuel Williams was born in Madison, Indiana in 1853. They moved to Toronto in 1880 upon their marriage and were part of the first Christian Science meeting that was held in Toronto (it was the first Christian Science meeting to be held outside of the United States). They brought Christian Science with them to Berlin when they moved upon the birth of their first child. Once in Berlin, they founded the church along with other prominent members of the society at the time that included Agenora Greene, William Greene Jr, Elinor Edwards, Christina M. Hall and Mary E. West. In the initial days of the church, Mrs. Williams also acted as First Reader. It was in Berlin that Samuel Williams established many successful businesses and became a prominent member of society at that time. His businesses and contributions to Berlin included the William, Greene and Rome Co. manufacturing company, that was at one on Queen Street South, and the Arrow Shirt Factory. It was Sarah Williams that led the efforts of retaining land for the church, and also retained architect, Joseph H. Taft, to design the church, as their families might have become acquainted while their time in New York. Joseph H. Taft The task of designing the church was given to the one of the most successful architects and firms of that time — Joseph H. Taft who worked at McKim, Mead & White. Taft designed this building blending different styles of architecture together, but also bringing the "Shingle Style" to Kitchener, which was an American style made popular by the New Page 115 of 182 1 I�1 R England school of Architecture. Casper Braun, a local builder was the contractor, and Charles Knetchel prepared the working plans. Andrew Taft is also known for designing many Manhattan brownstone terraced townhomes (many of which are now designated and protected), shingled seaside homes in New England, and even laboratories for Thomas Edison. Taft first appears in New York City in 1887 and continues to practice there until 1909. He was a member of the Architectural League of New York, and an Associate of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts & Sciences. Contextual Value The church also has significant contextual value because of its location. The church still exists in its original location, on a triangular plot of land located at the intersection of two streets at a sharp angle. This plot of land was purposely chosen to mimic the Mother Church in Boston. Furthermore, because of its prominent but unique architecture, this building has been recognized as a landmark in the community. Social Value The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 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. Heritaae Attributes The heritage attributes of this building are • All elements related to the construction, architecture, and style of the building including: o Exterior Elements: ■ Rugged Fieldstone raised foundation; ■ Half-timbered upper -storey with roughcast stucco panels; ■ Prominent Round Towers and smaller half tower (on the rear fagade); ■ Granite cornerstone inscribed `1899'; ■ Complex Cedar shingle roof; ■ Cedar shingle gable end on the front fagade; ■ Window and window openings, including: semi -circular transom windows, large semi -circular sunburst window of leaded amber glass, and leaded and coloured glass windows containing small diamond-shaped panes; Page 116 of 182 1 KITC1IENER ■ Door and door openings, including: single and double oak doors with decorative black iron hardware, ■ Flat-topped five -sided turret, ■ Tall yellow brick chimney; and ■ Balcony supported by wooden columns. o Interior Elements: ■ The 1911 Pipe Organ located in the central hallways, ■ Interior woodwork trim and wainscotting, specially in the entrance hall and the central hallway of the church; ■ Tudor-esque detailing surrounding the Pipe Organ. • All elements related to its historical and associative values as the first purpose- built church for Christian Science in present-day Canada; and • All elements related to its contextual value including: o Its original location; o The prominent triangular piece of land at the corner of Water and Francis Streets. References Kessler, K. (2022) Playing All Angles: Kitchener church puts own spin on famous flatiron design, Grand Design Mavor, S.S. (2019), Christian Science, Commerce and Culture: The Experience in Berlin/Kitchener 1982- 1943, Waterloo Historical Society vol. 107, pp. 115-148 Moser, P. (2000), First Church of Christ Scientist— Eclectic Architecture an International Blend, The Record, accessed at Kitchener Public Library Archives Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada, Taft, Joseph H., 1800-1950, accessed http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.ore/node/2092 Wolfhard, D. (1983), Historical Sketch of First Church of Christ, Scientist, Kitchener, Ontario, accessed from Kitchener Public Library Archives Page 117 of 182 Photos Water Street North Elevation 1 KrTcHEN�R Page 118 of 182 1 Rear Fagade of 64 Water Street North facing Francis Street North Page 119 of 182 1 KrTcHEN�R Page 120 of 182 I full m 1 Page 123 of 182 1 KrTcHEN�R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 64 Water Street North Deeksha Choudhry Address: Recorder: First Church of Christ, Scientist Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Date: May 31, 2023 ❑X Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade X Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Heritage Planning Staff Kitchener 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 ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X 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 124 of 182 I Krrc f l.n�.R * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value 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 value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Page 125 of 182 I Krrc f l.n�.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 ❑ because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑X landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes This building is a significant cultural heritage resource in Kitchener. Page 126 of 182 1 KrTcHEN�R Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Planning Staff Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ Yes ❑X 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 possible and contribute towards Page 127 of 182 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 ❑ Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X - Place of Worship N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 128 of 182 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 129 of 182 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: August 1, 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: July 14, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-309 SUBJECT: Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review — August Update RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized, and designation pursued for the following properties: • 40 Chapel Hill Drive • 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North • 67 King Street East 66 Queen Street South 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. 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 cultural heritage value or interest of a property, *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 130 of 182 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: 40 Chapel Hill Drive The subject property municipally addressed as 40 Chapel Hill Drive meets eight of the nine criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22)(Attachment A): • 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. Page 131 of 182 • 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. 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North The subject property municipally addressed as 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North meets five of the nine criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22)(Attach ment B): • 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 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. 67 King Street East The subject property municipally addressed as 67 King Street East meets five of the nine criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22) (Attachment C): • 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 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. Page 132 of 182 66 Queen Street South The subject property municipally addressed as 66 Queen Street South meets four of the nine criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22)(Attach ment D): • 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. Heritage Kitchener Committee Options 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 redevelopment. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. Page 133 of 182 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 — DSD -2023-053 Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review — DSD -2023-225 Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — 40 Chapel Hill Drive Statement of Significance Attachment B — 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North Statement of Significance Attachment C — 67 King Street East Statement of Significance Attachment D — 66 Queen Street South Statement of Significance Page 134 of 182 33, 3d1 X19 i @RIGAUOpM l - --- 413 _ Jri aid MEARYHH'�Q�3pR ss y Statement of Significance 40 Chapel Hill Drive Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ® Historical Value ® Contextual Value ® Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value Municipal Address: 40 Chapel Hill Drive Legal Description: PLAN 1123 PT BLK A Year Built: 1964 Architectural Style: Modern Original Owner: Carmel Church of the New Jerusalem Original Use: Institutional Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 40 Chapel Hill Drive is a 201h century building built in the Modern architectural style. The building is situated on a 6.98 acre irregularily shaped parcel of land located on the east side of Chapel Hill Drive between Caryndale Drive and Evenstone Avenue in the Doon South Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the institutional building, known as the Carmel New Church and School. Page 135 of 182 Heritage Value 40 Chapel Hill Drive is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The design and physical value of this building resides in its Modern architectural style, laid out in an irregular floor plan and utilizing a mix of natural building materials including stone, vertical wood siding and wood shingles. Geometric elements such as octagonal entranceways, a pyramidal steeple, comer clerestory windows, and stained-glass windows are also incorporated throughout the design. The front facade of this building is positioned at an approximately 20 -degree angle to Chapel Hill Drive, with the western portion of the building being closest to the street. The front facade can be divided into three sections; the western -most section, the central section, and the eastern -most section. The western -most section of the building is comprised of a new addition built in 2001 that expanded the capacity of the school. It is one -storey in height and has an irregular floor plan that predominately utilizes rectangular shapes and a flat roof. A canted bay sits off -center within this section and is composed of floor -to - ceiling windows, an entrance, and a pitched roof with asphalt shingles. The cladding of the rest of the western- most section is comprised of a pink stucco or plaster material on the upper two-thirds of the walls and a field- stone veneer on the lower third of the exterior. The central section also utilizes rectangular shapes in its floorplan. It is one storey in height, with a raised secondary level. The cladding is a confection of glass glazing extending over the upper two-thirds of the wall and afield stone veneer on the lower third. The windows are equal in size and intervals and appear to possess metal framing. The eastern -most section of the building is comprised of the 300 -seat chapel. It is the most distinctive section of the overall building in terms of appearance, with the contemporary Scandinavian being evident. Stone, vertical wood siding, and wood shingles provide a rough and natural texture to the building, a contrast to the straight and heavily geometric angels utilized in its massing. The roofline of this section is the most distinguishable feature of the structure as a whole, being comprised of a tall pyramid steeple that shares focus at the sanctuary with the corner clerestory window opposite. Within the 52st Volume of the Waterloo Historical Society (1963), the following commentary is offered on symbolic nature of the architecture of 40 Chapel Hill Drive: "The new Church, like the old is based, architecturally, on certain symbols. Both are four-square as was the holy city of Ierusalem. The building materials are primarily stone and wood materials of construction mentioned so frequently in the Bible. The chancel has three levels as does the roof, with the tower being the highest level. These are based on symbols because of the believe that the Bible itself has a symbolic or internal sense. " Historical Value The historic and associative value of 40 Chapel Hill relates to the original owners and use of the property and building. The building was constructed by the Carmel Church of New Jerusalem, who remain the owners to date. The building has always been used as a church and this remains one of its dual uses, with the secondary use being a school which offers what it deems a Christian education to its students. The Carmel Church of the New Jerusalem is a society of the New Church, which is Christian denomination that follows the theological writings and interpretations of famous 18th century Swedish scientist, philosopher, and theologian Emanual Swedenborg. Such sects can be referred to as Swedenborgians. The Pennsylvania groups of Swedenborgian were one of the principal sources of immigration to Waterloo County, and later enabled the Page 136 of 182 emergency of the Berlin Association in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Swedenborgians in Kitchener had at one point constituted the largest and most significant Swedenborgian community in Canada. Christian Enslin is one notable figure within what was then -Berlin's history and was a prominent figure within the Swedenborgian community. After immigrating from Germany to the Waterloo area in about 1830, Enslin practised his trade as a bookbinder — the first in the area - before eventually expanding his business into a bookstore and later taking an active role in journalism. He was instrumental in the formation of the first Swedenborgian congregation within Waterloo County. Other prominent names of this early group of Swedenborgian include Adam Ruby Sr., Charles A. Ahrens, and William Benton. 40 Chapel Hill Drive was not the first church for Kitchener's Swedenborgians. In 1847 the group occupied a 150 -seat chapel built on the corner of Church and Benton Street. As the congregation grew it moved to a new building on the corner of King and Water Street in 1870, which eventually became the first to adopt the name Church of the New Jerusalem. Divisions within the congregation that occurred in 1891 led to both the creation of a new group known as the Carmel Church Society and the erection of a new church at 820 King Street West. Finally, in 1960, the Carmel Church Society purchased the present-day property and approximately 500 acres of other holdings from congregation member John Evans, with the plan to build an independent and self-sufficient church community where families could be close to both the church and school. This community was named Caryndale. Patterns of growth and urbanization lead to Caryndales eventual annexation into Kitchener in the 1970's. The associative value of the Carmel New Church also relates to the architect of the building, John Lingwood. A prolific local architect in the mid -20th century, Lingwoods architectural firm completed more than 700 projects in its lifetime, with a large portion of the work being within the Waterloo Region. These projects ranged in function, scale, and style and included modest homes, university buildings, civic buildings, and churches. Some of his more significant work beyond the Carmel New Church includes the TD Bank at the intersection of King and Francis Street and the former provincial courthouse at the intersection of Frederick and Lancaster Street within the downtown area. Lingwood contributed to the existing appearance of Kitchener and the larger Regions built landscape. Contextual Value 40 Chapel Hills contextual value relates to its importance in maintaining the character of the church -centred community formerly known as Caryndale. Though the areas title has changed from community to neighbourhood and it has grown significantly through the construction of new subdivisions as well as infill development, the predominant residential use of the area remains. The subject property and the surrounding area have been identified as being a Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) by the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study approved by Council in 2015. Key characteristics of this CHL include diversely sized lots that are often well - landscaped and follow the natural topography and drainage patterns of the land. Housing types are modest and not consistent in architectural style, but rather reflect the popular styles of the time -period in which they were built. Further, many members of the congregation reside in the surrounding homes with some even being original residents of the former community. The church is also physical, functional, visual, and historical link to its surroundings. Though the majority of the 503 acres of land on which the church was originally situated has been parcelled and subdivided, the church remains in situ and continues in its original function. In addition, the Church has a strong visual presence, being situated on the largest piece of land within the neighbourhood and possessing a distinct architectural style. The tall pyramidal shaped steeple in particular acts as a marker within the landscape. Page 137 of 182 Other Values Social Value The Carmel New Church and School has social value as a place of worship and education. This building has been providing these services since its construction in 1964, and its operations were central to the development and function of the surrounding community. It remains a prominent place of importance within the Caryndale neighbourhood, with many near -by residents being members of the Carmel New Church congregation. Places of worship often provide intangible community value, serving as places where people gather and socialize in addition to providing comfort or support to those who need it and creating community connections. Schools also contribute social value for a community, acting as a source of socialization and learning for children. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 40 Chapel Hill Drive resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Modern architectural style of the building, including: o an irregular floor plan and massing; o natural building materials such as stone, vertical wood siding and wood shingles; o geometric elements such as octagonal entranceways; o pyramidal steeple and irregularly pitched roof, o flat roof with raised secondary level; o corner clerestory windows; and, o stained glass windows. References Bird, Michael. The Swedenborgian Community in Waterloo County: Two Religious Approaches to Culture. Waterloo Historical Society, Volumes 61-65, 1973-1977. N.A. Carmel Church of the New Jerusalem. Waterloo Historical Society, Volumes 51-55, 1963-1967 Mannell Steven. Images of Progress 1964-1966: Modern Architecture in Waterloo Region. CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: _ 40 Chapel Hill Drive Recorder: _ Jessica Vieira Description: Carmel New Church (church and school) Date: _ (date of construe,.,,,, al�111L �LLUI . �Lyl�, e�) Photographs Attached: Page 138 of 182 ©Front Facade © Left Facade © Right Facade ❑ Rear Facade © Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Heritage Kitchener Committee Recorder - Heritage Planning Staff 1. This property has design value or physical value N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z 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 N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No ZYes E:1 because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or associative value N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z 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 or associative value N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z 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 Citv occured. Additional Page 139 of 182 archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or associative value N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z because it demonstrates or 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 because it N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z is 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 because it N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. * Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value because it N/A E:1 Unknown El No E:1 Yes El N/A El Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z is a landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Page 140 of 182 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ and/or detail noteworthy? No ❑ Yes ❑ Completeness: Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external No ❑ features that complete the site? Yes ❑ Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ * If relocated, is it relocated on its Yes ❑ original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes and design features? Please refer to No ❑ the list of heritage attributes within Yes ❑ the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or features that should be N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X added to the heritage attribute list? No ❑ Yes ❑ Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for Yes ❑ adaptive re -use ifpossible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ heritage and history? No ❑ Yes ❑ ❑X Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research *E.g. - Site within 300m of water Required 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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ the property? ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ * Additional archival work may be NO ❑ Yes ❑ required. ❑ Additional Research Required Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ function of the subject property? Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X - Institutional * Other may include vacant, social, Office 71 institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building Other ❑ - perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Page 141 of 182 subject property contribute to the No ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required cultural heritage of a community of ❑ Additional Research people? Required Does the subject property have N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X intangible value to a specific ❑ Additional Research Required community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim NO ❑ Yes ❑ Society of Waterloo & Wellington ❑ Additional Research Counties) was the first established Required Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes 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 142 of 182 Page 143 of 182 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 4-30 KING STREET EAST/1 QUEEN STREET NORTH "4- 54 If T"P.d".g A"f CATY C (MA ERI -IAL- Cf RE Jr 22 -4 -4 Z".. 34 Summary of Significance • Design/Physical Value • Historical/Associative Value N Contextual Value []Social Value ®Economic Value DEnvironmental Value Municipal Address- 4-30 King Street East/ 1 Queen Street North Legal Description- Plan 364 Pt Lots 13 & 14 Architectural Style- Italianate Year Built: 1862/1863 Original Owner- Louis Breithaupt Original Use- Hotel Condition- Good Page 144 of 182 20 ate! ri Summary of Significance • Design/Physical Value • Historical/Associative Value N Contextual Value []Social Value ®Economic Value DEnvironmental Value Municipal Address- 4-30 King Street East/ 1 Queen Street North Legal Description- Plan 364 Pt Lots 13 & 14 Architectural Style- Italianate Year Built: 1862/1863 Original Owner- Louis Breithaupt Original Use- Hotel Condition- Good Page 144 of 182 Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North is a 19th century commercial building built in the Italianate architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.46 acre parcel of land located on the north east corner of King Street East and Queen 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 commercial building. Heritage Value 4-30 King Street East/ 1 Queen Street North is recognized for its design/physical, significant historical/associative and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Italianate architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: yellow brick construction; individual facades, including some original main street storefronts; simple cornice with single wood brackets; and semi -circular window openings with brick voussoirs. South (Front) Facade The existing building is 3 storeys in height in brick construction and has a flat roof. There are a number of commercial businesses on the ground floor and the front fagade of the building can be divided into 6 sections: - 4 King Street East/1 Queen Street North is of brick construction which has been painted white; - 8-10 King Street East has yellow/beige brick construction; - 16 King Street East is of white brick construction; - 20 King Street East is of brick construction, but has since been covered with stucco; - 24 King Street East is of red veneer brick construction; and - 26-30 King Street East was heavily damaged in a fire in 2011, and has since been demolished. Each section has a commercial store on the ground floor level, with two or three semi- circular windows with brick voussoirs on each storey. The window configurations vary with: - 4 King Street East/1 Queen Street North has two full six -over -six semi -circular hung windows with brick voussoirs and one partial six -over -six semi -circular window that it shares with 8 King Street East on each storey; Page 145 of 182 - 8 -10 King Street East has 4 full semi -circular windows with brick voussoirs and one partial semi -circular window with brick voussoirs it shares with 4 King Street East on each storey. These windows all have sills but they do not appear to be original; - 16 King Street East has three semi -circular windows with brick voussoirs and sills on each storey, however, the windows are not original; and - 20-24 King Street East both have two semi -circular windows with brick voussoirs and sills on each storey. These windows also do not appear to be original. At the top of this fagade, there is a cornice with decorative brackets and decorative brick work that extends throughout the fagade. The cornice and the brackets used to be red, but have since been painted black. West (Side) Facade This fagade extends along Queen Street North and has a similar fenestration pattern as the front fagade. The facade contains commercial stores at the ground level, with 15 windows on each storey. These windows are six -over -six semi -circular hung windows with brick voussoirs and sills. At the top of this fagade is the cornice with decorative brackets and decorative brickwork. North (Rear) Facade The facade has been altered. The facade did not have any window openings or door openings and was a blank fagade. Since then, the window has been altered with window openings on each storey. East (Side) Facade The east fagade is of 24 King Street East. Since 26-30 King Street East was damaged in a fire in 2011, this fagade and front facade needed to be repaired. This fagade can be divided into 5 bays. There seems to be an addition on the back which is of the same cladding as the main fagade, but was not part of the original building. Each bay of this fagade has two long openings on the ground floor each, two small windows on the first storey, and two small windows on the second storey. However, all the windows openings of the ground floor seem to be boarded up, and some windows on each storey have also been boarded up. Although there have been several alterations to the building over the years, including the alterations that had to be made because of the fire, the building still maintains some of its original elements and is still representative of its Italianate architectural style and retains its heritage integrity. Furthermore, the building has significant historical, associative and contextual value. Page 146 of 182 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). The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building. The original owner of the building was Louis Breithaupt while the original use of the building was a hotel — the American Hotel. The American Hotel was built by Louis Breithaupt in 1862-1863 for $9000.00. It is estimated that the building has served as a hotel for approximately 100 years. The building is the oldest commercial building in the City. Louis Breithaupt was a prominent business in Berlin as well as a former mayor, and his contributions to the development of Berlin form an integral chapter in Berlin's commercial and industrial development. Louis Breithauat Louis Jacob Breithaupt was born in Buffalo, New York, on March 3, 1855. His parents were Louis and Catherine (Hailer) Breithaupt. Louis' father was a native of Hessen, Germany, who brought his family from the United States to Canada, which led to Louis being educated in Berlin and Toronto, after which he joined his family in business in Berlin, learning the trade of a tanner. He served many roles, from being a salesman, bookkeeper, and commercial traveler for the house, and upon the death of his father in 1880, he became a member and acting manager of the form of Louis Breithaupt & Company. In 1890, with Louis Breithaupt now the President of the Company, the business was re -organized as a joint stock company, also becoming known as The Breithaupt Leather Company Ltd, have extensive tanneries at Berlin, Penetanguishene and Listowel, with the head office in Berlin. This company became one of the biggest leather companies to operate in Canada. This contributed greatly to the economic and industrial development of Berlin at the time, with Louis Breithaupt becoming one of the most prominent members of the society. Along with his business, he has also served as the President for the Ontario Bank Company, President of the Berlin Gas, Electric Light & Power Company, a Director for the Economical Fire Insurance Co. of Berlin, and was also the President of the North Waterloo Agricultural Society. Additionally, he was the first Vice -President of The Berlin Rubber Company. He was also the President of the Berlin Board of Trade. For many years he was on the Waterloo County council as a member, serving was a Warden of the County in 1898. For seven years, he was also served as a member of the Berlin Town Council, and served as a mayor of the city in 1889. Contextual Value Page 147 of 182 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. Furthermore, this building is the oldest commercial building in the City and located a prominent intersection in the downtown city core, contributing to its contextual value. 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 4-30 King Street East / 1 Queen Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Italianate architectural style of the building, including: o yellow brick construction; o individual front, rear, and west facades on the second and third storey, except for 24 King Street East front Facade and east facade; o roof and roofline; o Decorative brickwork around the single wood brackets; o simple cornice with single wood brackets; and, o semi -circular window openings with brick voussoirs and sills on the front and west (Queen Street) facade; ■ 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 148 of 182 PHOTOS Page 149 of 182 ;r r INI i 4-30 King Street East/ 1 Queen Street North — Front Fa ade taken in June 2009. Page 150 of 182 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: 1 Queen Street North / 4-30 King Street East Former Hotel Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc.) Photographs Attached: Natalie Recorder: — Date: March 30, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade X Rear Facade X Details X Setting Designation Recorder — Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Criteria 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 Page 151 of 182 demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * 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, Louis Breithaupt — Owner, former event, belief, mayor, oldest commercial building in person, activity, the city 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 occurred. Additional archival work may be required. Page 152 of 182 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 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 neighborhood 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 Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Page 153 of 182 because it is a landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Rear alterations, vive development building "coming soon" House back of build, chimney possible heritage attributes Original door (16 on top) may be original Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ craftsmanship and/or Yes ❑ detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ original outbuildings, 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 ❑ Yes ❑X original site? 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 ❑ Yes ❑X original materials and Yes ❑X design features? Please Partially original brick colour refer to the list of heritage roof/roofline, cornice with attributes within the Statement of Significance wood brackets, windows with and indicate which brick voussoirs, individual elements are still existing facades and which ones have been removed. Page 154 of 182 Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ features that should be 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. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ to Indigenous heritage ❑ ❑X Additional Research Required and history? ❑ 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. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Could there be any urban N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Additional Research Required Indigenous history ❑ associated with the ❑ Additional Research Required property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: What is the Unknown ❑ Residential ❑X Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commer present function of the Commercial ❑X cial ❑X subject property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Does the subject property ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes X Page 155 of 182 Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required have intangible value to a ❑ specific community of ❑ Additional Research Required 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. 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 156 of 182 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 157 of 182 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 67 King Street East 1 �r Thamusaum �'. Conrid'C�sntrr 35/ 1ji y��lrA'ri sre ,; 5 Fa Tha Parlarming r "rr� rr cif f 1 ? Dusan 5t � Stan a IAarkar,. 1 q x > Th. Valm V 010ne... Th.Po w Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address: 67 King Street East Legal Description: Year Built: c. 1976 Architectural Style: International Original Owner: Canada Permanent Original Use: Bank Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource []Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value 67 King Street East is a two-storey late 201h century commercial building, constructed in the International architectural style. The commercial building is situated on a 0.22 acre parcel of land located near the south west corner of Benton Street 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. Page 158 of 182 Heritage Value 67 King Street East is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. Design/Physical Value The design and physical value of the subject property resides in the architecture and physical construction of the building. It is a unique and representative example of the International architectural style in a commercial building. The building was constructed in a two-storey rectangular form and is in good condition as the original appearance of the structure has been largely maintained. Front Fagade (East Elevation) The building is located on a corner lot, with the front principal facade positioned along Benton Street. The roof is flat, thick and cantilevered over the front wall, supported at equal intervals by eight thin rectangular steel pillars. The thinness of the supporting pillars creates an interesting juxtaposition against the thick and heavy appearance of the roof overhang. The front fagade makes extensive use of glazing, with 21 evenly spaces glass panels dividing the elevation vertically. Black textured steel panels span the width of the fagade and provide a horizontal division between the first and second storey, with a thinner textured steel band wrapping above the second -storey windows. Two double doors are set centrally within the front fagade with a steel canopy positioned above. Both the windows and the door frames make use of anodized aluminum framing. An artistic installation was added in front of the building in 2015. Though technically located on the adjacent property, this installation frames the entrance to the building and significantly alters the visual appearance of the front facade. The structure is a refurbished 23 -bell Glockenspiel situated on a four -metre high, free-standing frame built by Melloul Blarney Construction. The Glockenspiel has an enclosure facade decorated with a banner and two inscriptions in gothic font on either side; the inscription on the left is written in German while the English translation is on the right. It reads "Glockenspiel and Chorgesang mag der Mencsch sein Leben lang" which means "Glockenspiel and choir song make man happy all lifelong". The installation is capable of playing an animated show of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves to a variety of different tunes. Right -Side Fagade (North Elevation) The right -side facade is positioned along King Street East. The cantilevered roof design continues from the front facade to the side facades, supported by three thin rectangular steel pillars. Approximately one-third of the cladding of the side facade is a neutral limestone. On the other two-thirds of the side fagade the glazing of glass with textured steel bands continues. There is an additional double -door entrance with steel canopy on this side facade. Left -Side Fagade (South Elevation) The left -side fagade mimics the right -side fagade. The only differentiation is the presence of a service door set into the limestone cladding. Rear Fagade (West Elevation) The rear facade of the building is directly against the adjacent building and is not visible. Historical Value The building possesses historical and associative value due its original use and ownership. The building was originally owned and operated by the Canada Permanent Trust Company, whose origins as a trust company date back to 1855. After World War II the company were significant contributors towards continued growth and development in cities, as they focused on mortgage lending within urban areas as well as lending to corporations investing in plans and equipment. In 1959 Canada Permanent became the first trust company to sponsor a mutual fund. These actions earned the company a reputation as a leader in developing and providing a wide range of personal and business services, including deposit -taking, lending, mutual funds, financial planning, and Page 159 of 182 investment management. At the time that 67 King Street East was built, Canada Permanent was the oldest trust company in Canada. In the late 1990's Canada Permanent — now named Canada Trust — grew to be the largest trust and loan financial institution in the country with almost 400 branches. In 2000, Canada Trust was acquired by the TD Bank Financial Group. The architecture firm which designed the building also contribute to 67 King Street East's historical and associative value. The building was designed by the prominent architecture firm that was at the time known as Rieder and Hymmen, previously called Barnett Rieder Architects and later Rieder, Hymmen and Lobban Inc. Architects. This was the firm of prolific local architect Carl Rieder, who in the 47 years of his career made significant contribution to the development of the Modernist architectural style in Southwest Ontario and in the Waterloo County region specifically. Notable examples of his work within Kitchener includes Eastwood Collegiate Institute (1955-56), Highland Baptist Church (1958), the Kitchener Public Library (1959-61), and Centre in the Square (1979). 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. He had a significant impact on the built landscape of the region. 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. This area is recognized as the heart of the downtown and historically was the focal point of early development in what was then Berlin. Hotels and inns, banks, offices, and other commercial enterprises anchored this core area. Many of these late -19th and early -20th century remain today, and the mix of uses continues. The building currently operates as the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) Waterloo Wellington office — this is a continuation of the original office use of the building and supports the function and character of the surrounding area. Further it is located in-situ within a notable setting, as the building provides a frame for the adjacent Speakers Corner Park space. Other historical buildings are located adjacent to or in proximity to the property, including properties within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 67 King Street East resides in the following: • All elements related to the construction and International architectural style of the building, including: o two storey rectangular form; o flat roof with large overhang o rectangular steel support pillars placed at regular intervals; o smooth neutral limestone cladding on 1/3 of the side fagades; o extensive use of glazing from ground floor to roofline; o Repetitive and even patterning of windows; o steel framed doors and windows; o horizontal textured steel panels that wrap in a band around the building above both the first and second storey windows; and o steel canopy above entrances. All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location of the building and the contribution that it makes to the continuity and character of the King Street streetscape; o Setting that is provided to the adjacent Speakers Corner Park space. Page 160 of 182 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION Address: _ 67 King Street East Description: Office Building date of conStrW L1U11, alp ,uiLU Mlai �,Ly IV, cu.) Photographs Attached: ❑Front Facade ❑ Left Facade FORM Recorder: _ Ilona and Natalie Date: _ ❑ Right Facade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder — Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or physical value N/A El Unknown El No El Yes ZN'A El Unknown El No El Yes Z 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 N/A El Unknown El No ZYes El N/A El Unknown El No ZYes El because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value N/A El Unknown El No ZYes El N/A El Unknown El No ZYes El because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or associative value N/A El Unknown El No El Yes ZN/A El Unknown El No El Yes Z 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. Page 161 of 182 5. The property has historical or associative value N/A El Unknown E:1 No XYes E:1 N/A E:1 Unknown E:1 No XYes E:1 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 value or associative value N/A El Unknown E:1 No El Yes ZN/A E:1 Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z because it demonstrates or 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 because N/A El Unknown E:1 No El Yes ZN/A E:1 Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z it is 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 because N/A El Unknown E:1 No El Yes ZN/A E:1 Unknown E:1 No E:1 Yes Z it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. * Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value because N/A El Unknown E:1 No El Yes ZN/A E:1 Unknown E:1 No ZYes E:1 it is a landmark. Page 162 of 182 *within the region, city or neighborhood. Page 163 of 182 Additional Criteria Recorder — Heritage Heritage Planning Staff Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ and/or detail noteworthy? Yes ❑ Completeness: Does this structure have other original outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external Yes ❑ features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Yes ❑ * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X materials and design features? Yes ❑ 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 features that should be N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Yes ❑ Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X Yes ❑ *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re-use ifpossible and contribute towards equity-building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous heritage and history? Yes ❑ © Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research *E.g. - Site within 300m of water Required 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 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ the property? ❑X Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ * Additional archival work may be Yes ❑ required. ❑ Additional Research Required Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commer function of the subject property? Commercial ❑ cial Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the communityfrom an equity building perspective. Page 164 of 182 Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ the subject property contribute to Yes ❑ © Additional Research Required the cultural heritage of a ❑ Additional Research community of people? Required Does the subject property have N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ intangible value to a specific ZAdditional Research Required community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Yes ❑ Society of Waterloo & Wellington ❑ Additional Research Counties) was the first established Required Islamic Center and Masiid in the Region and contributes to the history o the Muslim community in the area. Notes 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 ❑ 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 165 of 182 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 66 QUEEN STREET SOUTH n. 7 44'- 41 ZITY COTANAERIAALCORE rh A 84 98 10 0 * '� 112 Summary of Significance • Design/Physical Value • Historical/Associative Value N Contextual Value []Social Value ®Economic Value El Environmental Value Municipal Address- 66 Queen Street South Legal Description- Plan 391 Part Lot 6 RP 58R-9667 Part 1 & 2 Architectural Style- Renaissance Revival Year Built: 1898 Original Owner- Randall & Roos Original Use- Commercial Condition- Good Page 166 of 182 Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource 66 Queen Street South is a late 19th century building built in the Renaissance Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.12 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 66 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; central entrance flanked by windows; three upper storey semi -circular window openings with brick voussoirs; and stone sills. East (Front) Facade The existing building is 2 storeys in height in red and yellow brick construction and has a flat roof. The building is currently occupied by The Working Centre, and the ground floor includes a large one-on-one windows on both ends with a central entry. Between the windows and doors are two red brick columns and the ends of the fagade includes yellow brick columns. Above the ground floor is a decorative green and beige cornice with decorative brackets on either end of the fagade. The second storey include three semi -circular windows each with yellow decorative brick headers and yellow stone sills or stone band that extends through the length of the fagade. Above the windows there is decorative yellow brick work. North (Side) Facade This fagade partially abuts the neighboring building at 58 Queen Street South. The rear north fagade is of red brick construction and includes two doors and a small single hung window with yellow brick voussoirs on the ground level. The doors might have been altered from windows. There is an additional single -hung window on the ground floor, but that has been filled in. The upper floor also includes three single -hung windows with yellow voussoirs. These windows do not seem to be original. West (Rear) Facade This fagade has been extensively altered since it was first constructed. The ground floor includes three single -hung windows with yellow brick voussoirs, out of which two have Page 167 of 182 been filled in. There is one window, which has been altered and now includes a smaller window opening with yellow voussoirs. The upper floor also has three windows with yellow brick voussoirs and stone sills. The windows do not seem to be original. This facade also includes pipes and other building systems. South (Side) Facade The south fagade is long and includes an irregular fenestration pattern. On the ground floor, towards the rear, there is a door and an artistic installation with three small single - hung windows with yellow brick voussoirs. There is also a pair of single hung window next to the art installation that does not appear to be original. Some original window openings have been filled in or altered. Between the ground level and the upper level, there are four (4) pairs of single hung windows that don't look original to the building. The upper storey includes four single hung windows with yellow brick voussoirs. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the previous and existing owners and uses of the building. The building was once owned by Randall & Roos and used as a Wholesale Grocers. An advertisement in the "Berlin, Canada. A Self -Portrait of Kitchener, Ontario Before World War One" indicates that Randall & Roos is the "largest distributing firm in wholesale groceries, cigars, tobaccos, etc. between Toronto and Winnipeg." Randall & Roos was established in 1884 by George Randall and William Roos of Waterloo in the Ahrens block on King Street in Berlin. The 2 storey red brick building at 66 Queen Street South was built in 1898 for $6000.00 by Aaron Bricker for Randall & Roos. George Randall was involved with the Grand Trunk Railway and he was a member of the School Trustee and one of the first members of the Hospital Trust. William Roos was a Park Commissioner and President of the Musical Society. The ownership and history of this building is similar to the abutting property, 58 Queen Street South. Ownership of the building transferred to John Fennell for his hardware company, and then Carl Nicholas Weber for his company. George Randall George Randall was born on April 16, 1832, in born in Chesterfield, Chesire, New Hampshire, United State of America. He immigrated to Canada to Ontario in 1854, with his uncle, Marshall H. Farr, who had contracts for station buildings from Guelph westward on the Grand Trunk Railway and also some for the Great Western Railway. On Mr. Farr's death, George Randall and his brother took over the contracts. He also had other businesses, such as manufacturing, a woolen mills in Waterloo and also for some time in a distillery. Joseph Seagram joined the mills business in 1870 and within 13 years became Page 168 of 182 the sole owner of the historic mill, changing its name to the Joseph Seagram Flour Mill and Distillery Company. In 1884, he opened the Randall & Roos Wholesale Grocers with William Roos. In addition to this, he was a director in the Waterloo Mutual Fire Insurance Company for 33 years, and was the director of this company from 1890 until his death in 1908. In 1870, for the next three years, George Randall served as the village magistrate, and when Waterloo officially became a town in 1876, Randall eventually became the mayor in 1878. George Randall was also on the committee that was charged with the responsibility of building the region's first "poor house" — which eventually came to be known as the County House of Industry and Refuge. When it opened on June 15, 1869, it became the first of its kind in Ontario. William Roos William Roos was born in Preston (present day Cambridge), Waterloo Region, on April 18, 1842. He was a businessman in Berlin and operated the Randall and Roos Wholesale Grocers for many years. He was the brother-in-law of George Randall. 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 1 st, 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 its 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 Page 169 of 182 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 (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 Page 170 of 182 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 66 Queen Street South resides in the following heritage attributes of the Renaissance Revival style: ■ All elements related to the construction and Classic Revival architectural style of the building, including: o a rectangular plan; o brick construction, including: ■ decorative brick work; o Original remaining yellow brick voussoirs above window openings; o three upper storey semi -circular window openings with brick voussoirs; and, o stone 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 171 of 182 PHOTOS r 62 56 fes. Pi m. 66 Queen Street South — Front East Fa ade Page 172 of 182 1 58 Queen Street South — West (rear) facade 158 Queen Street South — South Fagade Page 173 of 182 158 Queen Street South — North Fagade .,r s _ i `a Orli-,moi i� f s� _ 9! r�i�Yi•riy� i IFTl iQueen StreetSouthVoussoirs Page 174 of 182 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 66 Queen Street South Address: 1898 Renaissance Revival Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Donny & Andrew Recorder: — Date: March 10, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade X 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 Page 10 of 16 Page 175 of 182 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 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 vaIue or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or Page 11 of 16 Page 176 of 182 1 KrT HES ER 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 X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Cornice overhanging front fagade. Page 12 of 16 Page 177 of 182 1 KrTcHEN�R Additional Criteria Recorder — Heritage Heritage Planning Staff Kitchener Committee 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 ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X features that should be Yes ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Page 13 of 16 Page 178 of 182 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 X Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial X Office ❑ Other ❑X social services N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required 1 KrTCHEN�R 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 ❑ Co mmercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X - social N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes El ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required Page 14 of 16 Page 179 of 182 1 KrT HEN�R * 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 Refer to S.O.S. 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 15 of 16 Page 180 of 182 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 16 of 16 Page 181 of 182 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 3 ° o f m Q ac U .o u❑ – C -O cN Y i CD -O .0CU-O x .� O (6CL N • V c O cu'p C (6 Y c o C 2 0 o rA 7�1 i .�. OU a) (6 a) >, c6 -O -p / ❑ (B -O o C O a� N -O - nIS,I o ocOpw co oO O ' 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 X11 lf' d d V N N 1—x1 Q Y 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 E E E 'c E 'c m m m ns V o _0 a Chi U U U U a�� m .� M co M M '3i y M N N N N N 7 N 10 10 10 W W N 04 N LOM 7 (• 1 '� N N N x O O O O co 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 y Q H LL >2 o o p it v M m r 6 ❑ co po W N M 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 0- a a a x x x x x r N N N N N N N N N N M M