HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2023-09-05Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 5, 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. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on September 5, 2023, in order to participate electronically. 3.1 Item 4.1 - Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning 3.2 Item 4.2 - Rachel Redshaw, MHBC Planning 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 628 15 m 3 New Dundee Road, DSD -2023-356 4.2 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-015, 25 m 100 30-40 Margaret Avenue, New Building - Townhome Development, DSD -2023-367 4.3 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment, 417 King 15 m 229 Street West, Proposed 55 -storey Tower, DSD - 2023 -359 4.4 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-014, 15 m 276 15 Church Street, Construction of 6 -storey Affordable Housing Building, DSD -2023-360 4.5 Notice of Intention to Designate, 35 & 43 10m 381 Sheldon Avenue North Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2023-362 4.6 Notice of Intention to Designate, 90-92 Queen 10m 392 Street South Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2023-358 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 407 6. Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Administrator Page 2 of 2 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: August 11, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-356 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 628 New Dundee Road RECOMMENDATION: For information. BACKGROUND: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated July 2023 and prepared by McNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC), on behalf of Fusion Homes. The HIA relates to a submitted site plan application for the property municipally addressed as 628 New Dundee Road and the adjacent property identified as Block 111 on Plan 58M-528 (SP23/053/N/ES). It proposes eleven blocks of stacked townhomes as well as the retention of the existing dwelling on site, for a total of 210 dwelling units. The subject property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register. It is also adjacent to or in proximity of other cultural heritage resources, including the Walter Bean Trail Cultural Heritage Landscape and 508 New Dundee Road, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Per the Cultural Heritage Landscape Study prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. in 2014 and approved by Council in 2015, Reichert Drive forms the southern -most part of the Walter Bean Trail. There are currently three structures on site; a farmhouse constructed c.1848, an original barn constructed c. 1848, and an outbuilding. The farmhouse and barn both have multiple additions that were added at various dates. *** 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 407 P a M11111110 �pGE�010 LEGEJ END AA T Listed Part IV Part V HCD a Part IV&V m � CHL n x m ,7 Reviewed �Y Figure 1: Location map of subject properties SIZE STATISTICS Le kV -C 49pR, 33Tu C efAAgpllc�pn-IA2aP.H- J W Nes -X255.1 m' Rounbbad newpnaarly 15e reenarAter®-219,T mi Mex pl ems wkh RSura�IW pBPe�IY Ilse-7$.(A5d � Bulldl�p Cererge-5drr-0.9 m�{23.9%) LaidswpaVNea-13.W4.1 hi (4@.3%J Aaphek! Hartl 3udza:Area-1,62T.9 m�Z6,®%j Porklg Requlnd QB1.51unk-315 spam parkyg Pnmlbadll -265 ap 2 N�� spw� Ml.1— mem DI—k-2 aasm Berder paddn9mquir 8�2%-B.— BerderFeep ftd—IW-BspewsI4Type Aaik4 Tl BwM 2Am ecoesalble aWej CWae A Blknsraageraquyed �A,5NnIt-IM— CW !-, 05 spaces Clue A Blketx%opmkiad-105 apewa ($ I--, bIM spews —1,d ob -66 ftftr �ewa M 9eNen aullm+ 13 a Erlorbllm spe�Ps InRRek01n TdaW. bd.V MbFnum bFe ebrege dmerelone-1.&nz 0®n CleaBBlbsrag-fispam CW e B Blb tmq*&wagepip+ketl-B ryeoa R1,MD Hnmky Pse®2aWWM 25 aIIY"bedome -1,055A ma Pmrldeb AmenkV Area-1pB5P m° Naw: Snew n+rwal b eewr ep eke MWLTP, IDENTIX H~.1 UNa -210 Fl -Space RA1I0-VRS O ASS% a2 CTS z NEVE D. NONI5 CENOE OM2 REHIS®. SITE PLAN APPLICATION No. SP231 SITE PLAN 4 5 1®5 swarni,ww awps:suascrTawusamrtlxaassweams:.�asrn aroma,rslx»a�ar,amarrtc«<�a.mrwrt�or aaanaasu —roar Fusion Homes E.,., City of Kitchener -NEI 7D73-07.,4FILE; 628 New Dundee Road DATE: 2723-07-14 CEVELCPNENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SP NDE—KITCHENER Figure 2: Proposed site plan Page 4 of 407 REPORT: The draft HIA has concluded that the subject property meets two (2) out of the nine (9) criteria for designation. It identifies the existing farmhouse as having design/physical value, being a representative and early example of the Gothic Revival Cottage architectural style. It also identifies it as having historical/associative value due to its association with mid -1911 century agricultural practices. The barn and outbuilding located on site were identified as having no significant cultural heritage value or interest. The applicant is proposing the retention and relocation of the existing farmhouse to a different location on site. The proposal would see the building moved approximately 50 metres to the south-west corner of the site, placed on a new foundation (Figure 3). A structural engineering report dated July 12, 2023 and completed by Tacoma Engineers has confirmed that the existing home is a good candidate for relocation. The additions to the farmhouse added c. 1966 are proposed to be removed (Figure 4). The relocation would facilitate the construction of eleven blocks of townhome units, a central amenity space, 245 surface parking spaces, and an internal laneway with access points onto Blaire Creek Drive and New Dundee Road. nyrrtilr+y- - Figure 3: Proposed site plan outlining existing and new location of farmhouse Page 5 of 407 Identifier A DescKphon &Lk Revival dwell !Ag CmstrurtionDate kL IM6 and 1858 Sumrfkr Kitchen of (461 MIN Bet 1845 and 1858 Reat Addition 19% Garage 1%6 1.Addltlon F Gal, - nd balcony 1W 24"eentury Figure 4: Arial view of dwelling with sections to be demolished identified in red Page 6 of 407 The HIA provided the following mitigation recommendations: • That the barn, outbuilding, and dwelling be documented; • The barn is proposed to be dismantled and materials adaptively re -used by the current tenants in a new location. Should the barn not be re -used by the prospective third part, that the barn be made available to other interested parties so that it can be re -used as opposed to being deposited as landfill; • That select materials (i.e. beams) of the barn be retained as commemoration/interpretive features on-site within the amenity area (i.e. benches, landscaping, etc); • That a Conservation Plan for the dwelling be completed as a condition of Site Plan Approval in order to outline the proposed alterations to the building and provide recommendations to ensure the work is consistent with best practices for the conservation of cultural heritage resources; and • That an Interpretation Plan be completed which will provide the draft text/images and layout of an interpretive panel to be installed within the amenity area. The applicant will be attending the September 5, 2023 meeting of the Heritage Kitchener Committee to answer any questions or concerns. Heritage Planning Staff are currently in the process of reviewing the HIA and will be providing detailed comments to the applicant to address any areas that require further assessment or discussion. At this time, Heritage Planning Staff are also seeking the Committee's input and comments, which will be taken into consideration as part of the complete staff review and processing related to the associated Planning Act Application. A copy of the HIA has been included as Attachment A in this report. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 628 New Dundee Road Page 7 of 407 •r� .,�+ � t'�'R � d r ,{�'} i wr- RAP � { V 'rf y Al _- +� � L.! iS+.'Sw �� ~A+.`.. ..0^" i 1 �.i� �1 fL I ,/tl��,• Sp �• � +' .A A PdV � . y ��r �y r a ' �•h �, i aW HERITAGE 4�ti .y � ; .��' ` SRS � :t �,. �.. r •, 4�;. i IMDACT A or r. ' ✓ + ASSESSMENT j �y �B ��k}w••`n- RMS s + k --�-I REPORT 628 New Dundee Road, r '' City of Kitchener �► r '.� r,� ~� �'���• ani' y '� - i`��+ Date:, July 2023 Prepared for:,r Fusion Homes Prepared by: _ .of MacNaughton Herms. Britton 1arkson a Planning Limited (MHBL, t 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive. Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 y � T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 012110 7 � �-��F'w` � 1_ . ` �, • - 4 Am Our File:'1405 H,. _. , .. ®���,�.�F_��.����►�,r.m,y- _sg t ,r�" ' a� ��'3 �.,�::�:.,..� � ,,:� z+ !T�„y ",•�° pop MHB. PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ,;RCH!TECTUR E Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................4 PropertyOwner............................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................................5 Acknowledgement of First Nations Territory, Traditions, and Cultural Heritage.................................................................5 ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................................................................................6 1.0 Description of Subject Property.................................................................................................................................................................8 1.1 Location of Subject Property...........................................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Zoning and Land Use....................................................................................................................................................................9 1.2 Heritage Status............................................................................................. ..................................................................................10 2.0 Policy Context................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020......................................................................................................................................12 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act ........................................ ............................................................................................................13 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan ............................ ......................................................................................................13 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan.......... ............................................................................................................................14 3.0 Historical Overview ........................... ............... ............................................................................................................................17 3.1 Indigenous Communities Hist...........................................................................................................................................17 3.2 County of Waterloo, Wate w .................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............19 3.3 628 New Dundee Road.....................................................................................................................................................................20 4.0 Description of Subject Pro erty........................................................................................................................................................31 4.1 Description of 628 New ee Road.........................................................................................................................................31 4.2 Description of Built Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................................................33 4.2.1 Description of Dwelling................................................................................................................................................................33 4.2.2 Description of Barn..........................................................................................................................................................................38 4.2.3 Description of Outbuilding.........................................................................................................................................................42 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................................................44 5.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................................................................................................44 5.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources..................................................................................................................................45 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value....................................................................................................................................................................45 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value........................................................................................................................................................48 July, 2023 MHBC I i Page 9 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 5.2.3 Contextual Value................................................................................................ 5.2.4 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation ............................................. 5.3 Summary of Evaluation............................................................................................ 6.0 Description of Proposed Development.............................................................. 7.0 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................... 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 7.2.1 Re -location On-site............................................................................................ 7.2.2 Removal of Barn.................................................................................................. 8.0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures a 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches ........................... 8.1.1 Do nothing.............................................................................. 8.1.2 Develop the site while retaining buildings in -s rnnrant --' ' --r-................................................................................................. 8.1.3 Develop the site while retaining buildings at a 8.1.4 Develop the site while retaining building at a 8.2 Mitigation and Recommendati 9.0 Recommendations and Concl ns...... 10.0 Sources ........................ Appendix A.......................'A Location Map (next pag 49 51 53 54 57 57 57 58 59 00nservation Recommendations .......................................................................... 60 ............................................................... 60 .....................................................60 rating them into the development ......................................................................60 tern cation within the subject property.60 tf*e location off-site................................................61 ...................................................................................................... 61 ...................................................................................................... 63 Appendix B ....................................... ........................................................................................................................................................ 67 SitePlan (next page)..............................................................................................................................................................................................67 AppendixC..................................................................................................................................................................................................................68 PhotoMap (next page)........................................................................................................................................................................................68 AppendixD..................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 TitleSearch (next page)........................................................................................................................................................................................69 AppendixE...................................................................................................................................................................................................................70 Statement of Significance (City of Kitchener).........................................................................................................................................70 AppendixF...................................................................................................................................................................................................................71 StructuralEngineering Report.........................................................................................................................................................................71 July, 2023 MHBC I ii Page 10 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener AppendixG ..................................... StaffBios........................................... AppendixH ..................................... Photo Documentation (USB) 72 72 73 73 July, 2023 MHBC I iii Page 11 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Lucy Chen Property Fusion Homes c/o Ben James 500 Hanlon Creek BIN Guelph, ON N1COA1 July, 2023 Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Heritage Planner Technician Senior Review Research, Author GIS/Maps MHBC 14 Page 12 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Glossary of Abbreviations HIA MHBC MHSTCI OHA OHTK O -REG 9/06 PPS 2020 Acknowledg Traditions, A Heritage Impact Assessment MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritaavffbolkit Ontario for determining cultural Statement (2020) Nations Territory, Heritage This Heritage Impact Assessme`Fit acknowledges that the subject property located at 628 New Dundee Road, City of Kitchener, is situated on part of the Haldimand Tract, which was promised to the peoples of the Six Nations on the Grand River and is located within the recognized territory of the Anishinaabe peoples (Attiwonderonk (Neutral), Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe). These lands are acknowledged as part of the following treaties: • Haldimand Treaty, 1784. July, 2023 MHBC 15 Page 13 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Executive Summary MHBC was retained to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 628 New Dundee Road, hereinafter noted as the "subject property'. The HIA is required given that the subject property is listed (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property currently includes a dwelling, barn, and an outbuilding. The proposed development includes the re- location and conservation of the dwelling for continued residential use. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to evaluate whether or not proposed development will result in adverse impacts on cultural heritage resources. This report has been prepared as input into the planning application and developmentjroposal. The background information and research has provided direction on the redevelopment concept. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy fra and Provincial policy. Summary of Cultural Heritage Value or I est This report has determined that the subject property meets of 9 criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The property is of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest for its design/physical and historical/associative val4es. There is no evidence to suggest that the property has significant contextual val The features of the site which hidenCdas ritage attributes includes the existing dwelling and barn. The dwelling is con sideredresentative example of a Gothic Revival cottage. The barn is considered a representative.exampie of a typical 19th century bank barn. While there are few examples of barns remaining within til e City of Kitchener due to increased urbanization, there are other barns whichar extant w' in rural areas of the Region of Waterloo. The subject property was rmer y part of a farm complex, which has been altered over time and now functions as a large residential lot with a barn within an area which has transitioned from agricultural to urban residential. mpact Analysis The proposed development includes the retention of the existing dwelling so that it can be re- located on-site for continued residential use. The re -location of the dwelling is considered an adverse impact given that it includes the removal of the existing foundation and the removal of the building from its original location in-situ. However, the building will retain its original relationship to New Dundee Road and will be conserved over the long-term. Recommendations are provided below to ensure that the re -location and alterations to the building avoid or minimize any adverse impacts. July, 2023 MHBC 16 Page 14 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener The removal of the barn is considered an adverse impact given it includes the removal of heritage fabric. However, the removal of the barn will be mitigated given that the barn is intended to be dis- mantled and adaptively re-used/re-constructed on another site. The removal of all other features of the site is considered a neutral impact given that a) the site is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape, and b) no other features of the site are identified as heritage attributes. Summary of Mitigation Recommendations The following is recommended in order to mitigate the identified impacts of the proposed development concept: • That the barn, outbuilding and dwelling be documented a�provided in Appendix C and H of this report; 1 • The barn is proposed to be dismantled and materials adaptively re -used by the current tenants in a new location. Should the barn not be re -used by the prospective third party, that the barn be made available to other interested p ties so that it could be re -used as opposed to being deposited as landfill; • That select materials (i.e. beams) of the barn be ned as commemoration/interpretive features on-site within the amenity area (i.e:. bench ndscaping, etc.); • That a Conservation Plan for the dwellin b omp*ted as a condition of Site Plan Approval in order to outline the pos terations to the building, and provide recommendations to ensure the rk is c istent with best practices for the conservation of cultural heritage resources; and • That an Interpret tion Plan be completed which will provide the draft text/images and layout of an irretive panel toe installed within the amenity area; and • That this report be accepted into the City's database to supplement the historic record. D July, 2023 MHBC 17 Page 15 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 1.0 Description of Subject Property 1 .1 Location of Subject Property The subject property includes two parcels located at a) 628 New Dundee Road, and b) the property legally described as Block 111, Plan 58m528 (i.e. the lot located east of the subject property, north of New Dundee Road). This HIA focuses on the property at 628 New Dundee Road given that it has been identified by the City of Kitchener as havi otential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The property at 628 New Dundee Road is located on Robert Ferrie Drive, south of Blair Creek Drive. The syr 401 within an area which is predominantly low densli New Dundee Road. The subject property canj�Ldes, 3.69 acres in size. th side o�w Dundee Road, east of rrty is sit ted west of Highway al, with agricultural uses south of flag -shaped lot that is approximately Figure 1: Aerial photo noting the location of the subject property at 628 New Dundee Road, outlined in red. Adjacent lot which is part of the proposed development outlined with blue dashed line. (Source: MHBC, 2022) July, 2023 MHBC 18 Page 16 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 1 .2 Zoning and Land Use According to Map 3 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan, the subject property is designated mixed use. The subject property is located adjacent to lands designated low density residential (yellow), open space (light green), natural heritage conservation (dark green), and commercial campus (purple). Legend I Mixed Use THOMAS SLEE DR ��- Figure 2: Excerpt of Map 3 of the itchelWfficial Plan (Land Use) noting the approximate location of 628 New Dundee Roa re ashe e, (Source: City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014) The subject property is cur oC- 492R, 387U (Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone). The Zoning By-law permits a ran f including (but not limited to) office, educational establishments, gas Sion, carwas day care facility, health office, personal services, restaurant, and retail. The 387U site ific ption specifies that other uses are permitted, including the following: • Cluster townhouse dwelling; • Duplex dwelling; • Multiple dwelling; • Religious Institution; • Retirement home; and • Street Townhouse dwelling. July, 2023 MHBC 19 Page 17 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 226 G(kk 234 x30 ��PIR ♦ � 238 II I ` I I I ` I I ♦ 249 C-2 4928.3871 c,2 4978.3%7u s�7 ` cn v,3 com-3 91B 20 , Figure 3: Excerpt of the City of Kitchener Interactive Map, noting the approximate location of the property at 628 New Dundee Road in red, (Source: City of Kitchens Interactive Map, accessed 2022) .2 Heritage Status The property located at 62 u e Road has been identified by the City of Kitchener as being of potential Cultural Herita Val r Interest. According to a review of the City of Kitchener Register of Heritage Prop ties as well as the City of Kitchener Interactive Map, the property is'listed' (non -de at or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is not part of a designated Heri Conservation District (HCD) and is not identified as being within a protected Cultural Heritage Landscape as per the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Register identifies that the reasons for which the property is listed is associated with the "farmhouse only" no other features were identified as being of CHVI. (See Figure 4).w Figure 4: Excerpt of the City of Kitchener Heritage Register for Non -Designated Properties (Source: City of Kitchener website, accessed 2023). July, 2023 MHBC 110 Page 18 of 407 398 New Dundee Road June 1, 2015 528 New Dundee Road (Farmhouse only) August 24, 2009 1478 New Dundee Road June 1. 2015 Figure 4: Excerpt of the City of Kitchener Heritage Register for Non -Designated Properties (Source: City of Kitchener website, accessed 2023). July, 2023 MHBC 110 Page 18 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener A Statement of Significance for the property was completed by the City (undated) and is provided in Appendix E of this report. While the City's Statement is undated, the map provided on the document to identify the property clearly shows that the property was not yet surrounded by the existing residential subdivisions. The subject property is described in the document as being situated on a 10 acre parcel. Therefore, aspects of the Statement of Significance are out of date and no longer apply as it relates to its context. The Statement of Significance provides a description of the physical features of the site and a list of heritage attributes. The SOS does not provide a historical description of the property or reasons for which the property may or may not be of design/physical, historical/associative, or contextual values as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, as amended. The subject property is not located adjacent (contiguous) to resources. The closest cultural heritage resource is located designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage -Intend to Designate Heritage -Listed Properties Heritage - PartlV Designation Heritage - PartV (District) Design Heritage - Part IV and V Designati 5", A ti r identified cultural heritage v Dundee Road, and is � ' Figure 5: Excerpt of the City of Kitchener Interactive Map (Heritage Layer) noting the property at 628 New Dundee Road as "listed". Approximate boundary of the subject property outlined in red. Location of 508 New Dundee Road outlined in black (designated Part IV) (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, accessed 2022). July, 2023 MHBC 111 Page 19 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 2.OPolicy Context 2. 1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions regarding cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The ningAct is to "encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests" ding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: IV The Minister, the council of municipality, a local rd, a ningNandthe Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofprovincial inte tis such (d) the conservation of features ofsignificontarchitectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific in ter t; The Planning Act therefore provides for the ovbroad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the Iajj0 used process. In support of the provlWl i provided for in Section 3,'q development matters in the entified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as has refined policy guidance for land use planning and Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 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. July, 2023 MHBC 112 Page 20 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, 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 or interest as identified by a community, including on 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 Temporary Protection Plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or pted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision -maker. Mitigative measur d/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessment 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains 1 iNg legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources -i --Ontario. This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the criteria provided with Regultion 9106 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as Amended in 2022 as per Bill 23 (Schedule 6). Ontario Redmietion 9/06 outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Here, a property must meet at least 2 of 9 criteria to be considered for designation under Part If the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Ndor Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment. This includes the acknowledgement of cultural heritage resources as contributing to a unique sense of place, providing a means of defining and confirming a regional identity. The Regional Official Plan includes policies regarding the requirement of Heritage Impact Assessments and outlines their general requirements. July, 2023 MHBC 113 Page 21 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3 appreciation for cultural heritage resources through incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the communityJ protection, use and/or management ofculturgjFri leased by the City. Policies and that cultural ss and omotional and he identification, he ned and/or 12.0:1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of tfie cii7 cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural ritoge resource as in Policy 12.0:1.3. Accordingly, a property does not have t listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 1 ..1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Plonnic , ources'ofpotentiol cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, ev ;ted and cons*dereforlisting as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value orest on tl Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritaa .'A 12.0:1.21. All development, redevelopment and site alteration permitted by the land use designations and other policies of this Plan will conserve Kitchener's significant cultural heritage resources. The conservation ofsignificont cultural heritage resources will be a requirement and/or condition in the processing and approval of applications submitted under the Planning Act. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.0:1.23. The City will require the submission of Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed.- July, roposed. July, 2023 MHBC 114 Page 22 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 73.C4.6 through 73.C4. 78 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 72.0 7.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage G the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accor( requirements as outlined in the City ofKitchener's Terr_n4 Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation PJF 72.0 7.26. The contents of Heritage Impact Reference. In general, the contents of Herit( not be limited to, the following: Vq a) historical research, b) identification of heritage resource; Rtion Plan required by with the minimum mice for Heritage 1Will be outlined in a Terms of Assessment will include, but tage attributes of the cultural c) descrip of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assess t of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; . 1401- e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring, and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 72.0 7.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. July, 2023 MHBC 115 Page 23 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 72.0 7.33. 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. 72.0 7.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available m To/ about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archiv ocumentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropri A# July, 2023 MHBC 116 Page 24 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 3.0 Historical Overview 3.1 Indigenous Communities History First Nations history in Southwestern Ontario can be described as having three distinct periods. These being the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland periods. The Paleo-Indian period in Waterloo Region was marked by big game hunters following glacial spill -ways as early as 13,000 B.C. By 8,600 B.P., glacial ice had receded to the extent that ac ce all of Southwestern Ontario was possible. Paleo-Indian groups were scattered at this tim s their nomadic nature. The Archaic Period saw an increase in the number and variety mettle is which were located near waterways and hunting land. The Woodland Period s e introducti f horticulture and an increasingly sedentary way of life (Region of Water[ 1989 e following provides a chronology of First Nations in Southwestern Ontario (See Figure 6 . July, 2023 MHBC 117 Page 25 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Period Group Time Range Comment VALEO-INDIAN Fluted 4500 - 8500 B.C. Big Came hunters, Hi -Lo 8500 - 8000 B.C. small, nomadic groups ARCHAIC l.arly Side -Notched 8000 - 7700 B.0 Nomadic hunters and gatherers Comer -Notched 7700 - 6900 B.C. Bifurcate 6900 - 6000 B.0 `diddle Stemmed Points 6000- 3500 B.C. Transition to territorial Notched Points 3504 - 2500 B.C. settlements Late Narrow Points 2500 - IBM B.0 Broad Points 2300 - 1500 B.C. Small Points t 500 - 700 B.C. Glacial Kame 1000 - 800 B.C. ceremonialism WOODLAND uction of pottery F,arly Meadowood 900- 400 B.C. Adena 400 B.C. - A.D. Middle SaugmW 300 B.C. - A Point Peninsula Princess Point A.U. Incipient iculture Late Glen Mayer A.D. 900 - Transition to village life and agriculture MiddlcrK)re A D. M- D - 1400 Establishment of large palisaded villages Neutral A.D 1400 - 11* Tribal differentiation and warfare t iISTORIC Early Mississ 700 - 1875 Tribal displacements Late I A.D. 1800 - present European settlement Figure 6: Cultural C ology for hw3tern Ontario First Nations (Source: Region of Waterloo, 1989) According to the Region of Wa erloo Archaeological Master Plan, little is known of native historic settlements and activity in Waterloo Region. Early maps identify that the area was part of the hunting grounds of the Mississauga or Ojibway. As noted in the Acknowledgements section of this report, the subject property is situated on part of the Haldimand Tract, which was promised to the peoples of the Six Nations on the Grand River and is located within the recognized territory of the Anishinaabe peoples (Attiwonderonk (Neutral), Haudenosaunee, and Anishinaabe). According to the teachings of the Anishinabek Nation the Anishinaabe peoples included the Ojibway (Chippewa), Odawa, Potawatomi Nations and formed the Confederacy of the Three Fires. The Ojibway were the providers, the Odawa were the warriors and the Potawatomi were the fire - keepers. The Confederacy controlled the hub of the Great Lakes and maintained relationships with the Iroquois Confederacy as well as the British and French. July, 2023 MHBC 118 Page 26 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 3.2 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township The subject lands are located in the former Waterloo Township where Euro -Canadian settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, General Haldimand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Six Nations (Bloomfield; 19: 2006). This tract of land was granted to the Six Nations by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. Brant and the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 in November 1796. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the Lake) and in February 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for this block (McLaughlin, 21: 2007). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 93160 acres of land along with his business partners, James Wils and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield, 20: 2006). The land was then surveyed by and Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 3, 1997). At this e, G n Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting out farmland in the area. I of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the followin o buy settle the land (Hayes, 5: 1997). IL In order to raise the £10,000 needed tS�2urchase their pro ective land holdings, the Pennsylvanian farmers, led by Sam Bricker Ind Daniel Erb, established an association to acquire the approximately 60,000 acres, later know_as the German Company Tract (GCT). The deed for the land was finally granted to the German Company and its shareholders on 24 July 1805 (Eby, N-3: 1978). AeOIN After the arrival of the GCT shareholders, settlement in the GCT slowed. Many immigrants were unable to leave Europe during the Napoleonic War, and the War of 1812 in North America also prevented many settlers from relocating to join their relatives. By 1815 both conflicts had ended, and settlement to the GCT began to increase, with additional Pennsylvania Mennonite settlers, German -based settlers, and later English, Irish and Scottish settlers (Bloomfield, 55: 2006). In 1816 the GCT lands and Beasley's lower block were incorporated into Waterloo Township, and in 1853 became part of Waterloo County. July, 2023 MHBC 119 Page 27 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Waterlbi9 Township in 1831 u Bridge sM Saw Mill L c GM Grist W1 MM Meeting house so S0001 Figure 7: Map of subject prop 3.3628 New Dundee t. cultivated land. Approximate location The subject property is locate ar Lot 1, Beasley's New Survey. The subject property is located within close proximity of historic communities of Blair and Doon. A review of land registXrds ' ntifies that all of Lot 1 (Beasley's New Survey) was patented by the Crown to Richard James sley (and others) in 1798. A portion of Block 2 was sold to Richard Beasley in 1804. In 1837, all 100 acres of Lot 1 was sold by Richard Beasley to Robert Jeffrey. In 1848, all 100 acres were sold to John Moore. John Moore (b. 1817, d. 1891) was a farmer of Irish descent, and married Sarah Jane McBride. Together, they had 13 children. The earliest available tax assessment roll records for Waterloo Township are dated 1853. James Moore is noted in the 1853 tax records as a farmer residing on Beasley's New Survey, Lot 1 (100 acres). The total value of the property is noted as $399.00 which includes all taxable property (i.e. property plus livestock, horses, and carriage). There is a slight increase in property values in 1857, where the total value of property is $400.00. The 1858 tax assessment rolls also note John Moore as a farmer on Beasley's New Survey, having a total property value of $1,539.00 for all taxable July, 2023 MHBC 120 Page 28 of 407 Leis at least party cultivated and settled, 1931;; f. •5t ' Undeveloped lots, 1831 — Roads.t831 � Ford Figure 7: Map of subject prop 3.3628 New Dundee t. cultivated land. Approximate location The subject property is locate ar Lot 1, Beasley's New Survey. The subject property is located within close proximity of historic communities of Blair and Doon. A review of land registXrds ' ntifies that all of Lot 1 (Beasley's New Survey) was patented by the Crown to Richard James sley (and others) in 1798. A portion of Block 2 was sold to Richard Beasley in 1804. In 1837, all 100 acres of Lot 1 was sold by Richard Beasley to Robert Jeffrey. In 1848, all 100 acres were sold to John Moore. John Moore (b. 1817, d. 1891) was a farmer of Irish descent, and married Sarah Jane McBride. Together, they had 13 children. The earliest available tax assessment roll records for Waterloo Township are dated 1853. James Moore is noted in the 1853 tax records as a farmer residing on Beasley's New Survey, Lot 1 (100 acres). The total value of the property is noted as $399.00 which includes all taxable property (i.e. property plus livestock, horses, and carriage). There is a slight increase in property values in 1857, where the total value of property is $400.00. The 1858 tax assessment rolls also note John Moore as a farmer on Beasley's New Survey, having a total property value of $1,539.00 for all taxable July, 2023 MHBC 120 Page 28 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener property. Given the significant increase in property values between 1857 and 1858, it is likely that the existing dwelling and barn were constructed c. 1858. The Tremaine map of Waterloo Township (1861) identifies John Moore as the owner of the east half of Lot 1 (See Figure 8). The lands are intersected by a road, which is now known as New Dundee Road. The map does not depict any features of the farm, such as a dwelling, barn, or orchards. Irl W' — IL veo opt it Ot Figure 8: Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township, 1861. Approximate location of subject property outlined in red circle. Location of 100 acres formerly owned by John Moore outlined in red. (Source: Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History) The 1864 Waterloo County Gazeteer confirms John Moore as the farmer of Lot 1, Beasley's New Survey (See Figure 9). July, 2023 MHBC I 21 Page 29 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener hlonhitke Wm.. bec t f I Re Nionhuke, Erne h t h Re lba AlOGre, John _ best l f Re I loser, Charles n b 35 fRc Arvyer, David h t 106 f 1 Ite Figure 9: Excerpt of the County of Waterloo Gazeteer and General Business Directory, 1864. (Source: National Archives Canada) According to the 1891 census of Waterloo South, John Moore is noted as a farmer of Irish descent. He is noted as residing with his wife Sarah and children Wesley and Mary in a 1.5 storey brick dwelling (See Figure 10). Tir-s►,a //Jl %� l�� — A�14'✓w. � .Ie.tLa..�✓,�t••f--...,'' �%1{, .!•� ;"jt i.r�6 47 I // 1.�1'-: ['� x, %fd .fc� ' � C/ fiiy I 1 1 1 f f �ira►.e� Figure 10: Excerpt of the 1891 census of Waterloo S oting John and Sarah More as farmers of Irish descent residing in a Brick 1. rey dw (Source: Ancestry.ca) After the death of James Moore, the,%Nas ma aged by Wesley Moore (b. 1861, d. 1935), who is noted as the head of househoJAi the i11 census. Figure 11: Excerpt of the 191 l Tensus of Waterloo South, noting Wesley Moore as a farmer of Irish descent with his wife, Catherine and mother Sarah J. (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to land registry records, the property was mortgaged by Sarah J. Moore in 1872 under Alexander Buchanan. In 1888, the executors of the Alexander Buchannan estate discharged the mortgage. In 1917, all 100 acres of Lot 1 were sold by James Moore (son of John Moore) to Alfred Hannusch. Waterloo Township census records identifies Alfred Hannusch (also Hannasch), (b. 1881, d. ?) as a Roman Catholic farmer of German descent. Vernon's 1918 Farmers' and Business Directory confirms Alfred Hannusch as residing on Lot 1 of Beasley's Block (See Figure 12). July, 2023 MHBC 122 Page 30 of 407 ` hAx — ; r Figure 11: Excerpt of the 191 l Tensus of Waterloo South, noting Wesley Moore as a farmer of Irish descent with his wife, Catherine and mother Sarah J. (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to land registry records, the property was mortgaged by Sarah J. Moore in 1872 under Alexander Buchanan. In 1888, the executors of the Alexander Buchannan estate discharged the mortgage. In 1917, all 100 acres of Lot 1 were sold by James Moore (son of John Moore) to Alfred Hannusch. Waterloo Township census records identifies Alfred Hannusch (also Hannasch), (b. 1881, d. ?) as a Roman Catholic farmer of German descent. Vernon's 1918 Farmers' and Business Directory confirms Alfred Hannusch as residing on Lot 1 of Beasley's Block (See Figure 12). July, 2023 MHBC 122 Page 30 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Hamm Da nI, Doon f it 11imtkirE I.q_jat,�, He---, t -lei` f 2 annug0i Mild' Blair 3 f 11 tiannuschk,i Rudidph Prestim f uh 1a1rrld'1r_L. U"M 1 F 1 Figure 12: Excerpt of the 1918 Vernon's Farmers' and Business Directory for the Counties of Perth, Waterloo and Wellington. (Source: Kitchener Public Library) The property was sold by Mary (also Marie) Hannusch to Emmerson and Helen Herlich in 1937. E. and H. Herlich owned the property until 1949 when it was sold to Peter and Elizabeth Garrzi. The aerial photo of the subject property and surrounding context demonstrates that the character of the area at this time was agricultural. The area had not yet been developed with residential subdivisions (See Figure 13). Figure 13: Excerpt of the 1945 aerial photograph of Galt and surrounding area. Approximate location of the subject property noted in red. (Source: University of Waterloo Digital Map Library) July, 2023 MHBC 123 Page 31 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener The features of the property are shown on the detail of the 1945 aerial photo (See Figure 14). The image below depicts the existing dwelling and barn as well as an orchard, mature trees and vegetation towards the front property line. The property is surrounded by fields and pasture to support farm operations. The individual features of the dwelling and barn are not clearly visible. Figure 14: Detail of the 1945 aerial ph Oto' h of and surrounding area. Approximate location of the subject property noted in re ource: ersity Waterloo Digital Map Library) The context of the area d ultural into the 1960s, as per a review of the 1963 aerial photograph (See Fi 15). N si ial subdivisions had yet been constructed, however Highway 401 is now vl9%� in the pWtograph. July, 2023 MHBC 124 Page 32 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 15: 1963 aerial p subject property notedA property and surrounding area. Approximate location of of Waterloo Digital Map Library) In the 1963 aerial photog t atures of the property are shown more clearly than the 1945 aerial photograph (See Figu ). The dwelling, barn and outbuilding are visible. The orchard is also visible and is located adjacent to New Dundee Road. According to title search records, the property included 100 acres until it was sold in 1966 to the Director of the Veterans Land Act. It is likely that it was at this time that the lot was severed from surrounding agricultural fields and pastures and functioned as a residential lot. July, 2023 MHBC 125 Page 33 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 16: Detail of the 1963 aerial photograph of thesubje subject property noted in red. (Source: University of Wate According to the 1997 aerial photo, the char (See Figure 17). July, 2023 34 A.4 r roperty. Approximate location of the Digital Map Libby) )mediate area remained agricultural MHBC 126 Page 34 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 17: Excerpt of the 1997 aerial location of the subject property not Dgraph of the subject property and context. Approximate red. (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map) By 1997, the orchard formerly located near the south-east corner of the property had been removed. The barn, dwelling, and outbuilding remain (See Figure 18). July, 2023 MHBC I 27 Page 35 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 18: Detail of the 1997 aerial photc located on the subject property noted in By 2007, residential su agricultural north of 4 surrounding the subje urban residential. July, 2023 ,MR bject property. Approximate location of dwelling ity of Kitchener Interactive Map) slsio-ions wereMng constructed on lands which were previously Dundee Rad (See Figure 19). Therefore, the character of the area kds alongNew Dundee Road began to change from agricultural to MHBC 128 Page 36 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 19: Detail of the 2007 aerial K of the subject property noted in red. The 2021 aerial ph Dundee Road (See bject property and context. Approximate location iener Interactive Map) July, 2023 MHBC 129 Page 37 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener of the subject property noted with red arrow: °( ource: City of Kitchener Interactive Map) July, 2023 MHBC 130 Page 38 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 4.0 Description of Subject Property 4.1 Description of 628 New Dundee Road The property located at 628 New Dundee Road is located within an area which includes a mix of low density residential and agricultural uses. The property is located adjacent to a municipal pumping station to the west, and agricultural land to the east (See Figures 20 & 21). Figures 20 & 21: (left) east towards Robert F The lands located north Road looking west, (right) View of New Dundee Road looking SBC, 2022) k Drive have been developed to include contemporary single detached residences (See Figures 22 & 23). July, 2023 MHBC 131 Page 39 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 22 & 23: (left) View of Blair Creek Drive looking east towards Robert Ferrie Drive *note barn to the south (right) View of 628 New Dundee Road (barn) looking south -e rom Blair Creek Drive (Source: MHBC, 2022) The subject property can be described as a flag -shaped fort with access at New Dundee Road. The property includes a dwelling, wood shed, and a baro The property also includes landscaped open space, mature trees and gardens. The grade of the property changes dramatically along the rear lot line. July, 2023 MHBC 132 Page 40 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 24: Aerial photo of the s Earth Pro, accessed 2022) tc r 4.2 Description of Built Heritage Resources 4.2.1 Description of Dwelling mate boundary outlined in red. (Source: Google The dwelling was constructed in several stages, described in this report as Sections A, B, C, D, E, and F. Sections A and B were constructed in the 19th century, and sections C, D, and E were constructed later. Section F is an extension of the roof over the east elevation of Section B, and was likely added to the structure in the 20th century (See Figure 25). July, 2023 MHBC 133 Page 41 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 25: Detail aerial of existing dwelling and component parts (see chart below). (Source: Google Earth Pro, accessed 2022) July, 2023 MHBC 134 Page 42 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Identifier Description Construction Date c A Gothic Revival dwelling Bet. 1848 and 1858 B= Summer Kitchen or Original Dwelling Bet. 1848 and 1858 C Rear Addition 1966 D Garage 1966 E Addition 1966 F Gable and balcony 201h century Section A & B & F: Section "A" of the building can be described as a 1.5 storey yellow b Gothic Revival cottage. The front elevation of Section A faces south towards New Dundee Roa . e front elevation includes a central door opening, two rectangular windows at the first storey, and an arched window opening with brick drip mould at the second storey (See Figures 26 - 27). Figures 26 & 27: (left) View of east elevation of Section A, looking west, (right) View of front elevation of Section A, looking north, (Source: MHBC, 2022) July, 2023 MHBC 135 Page 43 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 28: (left) Detail of arched window opening in central gable (Source: MHBC, 2022) Section "B" can be described as a 1.5 storey addition to the rc60"Ntion A. The north elevation of Section B includes an external chimney which was a later dditio the building. The chimney is constructed of brick which is distinctly different than that of the rest e building and is cut into the existing soffits and fascia. The rectangular window at ?he second storey of the north elevation has been altered. The original window include brick voussoir and is clearly c S Figures 29 & 30: (left) View of north elevation (note exterior chimney and altered window opening), (right) Detail view of east elevation (ground floor), (Source: MHBC, 2022) The second storey of the building has been altered to include a new gable which provides access to a second storey verandah (Section F). July, 2023 MHBC 136 Page 44 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 31: (left) View of east elev n of Sections A, B, C, D, and F) (Source: MHBC, 2022) An inspection of the interior e b ing from within the basement provides evidence of sawn structural beams approximately ide d sawn timbers providing floor joists which are 2'/a" wide (See Figures 32 & 33). The o portion of the building having a basement is Section A. Figures 32 & 33: (left) Detail view of internal sawn beam, approximately 9" wide, (right) Detail view of interior basement floorjoist, approximately 2'/4" wide, (Source: MHBC, 2022) July, 2023 MHBC 137 Page 45 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Sections C, D & E: Sections C, D, and E are mid. 2011 century additions to the building which were constructed in 1966. These portions of the building include concrete block foundations, vinyl siding, and contemporary vinyl windows (See Figures 34 & 35). u.� v Figures 34 & 35: (left) View of north and west elevation of wood shed, looking south-east, (right) View of interior roof framing, (Source: MHBC, 2022) 4.2.2 Description of Barn The barn was constructed in two main component parts. The original portion of the barn is described in this report as Section A. The south portion of the barn includes an enclosure which is likely part of a forebay of the original barn given its current form and appearance. Section C is an addition to the original barn. Section D is a contemporary lean-to roof which provides an enclosure at the east side of the barn. July, 2023 MHBC 138 Page 46 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener accessed 2022) Identifier A B C D Sections A & B: De I Construction Date anal barn Bet. 1848 and 1858 En o'sure/fore y Bet. 1848 and 1858 Barn Addition 2011 century Enclosure 2011 century Section A of the barn can be described as a bank barn having a rubble stone foundation and side - gabled roof. Section A of the barn includes two main floors. The ground floor was used for livestock and the upper level was used for hay and grain storage. July, 2023 MHBC 139 Page 47 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Structural forebay h Figures 37 & 38: (left) View of east elevation of barn, looking nort of barn, looking south-east, (Source: MHBC, 2022) ht) View of west elevation Section B of the barn has a lean-to roof and was previouslyopen. Thi rtion of the barn suggests that the barn may have been constructed in a typicaPennsyly is style rather than the English style (See Figures below).A view of the interior within Section B at ground -level confirms that the barn included an open forebay which has been enclosed. The forebay was constructed with large hand-hewn and rough -cut beams and mortise ancenon joints (See Figures below). Figures 39 & 40: (left) View barn interior (within Section B), looking west within forebay, (right) View of barn interior (within Section B), looking east within forebay (Source: MHBC, 2022) Views of the interior of the building (all sections) confirm that the barn was constructed using 19tn century building techniques, including hand hewn timbers, wood pegs and mortise and tenon joints. July, 2023 MHBC 140 Page 48 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 41 & 42: (left) View of interior of barn (Section A), looking n structural beam within barn, Section A, (Source: MHBC, 2022) (right) Detail view of Figures 43 & 44: (left) View of interior of barn, ground floor of Section B looking north-west, (right) View of entrance to second floor of barn within Section B, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2022) Sections C & D: Section C of the barn is a later addition. The barn was likely constructed with a rubble stone foundation which has been replaced with concrete. July, 2023 MHBC 141 Page 49 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 45 &46: (left) View of south and west elevation of barn, Sections A, B, and C, (right) View of Section C of the barn, looking north-west towards the south and eas vations, (Source: MHBC, 2022) Sections C & D of the barn are constructed with a co&*ion of ha ewn beams as well as sawn lumber, suggesting that the barn is a later adtion A. Figures 47 & 48: (left) View of the interior of the ground level of Section C, looking south, (right) View of interior of Section C, second storey looking south, (Source: MHBC, 2022) 4.2.3 Description of Outbuilding The subject property includes a gabled building of wood frame construction. The building was constructed with the use of both hand-hewn beams, mortise and tenon joints as well as sawn lumber (See Figures 44 — 47). The building is currently used for storage. The original purpose of the building is unknown, but was likely used to store agricultural implements. July, 2023 MHBC 142 Page 50 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 49 & 50: (left) View of north and west elevation of outbuildi of interior roof framing of the outbuilding, (Source: MHBC, 2022) ng south-east, (right) View I Figures 51 & 52: (left) D view of Prior structural framing using mortise and tenon joints, (right) Detail view of hand hewn b i od shed, approx. 11 inches wide (Source: MHBC, 2022) July, 2023 MHBC 143 Page 51 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 5.OEvaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following sub -sections of this report provide an evaluation of the subject lands as per Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These criteria have been adopted as standard practice in determining significant cultural heritage value or interest. 5.1 Evaluation Criteria Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that: A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if its t r more or the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage va r interest: The property has design value or physical 1. is a rare, unique, representative or ec construction method, 2. displays a high degree of craftsman type, expression, material or 3. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical v or associative value because it, 4. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 5. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of community or culture, or 6. 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, 7. is important in defining, maintaining orsupporting the character of on area, 8. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 9. is a landmark. The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (formerly the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries) has not published a guiding document on the interpretation and appropriate application of the above -noted criteria. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit (which is currently under revision) does not provide an in-depth analysis of the above -noted criteria and how/where they should be applied. However, the Ministry published the Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process document in 2014, which provides an in-depth analysis of the criteria under July, 2023 MHBC 144 Page 52 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Ontario Regulation 9/06 and how they are intended to be interpreted and applied. While this document is for the evaluation of properties in Ontario with the potential to be considered Provincial heritage properties, it uses the same criteria as Ontario Regulation 9/06 and offers information as to their intended application. Section 4.0 of the document identifies that "The relevant information documented through the research should be evaluated against each of the criteria as described in both O.Reg 9/06 and O. Reg 10/06 to determine the property's CHVI and level of significance." The document then goes on to provide an in-depth analysis of the criteria under O -Reg 9/06 beginning in Section 4.6 of the document. The document then proceeds to provide an analysis of each criteria. Given that the document considers the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 as well as 70/06, aspects of the document can reasonably be applied to the evaluation of potential cultural heritage resources. 5.2 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources The following provides an evaluation of the prope 5.2.1 Design/Physical Value Dwelling: The property located at 628 New representative and early examA The building was constructed c. 1 tion 9/06. design/physical value as it includes a tructed in the Gothic Revival Cottage style. e. The barn may have been constructed earlier, between 1848 whenJohnMoo purchased the property, and 1858 when tax assessment rolls show a significant increase in p per y value. The building is considered early given that it was constructed prior to Confecleratfon in 1867. The dwelling is not considereZ�are or unique. According to Blumenson (1990), this style is prominent throughout the Province of Ontario, and is often referred to as an "Ontario Cottage". For example, the dwelling at 1249 New Dundee Road includes features which are similar to that of 628 New Dundee Road, including overall size, dimensions, 3 -bay facade of buff -yellow brick construction, and an arched gable window at the front elevation (See Figure 53). This property is located approximately 2 kilometers west of the subject property. Other examples of buff/yellow brick buildings constructed in the Gothic Revival cottage style are located at 1736 Trussler Road (See Figure 54) and 5 Tilt Drive (See Figure 55). July, 2023 MHBC 145 Page 53 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 53 & 54: (left) View of Gothic Revival cottage at 1249 New Dundee Road, Ayr., (right) View of 1736 Trussler Road (Source: Google Streetview, 2021) Figure 55: (left) View of Gothic Revival cottage at 5 Tilt Drive, Kitchener (Source: Google Streetview, 2021) Other examples of buildings constructed in the Gothic Revival Cottage style are available within the City of Kitchener. This includes the buildings located at 24 Cameron Avenue and 36 Cameron Avenue, both of which are constructed with yellow/buff brick (See Figures below). July, 2023 MHBC 146 Page 54 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figures 56 & 57: (left) View of 24 Cameron Avenue, (right) View of 36 CArneron Avenue (Source: Google Streetview, accessed 2022) The following provides a list of additional examples of is Revival cottage dwellings located within the City of Kitchener: • 145 Church Street; • 139 Church Street; • 133 Church Street; • 130 Church Street; 33 Eby Street; 116 Cedar Street; 68 Breithaupt Str 36 Waterloo et 392 Duke Stree 430 Duke Street W 452 Duke Street W-11, 92-94 Victoria Street South; 50-52 Weber Street; 595 Lancaster Street West; and 537 Lancaster Street West. The dwelling located on the subject property does not demonstrate a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or technical/scientific achievement. The dwelling constructed using materials and methods which are characteristic of its time and does not go beyond a level of craftsmanship that was commonplace at the time. July, 2023 MHBC 147 Page 55 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Barn & Outbuilding: The barn demonstrates design/physical value as an early (pre -1867) and representative example of a bank barn constructed in the mid. 19` century. The barn is not considered unique for the area. Examples of similar barns in either Kitchener or elsewhere in Waterloo Region are located at: • 1855 Snyder's Road, Petersburg; • Bricker Barn, Doon Heritage Village; and • 1739 Snyder's Road East, Petersburg. However, there are few barns left within the City of Kitchener due to continued urbanization in the 20th and 21st centuries. Because of this, the barn is considered rare for the City of Kitchener. A0 The existing outbuilding is part of the former agricultural use of the lands. However, the outbuilding is not representative of any architectural style a, does not demonstrate significant design/physical value. Neither the barn nor the outbuilding demonstrate or technical/scientific achievement. Both structure methods which are characteristic of the time&&d beyond a level of craftsmanship that was corridor 5.2.2 Historical/Associative Value The historic record does not provide any i --e of craftsmanship, artistic merit, ructed using materials and re constructed, and do not go n which would suggest that either the property, or any of the for owners are related to an event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution which is significant to the cVV munity. The Ministry provides guidance on the interpretation of this criterion. Here, states that an event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution may be considered significant if it/they "... has made a strong, noticeable or influential contribution to the evolution or pattern of development and development in the community." This could be accomplished in a number of ways, including involvement with local politics, organizations, significant land transactions and/or surveying, the creation of subdivisions, etc. There is sufficient evidence to show that the former owners of the property were individuals operated a farm on part of the subject property. Available records identify that the original farm owners were of Irish descent and owned the property until approximately 1917. The property was subsequently sold to another farming family, under the name Alfred Hannusch, who was of German descent. There is no evidence to suggest that members of these families made a significant contribution to the evolution or pattern of development in the community. Guidance from the Ministry regarding the identification of any events, themes, beliefs, activities, or organizations states that the relationship to a theme must be a) direct, and b) is significant to the community because it has made a strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the evolution July, 2023 MHBC 148 Page 56 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener or pattern of settlement and development in the community. The former use of the property has not made a specifically strong, noticeable, or influential contribution to the development of the community. However, the overall pattern of agricultural settlement has made an impact on the development of the City of Kitchener over time. The subject property now residential, but was historically used as a farm, and is associated with former mid. 19th century agricultural practices. Section 6 of the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study document identifies historical themes which are important to the Region of Waterloo and Kitchener. The document identifies the theme of "agriculture", and states that it is considered a "general" theme of the overall Region of Waterloo. Given that the Study recognizes that a) the theme of agriculture is important to the community and b) the theme of agriculture as an indicator of historical value throughout the CHL study, the subj t property meets this criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06. The property's heritage attributes are not likely to yield further information which would contribute to the community or culture.'The property has evolved over time and now functions as a residential lot with a dwelling and barn. Many of the featules that are representative of an intact 19th century farmstead have been removed. Therefore, the site does not provide the opportunity to yield further information which would contribute to the understanding of the community. The City's Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study dokment (2014) provided a comprehensive review of potential agltural farmsteads which have the ability to yield further information. The subject property was not entified as one of these landscapes. The designer or builder of the dwelling/barn is not knowncould be added to the historic record should the NNW information become available in the future. 5.2.3 Contextual Valu The subject property doe�t demonstrate significant contextual value. The subject property has chantjed over time, and no longer functions as a working agricultural farmstead. The property was severed from the surrounding farmland by 1966 and since this time, has functioned as a large residential lot within a context that is becoming increasingly urbanized. The subject is located within an area that is defined in the City's Official Plan as including a mix of agricultural, low density residential, and open space. The lands north of New Dundee Road are primarily low density residential, while the lands south of New Dundee Road are primarily agricultural. The subject property is currently zoned C-2 492R, 387U (Neighbourhood Shopping Centre). The site specific exemption includes residential uses. The property is no longer used, or intended to be used for continued agricultural purposes. Given that the property has functioned as a large residential lot since it was discontinued as a farm in 1966 when it was severed from its 1 Note that Ministry guidance advises that this criteria is often associated with archaeological potential. July, 2023 MHBC 149 Page 57 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener fields, woodlots and pastures, it is more in -keeping with the residential rather than the agricultural character of the area. As a result, the subject lands are not important in defining, supporting, or maintaining the agricultural character of the area. The context of the area has changed over time, and is now dominated by contemporary low density residential subdivisions. Additional development is planned along the southern limit of the City, which will further urbanize the context. The subject property does not have an important historical, physical, functional, or visual link to its surroundings. The property was severed from the surrounding fields and pasture lands by 1966 and the lands have been developed with contemporary residential subdivisions. Therefore, these contemporary residential subdivisions do not have an important historical link to the subject property. Further, no features of the former farm complex remain adjacent lands. The property does not have an important physical link to its surroundings. T inistry (2014) provides guidance on this criterion, whereby physical means someth. is tangible, i.e. a "...material connection between the property and its surroundings.; infrastructure, path, or road, for example. No physical property to its context or adjacent lands. The subje its surroundings. This functional relationship was remo pastures, fields, and woodlots which supported tomer s cou in the form of a bridge, ist whi'lWonnect the subject Cdoes not have a functional link to the 1960s when the surrounding & of the farm were severed. The subject property does not demonstrate evidence offlgan important "visual" link to its surroundings. The Ministry (2014) identhat this'criterion can be interpreted as "... when there is a visual connection between it an at least one feature in the context. It is not visually linked merely because adjacent properties be seen from it." While features of the property (i.e. the dwelling and bar<ca,viewe&9m the public realm along New Dundee Road and Blair Creek Drive, these viot importan�as they do not contribute to the property's CHVI. The property and its exisres arenot considered a landmark in the local community. The subject propertyd along New Dundee Road. Section 7 of the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes document identifies important historic transportation corridors. This includes "pioneer rural roads" as well as "urban streets". New Dundee Road is not identified as a significant rural road in the CHL Study document. It is also not listed amongst the identified transportation routes of cultural heritage value or interest on the Cultural Heritage Landscapes Map (i.e. L -RD 1 through 17). New Dundee Road is also not identified by the City of Kitchener as a "heritage corridor" or part of a Cultural Heritage Landscape in the City of Kitchener Official Plan (See Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources). Therefore, New Dundee Road is not considered a heritage resource and the relationship between the road and the subject property is not significant. This evaluation has also considered whether or not views, setbacks, and natural features (including mature trees) are of significant CHVI or not. Views of the building are available along July, 2023 MHBC 150 Page 58 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener New Dundee Road, and are partially obstructed by the presence of mature trees and vegetation. While these views are available, they are not significant as they do not contribute to the cultural heritage value of the property. As per a review of available aerial photographs, the mature trees and vegetation on the property have changed over time. The original layout of the farm and orchards is not provided in historic maps. However, it is likely that the property included an orchard closer to the property line. These trees have been removed. The linear plantings of spruce/confers along the driveway are not original to the farm complex, and are likely dated closer to the early 201h century when these types of spruces were added for ornamentation and wind breakers. 5.2.4 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation The following provides an analysis of whether or not the su considered a potentially significant Cultural Heritage Landscape per the definition oder PPS (2020). Whether or not a property is considered a significant CHL is determined under the Ontario Heritage Act (i.e. Ontario Regulation 9/06). &&h, IL The subject property is not considered a signif%ant Cultural Heritage Landscape. This report has demonstrated that the property can be dInclin cribed as part of a former farm, which has been severed from its original contex e Burrg,c, nduct has not been urbanized, but formerly included the agricultural fields a astures to st5port farm operations. Since this time, the property has functioned ae lot within an urban context. The surrounding lands which formerly included agricultural fie pa s, and other agricultural uses have been developed and urbanized. The context of the a is now primarily low density residential and has been developed with residential- .subdi ns. The subject property includes the existing barn, dwelling, and outbuilding. These buildi are in their original locations and retain their original relationships to each other. Other farm structures and elements which would have been necessary for supporting a 19th century farm have been removed over time. Given the alterations to the property over time, it is no longer a representative and/or intact example of a mid. to late 19th century farmstead. The features which remain on the subject lands (including their relationships to each other) does not offer an opportunity to provide further information to contribute to the understanding of the community. Guidance for identifying significant Cultural Heritage Landscapes is provided in the City's Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study document (2014). The document identifies that the purpose of the study is to "...provide an inventory of the cultural heritage resources in the City of Kitchener in the form of cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs). The document identifies a Cultural Heritage Landscape as, "A geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is July, 2023 MHBC 151 Page 59 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association." The document identifies various types of CHLS, including (but not limited to) agricultural landscapes. These landscapes demonstrate the authentic farming practices and includes both built and natural features which contribute to these landscapes. These agricultural landscapes were considered and evaluated as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 as well as other criteria, such as the criteria provided from the Region of Waterloo for determining Regional significance, for example. Potential CHLS were also identified where they were found to be associated with significant themes, such as pioneer settlement and agricultural practices. Through this study, four individual agricultural Cultural Heritage Landscapes were identifiecVhe subject property was not identified as one of these significant Cultural Heritage Landscas. Given that the subject property was not identified as a Cultural Heritage Landscap*"c ugh the City's comprehensive Cultural Heritage Landscape study, this provides furtZvatiq.L. ence that the property is not considered a significant CHL worthy of long-term co Summary of Attributes a) Barn tONIVOP, • Wood frame bank barn with forebay (Sections A, B, and C) including foundations, construction methods and materials, with both sawn and hand hewn -timbers, wood pegs, mortise and tenon joint construction. b) Dwelling 1.5 storey yel (Section "A"); action in the Gothic Revival Cottage architectural style • South (front) elevation facing New Dundee Road including: 0 3 -bay facade with central door and rectangular window openings; o Arched window opening within the front gable with decorative brickwork/drip mold; o All brick voussoirs above window openings and stone sills; • Bullnose stretcher bricks around the base of the dwelling above the foundation; • West elevation of dwelling, including all original window openings; • Section "B": o Yellow brick construction with front-end gable, including existing window and door openings; • Visibility of the primary (front) elevation of the dwelling along New Dundee Road. July, 2023 MHBC 152 Page 60 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 5.3 Summary of Evaluation The following chart provides a summary in chart format of the evaluation of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 which is provided in Section 6.2 of this report: Ontario Regulation 9/06 628 New Dundee Road 1. Design/Physical Value Rare, unique, representative or early example of a Yes. The property includes a dwelling and barn which are style, type, expression, material or construction method Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement 2. Historical/associative value Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, institutiorthat i- significant Yields, or has potential to yield contributes to an understandir community or culture Demonstrates or reflec7the worl%idelq an architect, artist, builder, designer the who is significant to the community. 3. Contextual value Important in defining, aintaining supporting the character of an area Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings Is a landmark July, 2023 both considered representative (i.e. Gothic Revival Cottage and bank barn). The barn is considered rare for the City of Kitc r. Both structures are considered early. No. Thei ere constructed using materials metho 0 d tech es which were commonplace at No. The otherA their tirlWf construction. rno evideO rr c of features, methods, or !'which demonstrate a high degree of technical/scientific achievement. 'jpTrty is associated with the general theme of Fcult-LW, which has been identified as a theme in the ity of Kitchener's Cultural Heritage Landscape Study document. No. Unknown. The architect and builder is unknown, but should be added to the historic record should this information become available. No. The context of the area has changed over time, and is now dominated by contemporary low density residential subdivisions. The property is not important in defining the character of the area. No. There is no functional, visual, or historical link to its surroundings that would add to the property's CHVI. No. MHBC 153 Page 61 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 6.0 Description of Proposed Development The proposed concept includes retaining the existing dwelling and re -locating it approximately 50 metres to the south-west corner of the site and placed on a new foundation. A structural analysis has been completed which determines that the building can feasibly be re -located (see Appendix F). The building is proposed for continued residential use on a portion of land which is proposed to be dedicated to the sole use of the owner and resident(s) of the dwelling through the Condo's declaration (see black outline on Figure 58). The contemporary additions to the building which are not of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest are proposed for removal. This includes the removal of sections "C", "D", and "E". Other potential alterations may include a) updating all existing contemporary windows and doors with new windows and doors and, b) repairs to masonry and localized condition issues prior and subsequent to re -location, c) repairs/replacements to roof, eaves, and downspouts, where necessary. The development concept includes 11 s res through J) with stacked townhouses, having a total of 210 units. The proposal inc s a ce I amenity area and surface parking along the internal Ianeway. A total of 245 space e proposed. Two access connections are provided, one at New Dundee Road and one at Blair ree July, 2023 rive. (See Figure 58). MHBC 154 Page 62 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 58: Proposed Plan of Subdivision: lands proposed to be dedicated to the soli declaration with black dashed line. (Source July, 2023 Iof existing dwelling shaded in red. Outline of ie owner and resident(s) through the Condo's leischer Architects Inc., 2023) MHBC 155 Page 63 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Figure 59: Aerial image of existing dwelling, noting the contemporary additions to the dwelling which are proposed for removal (shaded in red), identified in this report as Sections "C", "D", and "E". Elevations which may require alteration following the removal of contemporary additions noted with dashed black line. (Source: MHBC, 2023) All other features located on the subject property are proposed for removal. The existing barn is proposed to be de -constructed and materials adaptively re -used at another location on private property by the current property tenants. July, 2023 MHBC 156 Page 64 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 7.01mpact Analysis 7.1 Introduction This section of the report will review impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development on the identified cultural heritage resources located on the property at 544-546 Lancaster Street West. The following analysis of it of the Ministry of Heritage, • Destruction: of an • Alteration: that is ie Heritage Toolkit res; fabric and appearance: 1w Shadows: created that alter the appe n eritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantin uch a en; Isolation: of a heritageattr* e its ounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or Indirect Obstru : of signs scant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use: su s re oning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development r 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. 7.2 Impact Analysis The following provides an analysis of impacts as a result of the removal of the features of the property which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. July, 2023 MHBC 157 Page 65 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 7.2.1 Re -location On-site Retaining the dwelling is considered a beneficial impact given that it will allow for its conservation of the long-term. The alterations to the dwelling which are required in order to facilitate its conservation result in a range of impacts. The re -location of the dwelling to its proposed new location on-site is considered an adverse impact given that a) the existing dwelling will be moved from its original location, and b) the fabric of the original foundation would be removed. The building will maintain its relationship to New Dundee Road within the development concept. The removal of the contemporary additions to the building is considered a neutral impact given that they are not of CHVI. However, the removal of these cormporary additions will require that any exposed openings in the building be enclosed. Provided that the alterations to the north and west elevations of the building AW sympathetically altered to facilitate long-term conservation, no adverse impacts ar ticipated. Here, a range of options could be considered including (but not limit o), o�inal doo nd window openings re -instated, or, existing window/door ope no new door or window openings are created_ It is likely that other alterations may be requirin residential use of the building. This m nclud doors. Given that all existing windows and oors �Rd be utilized provided that C itate the continued tall of new windows and contemporary, the installation of new windows and doors is considered a nact. All repairs are considered a beneficial impact, provided at they are undertaken appropriately, using like -materials and are completed by e demonstrated experience in the repair/restoration of historic building math No adverse impacts are a?%pa4lFas a result of new shadows created from the proposed new dwellings. The scale/he7iWof the proposed new buildings will result in minimal shadows which will be cast to the north, away from the building in its proposed new location. The existing dwelling and barn will be separated from each other. This will result in minimal adverse impacts given that the relationship (i.e. distance/proximity) between the two buildings does not offer an opportunity to provide further information to contribute to the understanding of the community. Given that the dwelling is proposed to be re -located closer to New Dundee Road, no impacts related to direct or indirect obstruction are anticipated. The land use will continue to support residential use, and as a result no adverse impacts are anticipated. Potential adverse impacts as a result of construction activities may result in adverse impacts and can be addressed through a Conservation Plan. July, 2023 MHBC 158 Page 66 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 7.2.2 Removal of Barn The removal of the barn is considered an adverse impact given that it includes the permanent removal of heritage fabric. However, the impact of removal is partially mitigated given that the proposal includes salvaging fabric from the barn and re -locating them so that the existing tenants can construct a new structure at new location. July, 2023 MHBC 159 Page 67 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 8,OConsideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of develop considered as part of the planning process. They have iA impact on cultural heritage resources. 8.1.1 Do nothing This option would likely result in the contin Road for residential use. This option would would result in less adverse im of the site. 8.1.2 Develop the site development concep This option would result s that may be from least to greatest OWIling and barn at 628 New Dundee taining all existing features and therefore option would prevent the re -development dings in-situ and integrating them into the the buildings in their existing location in-situ while developing the remainder offsite. This option will result in significant challenges developing the remainder of the lot given that a) the dwelling and barn are located in the centre of the site, and b) there would be difficulties in designing new contemporary buildings which integrate the barn and/or the dwelling in a way which is both feasible and compatible. Should this option be selected as the preferred option going forward, mitigation recommendations would be required regarding temporary protection during construction activities as well as conservation recommendations and a maintenance plan over the long-term. 8.1.3 Develop the site while retaining buildings at an alternate location within the subject property July, 2023 MHBC 160 Page 68 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener This option would result in re -locating the dwelling and/or barn to an alternative location within the subject property. This option is a viable alternative given that this HIA has demonstrated that the property has limited contextual value and is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. For example, the existing front yard setback is not considered a significant heritage attribute and the buildings could be re -located closer to the street edge. The option to retain the existing barn and/or dwelling at an alternative location on-site would not result in any less adverse impacts than the current proposal. Retaining the barn in addition to the dwelling would result in less adverse impacts. However, the barn is not proposed to be retained as part of the proposal. Mitigation recommendations are proposed as it relates to the removal of the barn. 8.1.4 Develop the site while retaining buildings at an alternate to on off-site This option would result in re -locating the dwelling and/or b rn t an alternative location off-site. This option would require securing an appropriate receiving site within the community and an appropriate new use. While re -location on-site wou* result in*ess adverse impacts, re -location off-site is a viable alternative provided that they can be re -located safely. Given the size and condition of the barn, it would have to be di% tied and re -located. Both buildings would need either a continued residential/agricultural us r d tf SUit adaptive re -use. Should this option be selected, a Relocation and buildings could be safely re -I 8.2 Mitigation and The following is reco7q development concept: ild be required to determine how the over the long-term. er to mitigate the identified impacts of the proposed • That the barn, outbuilding and dwelling be documented as provided in Appendix C and H of this report; • The barn is proposed to be dismantled and materials adaptively re -used by the current tenants in a new location. Should the barn not be re -used by the prospective third party, that the barn be made available to other interested parties so that it could be re -used as opposed to being deposited as landfill; • That select materials (i.e. beams) of the barn be retained as commemoration/interpretive features on-site within the amenity area (i.e. benches, landscaping, etc.); • That a Conservation Plan for the dwelling be completed as a condition of Site Plan Approval in order to outline the proposed alterations to the building, and provide July, 2023 MHBC 161 Page 69 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener recommendations to ensure the work is consistent with best practices for the conservation of cultural heritage resources; and • That an Interpretation Plan be completed which will provide the draft text/images and layout of an interpretive panel to be installed within the amenity area; and • That this report be accepted into the City's database to supplement the historic record. It is also recommended that landscaping be included around the dwelling in its proposed new location in order to provide an appropriate setting. July, 2023 MHBC 162 Page 70 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 9. o Recommendations and Conclusions This report has determined that the subject property meets 2 criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The only heritage attributes of the site include the dwelling and barn. The site is not considered a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. The proposed development includes retaining the existing dwelling at an alternative location on- site. The dwelling will retain its orientation towards New Dundee Road. The contemporary additions to the dwelling which are not of cultural heritage value are proposed to be removed. The retention of the dwelling is considered a beneficial impact provided that it is completed safely and that any alterations to the building are appropriahe removal of the barn is considered an adverse impact which can be partially mi ted through salvage and commemoration. The following is recommended in order to mitigate the tified impacts of the proposed development concept: • That the barn, outbuilding ancwell H of this report; )ted as provided in Appendix C and • The barn is proposed to be dismantled and materials adaptively re -used by the current tenants in a new location. Should the barn not be re -used by the prospective third party, that the barn be made available to other interested parties so that it could be re -used as opposed to being deposited as landfill; • That select materials (i.e. beams) of the barn be retained as commemoration/interpretive features on-site within the amenity area (i.e. benches, landscaping, etc.); • That a Conservation Plan for the dwelling be completed as a condition of Site Plan Approval in order to outline the proposed alterations to the building, and provide recommendations to ensure the work is consistent with best practices for the conservation of cultural heritage resources; and • That an Interpretation Plan be completed which will provide the draft text/images and layout of an interpretive panel to be installed within the amenity area; and • That this report be accepted into the City's database to supplement the historic record. July, 2023 MHBC 163 Page 71 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener 10 e 0 Sources Bloomfield, Elizabeth and Linda Foster. Waterloo County Councillors: A Collective Biography. Caribout Imprints, 1995. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1874 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descen\History. erloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1978. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. Kitchener: <ineshor bin Brass Studio, 1996. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An /11 ted r- ry. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. lie Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Stile Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. Mills, Rych. Kitchener ( ) 1880-1*nd . dia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Heritage, Sport,TourisCulture Industries.InfoSheet#S Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation -Plans, 2006 Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. Busy Berlin, Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Region of Waterloo. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Archaeological Facilities Master Plan, 1989. July, 2023 MHBC 164 Page 72 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Sei ling, Ken. Early Buildings in the Bridgeport, Ontario Area,1969. Paper retrieved from the Central Grace Schmidt Room of Local History, City of Kitchener Public Library. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. July, 2023 MHBC 165 Page 73 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix A Location Map (next page) July, 2023 MHBC 166 Page 74 of 407 PLANNING URBAN DESIGN MH BC ARCHITDECTURE 200-540BINGEMANSCE,iF:E'JI!, �ITCHl�PIE,I, ON,Id7_F,3X9 P: 519.576.3650 F:519.576.012i I WWW.MHBCPPN.COM Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Site Plan (next page) July, 2023 MHBC 167 Page 76 of 407 mix W W r Ege 1�1,& z g3gg=4§d �V/ 8&"LEePYs - a u) 9<�9°6?ge a o e r w a LL p� W H a =I LL 0 s e .6Bns O o O F Z Mi LL 3121213 12139021 � tl V lo A A h M A A0°°d 3�dsm A.� A A A �, d h "®. 91 [ - c� nnnnnnn ry e [ = ae - � A A A A A A A A�� [— On 1 ml c LD O ] c o$ �� A= ] C \ g — C I g OI IIS a� - a a m UN Z mry O 001 �• e 1 - O II [ _ E 9 �s� n E i oA - Q Nry Aly3apyy p ��-PP-888 W � J Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix C Photo Map (next page) July, 2023 MHBC 168 Page 78 of 407 m ti 0 0 rn ti (D 0) c� a LL ti 0 4- 0 0 co (1) c� a a� 7 LL ti 0 4- 0 co (1) N (� O a N V m N V_ O U1 Co Co N C O O c O c O N N Q) N O _N N 06 0 dl 7 LL ti 0 4- 0 N co N Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix D Title Search (next page) July, 2023 MHBC 169 Page 84 of 407 LJ J H LL O z V 0 cu N N m r -I 1.0 O L C aJ u co >O > >, LO p f V m c -I c -I m U v' N O O z 4J 4, _ c I O C z O O z Om O `� O m N O O co L \ O 0 r -I m {f} O U (D O c0 d +'aj 0 aJ cu p m w z N L V i) O cn v� cn cn v� v� cn cn U O U L1 LJ aj L1 a) L1 L1 a) (6 I� U U U U U U U U N 00 O m m m m m m m to 1 00 1-0 00 X 00 OOO OOO O LW k.0 c -I c -I c -I c -I rl ci rl ci 0) N • aj E O CO 7 L1 a) N > 0 cu�:. 7 V)m 2 trs ^ O >v N 7 C M1, O C L cu m i _' vC O COQ UA 1 a 1 m N tH G N L (n _ aJ ?i Oa) 'c C L O 7 z co v aJ v �_ a u i v� aJ OC O O> C a)Ln aj CCU vi N ai x C ai N O o0 C of N Ln m w -0C c o co m U o (w]) v O U co t v O ULA L O aj Y u a� M m L O m t O a O O N v x L v Q CO m m L O (n aj 3 J� N C °° O 00 � >, L aJ N M L Ol ao O aj M i rn L cU N N I�00 00 00 0 00 `� C) U 7 -C 00 L OO aJ 00 a1 00 L ry.u �• Q O z" 0 4 aj aJ 0 c Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m m m m m m p O o?S coo?S - m 00 Ln -C 0 - a1 O M O O r-qLn u1 M W M O O Ln O rD m r -I ri ri Mf �A LA �A Ln r•1 r -I R* r -I N N N N rlown � rl- O 'IT 0 S m ¢ 2 n � 2 V1 CD ~ \ / CL / y °� / 2 t / � \ o L f u ° \ k LU® z 0 / - 6 4� � § \ $ @ 2 2 � \ / / ƒ o4-1 < G u = m / < 9 LU _ / E c n°_ ±/ 2 y f t � / 3 \ E / : I u g ¥ $ m : a 0 § : ) _ m (D _r_ / I ° co (IJ ) c J D / 9 = _� & - § i E / 4-1 0 3 / m > I / m z Ln \ » / e m » \ = m 0 # e = e $ u % e % $ U- 0 2 / c _ c c c 2 rl. 2 e / 0 (D g ("D 2 e Ln o \ \ N \ \ - rlown � rl- O 'IT 0 S m ¢ 2 n � Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix E Statement of Significance (City of Kitchener) July, 2023 MHBC 170 Page 87 of 407 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 628 NEW DUNDEE ROAD Municipal Address: 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Legal Description: Beasley's New Survey, Part Lot 1 Year Built: c. 1879 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Revival Original Owner: Unknown Original Use: Farmhouse Description of Historic Place 628 New Dundee Road is a one -and -a -half storey late 19th century brick building built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The property also features a barn and a drive shed. The buildings are situated on a 10 acre parcel of land located on the north side of New Dundee Road between Dodge Drive and Reichert Drive in the Doon South planning community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the farmhouse, barn and driveshed. Heritage Value or Interest 628 New Dundee Road is recognized for its design, physical, historical, and contextual values. The farmhouse is a rare and unique example of the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style within a rural setting. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features double brick construction; buff brick facades; side gable roof with a front gable dormer; semi -circular window opening in front gable dormer with voussoir and dripstones; 6/6 double hung windows with segmentally arched brick voussoirs; moulded frame around front door; corbel -capped interior chimney in the east gable end; and fieldstone foundation. A gable roof barn is located north of the farmhouse. The barn features hand-hewn beams, stained wide boards and a field stone foundation. Directly east of the barn sits a four -bay drive shed. The complex of buildings, including the farmhouse, barn and drive shed, contribute to the historic and contextual value of the property through their association with farming and Scottish ancestry found within the New Dundee area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 628 New Dundee Road resides in the following heritage attributes: Page 88 of 407 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ■ All elements related to the construction and Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style, including: Double brick construction; Buff brick facades; Roof and roofline; Front gable dormer with semi -circular window opening with voussoir and dripstones; 0 6/6 double hung arched windows with segmentally arched brick voussoirs with dripstones; moulded frame around front door; corbel -capped interior chimney in the east gable end; and fieldstone foundation. ■ All elements related to the construction and style of the barn and drive shed, including: Roof and roofline; Hand hewn beams; Wide boards; and Fieldstone foundation. Photos Page 89 of 407 Sr � "} rIL WSW '-s}� __ _ __ .`�I•, � .. 1 � ,1 r.r�*tom'." APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Page 91 of 407 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Resource Evaluation Form Address: 628 New Dundee Road Period: c. 1879 Recorder Name: EG / SB Description: Ontario Gothic Revival Photographs: Front Fapade ® Left Fapade ❑ Right Fapade ❑ Rear Fapade ❑ Details ❑ Setting ❑ Design or Physical Value Style Is this a notable, rare or unique example of a particular architectural style or type? Construction Is this a notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular material or method of construction? Design Is this a particularly attractive or unique structure because of the merits of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details? Does this structure demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement? Interior Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Notes — Field Team: common gothic revival farmhouse built of buff brick Sub Committee: double buff brick; Ontario Gothic Revival Contextual Value Date: 2005 RECORDER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No El Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Continuity Does this structure contribute to the continuity N/A ❑ kno o Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its or character of the streekneighbourhood or area? Setting Is the setting or orientation of the structure ❑Iown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials or landscaping noteworthy? Yes 0 and design features? Does it provide a physical, historical, nal own ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic or visual link to its surroundings? Yes ❑ Landmark Is this a particularly impo�isual landmark N/A known ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ Condition Is this building in good condition? within the region, city,,40 Yes 0 (indicate degree of importance) 0 N Completeness Does this structure have other original outbut ings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Notes — Field Team: sheep are still kept on this farm (as per previous owner); impressive landscaping, original outbuildings, and fields make this a valuable intact farmstead Sub Committee: complex of buildings: further research on bam and outbuildings Integrity RECORDER Site Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Note: if relocated, i.e. relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations Does this building retain most of its original materials N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 and design features? Is this a notable structure due to sympathetic N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ alterations that have taken place over time? Condition Is this building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Notes Field Team: farmhouse retains roollines, gables, window openings, front entrance surround, chimneys at each gable end Page 92 of 407 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Historical or Associative Value & Significance 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 within the City? Is the original, previous or existing use significant? 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 it makes to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people? Notes — RECORDER Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Field Team: sheep farm Sub Committee: rare and unique building in terms of location; important contribution to rural setting; r44 EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 plex of buildings; Scottish heritage in New Dundee area Page 93 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix F Structural Engineering Report July, 2023 MHBC 171 Page 94 of 407 TAC MA ENGINEERS Date: July 12, 2023 Project: Heritage House Relocation Address: 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Client: Fusion Homes STRUCTURAL REPORT House Relocation No. of Pages: 1 + Encl. Project No.: TW -927-23 Permit No.: n/a Tacoma Engineers has been retained to complete a structural review of the existing heritage residence at 628 new Dundee Road, Kitchener and provide: a structural engineering assessment regarding the feasibility of relocating the structure; and if feasible, to provide a foundation design to support the existing structure in its new location. Based on our review of the structure on June 30, 2023, we are of the opinion that the existinghouse is a good candidate for relocation. The existing structure is best described as a conventional wood framed house (wood load bearing walls supporting a wood floor and roof structure) with mass masonry exterior brick walls. This opinion is based on our visual review of the house without benefit of any destructive testing. The majority of the int ' r framing is covered with finishes and the brick masonry visible from the exterior. The existing house includes the original heritage structure and a more modern addition, which are planned to be demolished. The property also includes modern brick chimneys that have been added to the exterior of the home. The chimneys are structurally independent and will need to be demolished to permit relocation, which can easily be done without adversely affecting the original structure. Note the house relocation work must be completed by an experienced structural house moving contractor and include full design engineering for the temporary bracing, shoring and lift beams. This work is outside of Tacoma Engineers scope of work. The contractor is to contact Tacoma Engineers to coordinate the structural in ve requirements with the design of the new foundation system. NV T -b -, 1 114 w Per N. l?: OUR Nick Lawler, MASc, PE, P.Eng, CARP 1001941.)17 Structural Engineer, Senior Associate T\27-23 Tacoma Engineers Inc. A'9p 12- LNO `7NCE Of Encl. none F220 — 155 Frobisher Drive /i T: 226 647-0109 Waterloo, Ontario , Professional Engineers F: 519-824-2000 Canada N2L OC7 ©n`a110 willt@tacomaengineers.com Page 95 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix G Staff Bios. July, 2023 MHBC 172 Page 96 of 407 Dan Currie, B.A., BES, M.A., M.C.I.P, UP, C.A.H.P Dan Currie, a Partner with MHBC, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of policy and development work. Dan has experience in a number of areas including strategic planning, growth plan policy, secondary plans, watershed plans, housing studies and downtown revitalization plans. Dan specializes in long range planning and has experience in growth plans, settlement area expansions and urban growth studies. He has provided expert planning evidence to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal and heritage planning evaAce to the Conservation Review Vanessa Hicks, M.A, C.A.H.P Vanessa Hicks is an Associate and Senior Her MHBC. Vanessa and joined the firm after having gained experience as a Manager'15f HerfFage Planning in the public realm where she was responsible for working with HeriAdvisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events and heritage projects. Vanessa is a full member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and graduated from the University of Waterloo w' st s egree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Page 97 of 407 Heritage Impact Assessment 628 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Appendix H Photo Documentation (USB) July, 2023 MHBC 173 Page 98 of 407 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM III MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCH!TECT_1RE Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: August 11, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-367 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-015 30-40 Margaret Avenue New Building — Townhome Development RECOMMENDATION: THAT pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-015 be approved to permit the construction of eight blocks of townhome dwellings, an amenity space, and an internal roadway system with two access points onto Margaret Avenue, on the property municipally addressed as 30- 40 Margaret Avenue, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following condition: 1. That the final Heritage Impact Assessment and Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (Brief) be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Heritage Permit; 2. That final samples of the building materials and colours be submitted for review by Heritage Planning staff in conjunction with Urban Design prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 3. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed, and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed development of the subject property, located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. • There are no financial implications with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 100 of 407 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-015 proposes the construction of a new townhome development on the property municipally addressed as 30-40 Margaret Avenue. The proposed development will include eight (8) townhome blocks in addition to an internal roadway, surface visitor parking, and an amenity space. The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. It is currently vacant. A draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completed by MHBC Planning Ltd. which evaluated the proposed development and determined that there will be negligible impact to adjacent properties and the HCD. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2023-V-015 seeking permission for the construction of eight (8) blocks of townhomes, an amenity space, and an internal road system on the property municipally addressed as 30- 40 Margaret Avenue. The subject property is currently designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, being located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). It formerly contained several significant mansions; the original homes had fallen into a state of disrepair and were demolished at different points during the 1980's and 1990's. At present 30-40 Margaret Street represents the largest vacant lot in the HCD and is the most discernable opportunity for infill development within the area. Due to its location within the CCNHCD and status under the Ontario Heritage Act, a heritage permit is required to facilitate the construction. Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property Page 101 of 407 REPORT: The subject property is located on the northeast side of Margaret Avenue, in between the Margaret Avenue and Queen Street North intersection to the southeast and the Margaret Avenue and Victoria Street North intersection to the northwest. Heritage Impact Assessment As part of the development planning process, a heritage impact assessment (HIA) was required with the submission of a complete site plan application. A draft HIA dated December 7, 2022 and prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) on behalf of Activa was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7t", 2023. Some members voiced their approval of the proposed development, citing appreciation for the established relationship between the proposed buildings and the street as achieved through entrances fronting onto Margaret Avenue and the short walkways leading to the entrances. Others raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the design of the buildings in the context of the CCNHCD and the associated plan policies. The flat roofline in particular was highlighted, as it is a style not common to the area. With consideration to these and staff comments, a revised HIA dated June 22nd, 2023, has been submitted and is currently under review (Appendix B). The HIA determines that the proposed development conforms to the majority of the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan. It identifies adverse impacts as being limited to the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands. Mitigation measures include tree replacement in the landscaped areas between the buildings and along the boundaries of the subject land. It also recommends construction fencing be erected during construction, and points of entry and storage of materials and equipment be located away from 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue to deter dust, debris, or other accidental damage from occurring. The table below has been included in the HIA and summarizes the impacts of the proposed development to the CCNHCD (Figure 2). Page 102 of 407 Impact Level of Impact Analysis (Nene, Negligible, Minor, Floderate or Major) Destruction or Alteration i Negligible. The proposed development will remove of Heritage Attributes two (2) trees from the existing 20 trees on site, one of which is in poor condition/ dead. Shadows The proposed development will not No. result in shadows that negatively impact the CCNHCD including landscape features (i.e. mature trees) due to the limited height of the building in addition to its proposed setbacks. There are also no significant landscape features identified adjacent to the subject lands that would require review for potential adverse impacts due to shadowing. Isolation No. The proposed development will not isolate adjacent heritage buildings or features but rather create a fluid streetsca pe. Direct or Indirect Obstruction of View No. The proposed development will not negatively alter the view of the western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd eastwardly along Margaret Avenue. It will also not affect the scenic. view of the designated wrought iron fence along Margaret Avenue and Queen Street. The coach house was specifically constructed to the rear and not intended as a building of significant Page 103 of 407 A Change in Land Use views. The proposed development does net obstruct the view of the eastern fa�.ade of 54 Margaret Avenue as this was not intended to be the significant view and is currently obstructed from view by vegetation. The proposed development will not obstruct the view of rear elevations of adjacent properties to the rear of the subject lands as they were not intended to be viewed (see Sub -section 7.3.1). The land use on the subject lands will remain for residential purposes. Land Disturbances No. The proposed development is approx mately 29.3 metres frorn the adjacent coach house, 17.8-28 metres from propert es to the rear along Ellen Street. The new construction will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction (see sub -section 7.3.2). Drainage and grading should be appropriate based on an approval of an adequate drainage and grading plan. Figure 2: Summary Table of Impacts to the CCNHCD A full review of the site plan application has been completed and condition approval has been issued for the site plan dated April 25th, 2023 (Figure 3). The full review resulted in some changes to the design of the elevation of the townhome blocks, the most notable being the fenestration. These changes are reflected in the revised drawings submitted July 31St, 2023 (Figure 4 and Appendix C). Page 104 of 407 �zi_EN " ii �rrrrer ' .. ,� na.c nor, ��r�'r"'r i E "'- .. - .. .. av Eivd�r- - :�5.: — MARGARETAVENUE' Figure 3: Site Plan Page 105 of 407 As part of conditional approval, cultural heritage conditions were included to ensure that the proposed development would not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties. A Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (Brief) is one of these conditions, and is to include the following: • Pre -Construction Inspection Report of 54 Margaret Avenue; • Hoarding plan / specifications for the installation of construction fencing; • Monitoring of the adjacent heritage structures and conducting regularly scheduled inspections at critical stages of construction to ensure no new damage has occurred; • Specification of other mitigation measures identified by the heritage consultant to be implemented pre and during construction; and • Explanation as to why this proposal does not necessitate a vibration monitoring program with confirmation from the Consultant Engineer. The CHPP and the HIA is to be approved by the Director of Planning as a condition of final site plan approval. These two documents will serve to identify the measures to be undertaken to ensure no negative impacts to identified heritage resources and attributes and to integrate the proposed development in a manner consistent with recognized heritage conservation principles and practices. Proposed Construction The application is proposing the construction of eight (8) townhome blocks, with four blocks (23 units) fronting onto the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The other four blocks front onto the proposed internal roadway. The new development will result in a total of 47 dwelling units and 54 parking spaces. Seven (7) of the parking spaces are surface visitor parking, while the rest are internal and housed within the townhomes. An internal roadway is proposed to span almost the full width of the site, with vehicular access provided via two different points along Margaret Avenue. A sidewalk runs adjacent to the internal road, with a third pedestrian access point proposed in the centre of the site. An amenity space in the form of a parkette is proposed in the east portion of the site (Figure 5). Per the HIA, it is proposed that the parkette be named after a previous land -owner in order to commemorate the subject lands former historical associations. It is also proposed that remaining foundation stones from the original mansions of the site be incorporated into the park design. Page 106 of 407 Figure 5: Rendering of Proposed Parkette Each townhome block is to be comprised of 5-6 units, 3 storeys in height. The townhomes directly along Margaret Avenue have a 3.47 metre setback, which allows for landscaping opportunities in the front yard in addition to ground -floor patio spaces. The townhomes are proposed to have a flat roof to accommodate rooftop patios as well. The design incorporates traditional elements in a contemporary manner. This includes windows with mullions and transom windows and sidelites at the entrance. The materials and colour palette proposed include brick, wood, copper in shades that are appropriate for the character of the area (Figure 6) Mar92retiomm- Proposal Light cream 1 buff brick veneer 40 Dark grey f black natural wood siding 41 Weathered copper metal siding 41 Wann natural wood Figure 6: Proposed Materials to be Used in the Townhome Development Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan The CCNHCD Plan contains policies and guidelines that regulate the following: Development patterns and land use, with the intention of maintaining the low- density residential character of the area; and The construction of new buildings, including details such as height, massing, setback, architectural elements, and materials used. The CCNHCD Plan also speaks to site specific areas, including Margaret Avenue (Section 3.3.5.3). The policies of this section require, but are not limited to, the following: • New development on the east side of the street to maintain the overall residential characteristic of the neighbourhood; Page 107 of 407 • Development to be of a height, sitting, and design that prevents encroachment on lower -density dwellings located along Ellen and Ahrens Street; • Parking to be underground, with the exception of visitor parking spaces; and • Strong pedestrian -oriented street edges be created through the use of appropriate setbacks, height, architectural features, and building articulation. Section 6.9.1 contains design guidelines for Margaret Avenue. Policy 3.3.5.3 (h) requires that these guidelines be used in the evaluation of proposed developments for properties within this site-specific area. The design guidelines encourage new development to: • Create a strong relationship with the street; • Have appropriate setbacks to minimize impacts to adjacent properties while maintaining the character of the streetscape; • Incorporate appropriate building stepbacks to maintain the human scale of the neighbourhood and create usable outdoor spaces; • Incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to create interest and compatibility with existing buildings; • Create transitions in building width and massing in order to be more representative of the single-family nature of the neighborhood; • Use appropriate material such as brick and stone; • Place parking underground or at the rear of new development to keep it out of view of the street; and • Retain and incorporate healthy trees to create desirable amenity spaces and help unify the new development with the existing heritage landscape. The intention of these policies is to guide proposed change and development to ensure that it is appropriate for and maintains the character of the HCD. Heritage Staff Comments Heritage Planning Staff are generally in agreement with the findings and conclusions of the updated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated June 22nd, 2023. It should be noted that the development as proposed is mostly in compliance with the existing site specific land use and zoning regulations relative to floor space ratio, building height, and setbacks. These regulations were approved by Council through a public planning process after the CCNHCD Plan policies and guidelines were prepared, and directly relate to the eventual withdrawal of the appeal to the HCD and approval of the designating bylaw by the Ontario Municipal Board. In reviewing this application in comparison to the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • Per the CCNHCD Plan, a key characteristic of the area includes the range of recognizable architectural styles and features that are associated with the era in which they were developed. The proposed design of the building is reflective of the current time. Further, the CCNHCD Plan states that the synthesis of building elements that combine to create a recognizable architectural style is usually considered to be the stylistic prerogative of individual properties. While the CCNHCD Plan has documented the styles that are prominent within the HCD, there is no policy or guideline which limits new development to these styles. • Visual consistency to the architecture in the neighbourhood is achieved through the repetition of features such as front porches, projecting bays, and recurring window Page 108 of 407 forms and details. The proposed design reflects some of these features in the incorporation of transoms and sidelites, chimneys, fenestration with mullions, and a porch -interpretation created by a cantilevered balcony over the front entrance. The CCNHCD Plan identifies a buildings overall size and shape as perceived from the street as having the most apparent influence on the character of the district. The proposed townhomes are three (3) storeys in height, and the massing is proportioned through setbacks and articulations to be reflective of the single-family residential dwellings that are the dominate use and building form within the area. The building height, in combination with the rear and side yard setbacks, will ensure that there is no encroachment on adjacent buildings. The building is in keeping with the height of buildings within the HCD and maintains the human scale of the area. SECTION BE. Figure 7: Drawing from Revised HIA Illustrating Angular Plane Analysis • The proposed use of the land remains residential, which continues the original and historical use of the property. The proposed use maintains the low-density character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and is appropriate for the context of the area. • The proposed cladding utilizes materials and colours that are appropriate for and similar to those found within the HCD, including brick veneer, natural wood siding and soffits, and wood doors-, o The submission of the final samples of the building materials and colours for review is a condition of approval of this Heritage Permit Application. • Parking spaces are housed internally within the townhomes, and the garages do not front onto Margaret Avenue. Surface parking is limited to seven visitor spaces that are located to the side and rear side of the subject lands. • A strong relationship between the buildings and the street is created through the orientation of the entrances towards Margaret Avenue, the short W414- wayswalkways leading to the entrances, and the front -yard patio spaces on Blocks E -H. • Within the Civic Centre, windows and doors are used to create unique features and provide more character through the incorporation of decorative frames, mullions and muntin's, lintels and sills, transoms, and more. The applicants worked with Heritage Planning staff to create more traditional style windows that are reflective of the decorative designs and detailing found within the HCD. Page 109 of 407 Section 6.9.5 of the CCNHCD Plan identifies preferred examples for compatible development within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood. Some of these identified case studies are depicted below (Figure 8). The preferred examples display a good relationship to the street, sensitivity to scale, massing, and built form, appropriate interpretation of rooflines, and appropriate window placement. Massing is generally broken up into smaller units through building articulation and variation in building materials. Similarities between the preferred examples and the proposed buildings include the incorporation of chimneys, comparable fenestration, and the use of brick material. A flat -roof design is shown in some of these examples. The proposed buildings also establish a pedestrian -oriented street edge and are an appropriate size and massing so as to maintain the huaN-scale of the neighbourhood. Further, Heritage Planning Staff would note that per the HIA, there is no anticipated negative impacts to adjacent properties, including 54 Margaret Avenue and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North, as constituted by the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. The adverse impacts of the proposed development are limited to the removal of some mature trees. Landscaped areas are proposed in the front yard of each unit in addition to (the rest of the site). The front yards have enough soil volume to accommodate the planting of new small -sized trees. The approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act is not a waiver of any of the provisions of any legislation, including but not limited to the requirement of the Ontario Building Code and Kitchener's Zoning By-law. In this regard, the applicant is advised that full site plan approval and a building permit are still required. Page 110 of 407 n s ` �� '�• �� � 444 J ia +a STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Plan • DSD -2023-057 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 30-40 Margaret Avenue APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application Attachment B — Revised Heritage Impact Assessment Attachment C — Revised Elevation Drawings Page 112 of 407 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS _ Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor IITCHENER P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 30-40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Legal Description (if know): Registered Plan 374, Lots 193-198, 211-213, Part Lots 199-203, 214-218 Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Activa Holdings Address: 55 Columbia Street East, Suite 2 City/Province/Postal Code: Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4N7 Phone: 519-886-9400 ex 104 Email: alex.sumner@activa.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Dan Currie, Director of Cultural Heritage Planning Company: MHBC Planning Ltd. Address: 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, Ontario, N213 3X9 Phone: 519-576-3650 Email: dcurrie@mhbcplan.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 8 of 10 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. The proposal includes the construction of 8 blocks of townhouses (48 units) on vacant land. Please see Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment by MHBC Planning Ltd. (2023) for more details. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The application is fora proposed new construction/ infill. the vacant lot is a result of demolishedrp_o erites and is currently void in the Margaret Avenue streetscape. There are site specific policies for this lot of land in the HCD Plan in anticipation of development. Please see the Scoped HIA for further details. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Please see the Scoped HIA for further details, specifically Section 6.0. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicol aces. ca/en/paces/standards-normes.aspx): The proposal intends to conserve the Heritage Conservation District and is consistent with the guidelines for Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Section 4.1 of the S&Gs. Precautionary measures have been recommended or nearby built features. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: 2024 Expected completion date: 2026 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑ Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Jessica Vieira c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: °'"" ` Date: June 28, 2023 f -Jun 28, 2023 Signature of Owner/Agent:'' Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, Alex Sumner , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Dan Currie, MHBC Planning Ltd. to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent:Date: June 28, 2023 Signature of Owner/Agent:. u''"" "� Date: Jun 28 2023 The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 Heritage Permit for New Construction. 30-40 Margaret Avenue_28June2023 Final Audit Report 2023-06-28 Created: 2023-06-28 By: Emily McShane (emily.mcshane@activa.ca) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA1xcw9x-CHYYvlwzKygL6Vz6zXg09R8EV "Heritage Permit for New Construction -30-40 Margaret Avenue_ 28June2023" History Document created by Emily McShane (emily.mcshane@activa.ca) 2023-06-28 - 3:54:42 PM GMT- IP address: 72.142.18.6 Document emailed to Alex Sumner (alex.sumner@activa.ca) for signature 2023-06-28 - 3:56:06 PM GMT Email viewed by Alex Sumner (alex.sum ner@activa.ca) 2023-06-28 - 4:00:07 PM GMT- IP address: 104.47.75.190 Document e -signed by Alex Sumner (alex.sumner@activa.ca) Signature Date: 2023-06-28 - 4:00:28 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 72.142.18.6 Agreement completed. 2023-06-28 - 4:00:28 PM GMT a Adobe Acrobat Sign Page 117 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact P• -g Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, ON DRAFT 1 Date: December 7, 2022 Revised June 22, 2023 Prepared for: Acti va Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive77 's Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 : 3 F: 519 576 0121 Project No. 878481 MHBC ' PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARr!�lTECT�,`3E v Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................4 Glossaryof Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities.....................................................................................5 ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................6 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Methodology and Approach................................................................................................................ s 2.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... s 2.2 Approach........................................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 Description of Subject Lands............................................................................................................11 3.1 General Description of Subject Lands.........................................................................................11 3.2 Heritage Status...............................................................................................................................14 4.0 Description of Surrounding Area.....................................................................................................16 5.0 Description of Proposed Development........................................................................................... 20 5.1 Description of New Construction.................................................................................................20 5.2 Landscape Alterations................................................................................................................... 22 6.0 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Policy Analysis..........................................25 6.1 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) ............................. 25 6.2 Site Specific Guidelines: Margaret Avenue.................................................................................25 6.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning Guidelines for Margaret Avenue....................................27 6.4 Site/ Area Specific Design Guidelines: Margaret Avenue.........................................................29 6.5 Guidelines for Part IV Designations within CCNHCD................................................................36 6.6 Other Applicable Guidelines for the Public Realm within CCNHCD........................................ 36 6.7 Compatibility with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) Preferred Examples of Infill....................................................................................................39 7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development.................................................................................................43 November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / i Page 119 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7.1 Classifications of Impacts.............................................................................................................43 7.2 Assessment of Beneficial Impacts...........................................................................................43 7.3 Assessment of Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District................................................................................44 7.3.1 Impact of Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views...................................45 7.3.2 Impact of Land Disturbances.........................................................................................49 7.4 Assessment of Adverse Impacts Specific to Adjacent 54 Margaret Avenue ......................... 50 8.0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures..............51 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches.........................................................................................51 8.2 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................................51 8.3 Conservation Measures.................................................................................................................52 8.4 Other Considerations.....................................................................................................................52 9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................53 10.0 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................54 AppendixA................................................................................................................................................58 MapFigures............................................................................................................................................58 AppendixB................................................................................................................................................ 59 SitePlan...................................................................................................................................................59 AppendixC................................................................................................................................................60 Building Elevations & Renderings..................................................................................................60 AppendixD................................................................................................................................................61 ArchitecturalAnalysis.........................................................................................................................61 AppendixE.................................................................................................................................................62 TreeManagement Plan...................................................................................................................... 62 AppendixF.................................................................................................................................................63 Designation By-law Church of the Good Shepherd.................................................................63 AppendixG................................................................................................................................................ 64 AngularPlane........................................................................................................................................ 64 AppendixH................................................................................................................................................ 65 Termsof Reference............................................................................................................................. 65 AppendixI.................................................................................................................................................66 November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / ii Page 120 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario CurriculaVitae.......................................................................................................................................66 November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / iii Page 121 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Lucy Chen Managing Director of Cultural Senior Review Heritage Senior Heritage Planner Research, Author Technician Glossary of Abbreviations CCNHCD CHVI CHL HCD HIA MCM MHBC OHA 0 -REG 9/06 PPS 2020 Map Figures Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Cultural Heritage Interest or Value Cultural Heritage Landscape Heritage Conservation District Heritage Impact Assessment Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Maci1/aughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Regulation 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value or interest Provincial Policy Statement (2020) November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 4 Page 122 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Acknowledgements This report acknowledges the assistance provided by City of Kitchener Planning Staff, the Waterloo Historical Society, the Grace Schmidt Room in the Kitchener Public Library and the Waterloo Region Museum. Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges that the subject property located at 30- 40 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener is situated in the traditional territory of Haudenosaunee, Anishnawbe, Attiwonderonk (Neutral) nations. These lands are acknowledged as being associated with the following treaties: • The Simcoe Patent Treaty 4, 1793 • Haidimand Treaty This document takes into consideration the cultural heritage of indigenous communities, including their oral traditions and history when available and related to the scope of work. Present Owner Information: Activa, c/o Alex Sumner 2821889 Ontario Inc. 55 Columbia Street East Suite 1, Waterloo, Ontario N23 4N7 November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 5 Page 123 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Executive Summary The City of Kitchener requested a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development on the subject lands located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario. This report assessed the impact that the proposed development may have on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District, including any potential impact to the individually designated property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street (the Church of the Good Shepherd). In conclusion, the proposed development conforms to the majority of the policies and guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) and the adverse impacts are limited to a negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands. Mitigation measures include tree replacement and that replanting be considered for the landscaped area between the buildings and edge of the property that abuts adjacent properties. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area and of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions to cultural heritage resources as a result of the proposed development. However, as a precautionary measure, in order to ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction and storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 6 Page 124 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.O Introduction 1.1 Background MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture ("MHBC'� was retained in January 2022 by Martin Simmons Sweers Architects to undertake a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed development located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener hereafter referred to as the'subject lands' (see Appendix 'A'). The subject lands are located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. In November 2006, a heritage conservation district study was completed on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood and the following year, in August 2007, the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (CCNHCD) was established to regulate the designated district. The subject lands are located within CCNHCD and therefore, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act ("OHA'�. The subject lands are currently vacant; formerly there were seven (7) dwellings on the subject lands, however, all dwellings were demolished in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As such, there is no protected property on the subject lands as defined by the OHA and Provincial Policy Statement ('APPS 2020"). The purpose of this scoped HIA is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located adjacent to the property and to the overall CCNHCD. There are 17 adjacent properties to the subject lands including: 12, 54 & 64 Margaret Avenue, 116 Queen Street North and 15, 17, 21, 25, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43 & 45 Ellen Street West. The adjacent, contiguous property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street North (Church of the Good Shepherd) is designated under Part IV and is a protected property under the OHA and the PPS 2020. The other adjacent properties located in the CCNHCD with the exception of 54 Margaret Avenue, however, are not listed under Group A' in the District, meaning that they are not considered to have high cultural heritage value. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. It also uses previous reports including: a scoped HIA completed by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2013), an HIA completed by MHBC in 2019 and subsequent Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) (2020). November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 7 Page 125 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2.0 Methodology and Approach 2.1 Methodology The methodology of this report is based on the Terms of Reference provided by the City of Kitchener for the Scoped HIA for development on the subject lands (see Appendix 'W). The City of Kitchener's Heritage Planner requires the following content for this scoped Heritage impact Assessment: • Present owner information; • A written description of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material'; • An outline of proposed development, its context and how it will impact the properties (subject properly and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties0 including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties shall be assessed. • Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. • A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). • Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. • Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. • The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. 'There are no buildings or structures on-site, however, the property has been documented with photographs. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 8 Page 126 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 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. • 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. It is important to note that the subject properties do not include any buildings or structures or particular landscape features and therefore, the analysis is based on the heritage attributes of the adjacent protected heritage property and of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. 2.2 Approach A site visit was conducted by MHBC Staff on March 4, 2019 and October 31, 2022 to document the current state of the subject lands. This report reviews the following documents: • HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2008); • Scoped HIA by The Land Plan Collaborative Inc. (2013); • Scoped HIA by MHBC (2019) and Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (2020); • City ofKitcheners Oficial Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014); • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study (2006); • Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007); • The Planning Act; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • The Ontario Heritage Act, • The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit which includes Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries); • Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition) • Region of Waterloo Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties This HIA assesses the proposed development in terms of its compliance with these policies, guidelines and recommendations and assesses any impacts of the development on cultural heritage value and attributes of adjacent resources. In particular, this report assesses the impact that the proposed development will have on the key heritage attributes of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Key heritage attributes of the CCNHCD are outlined in 2.6 (Section 2.4) of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). These attributes are the defining factors of the heritage district. Key attributes are November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 9 Page 127 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario described in the physical geography and configuration of similar original buildings and their direct relationship to surrounded businesses and factories and original land development pattern of the City. It also describes the progression of architecture and building technology exhibited by houses and other buildings, in particular the unique form of Queen Anne Style specific to the City of Kitchener dubbed "Berlin Vernacular". 'Fine' examples of these are categorized by Group 'A' or 'B'; three quarters of the properties (147 properties) are categorized as Group 'C' which exhibit the standard construction and are in a condition of repair and potential restoration. The following is a list of the key attributes of the CCNHCD as defined by the District Plan (2007) on 2.7: • Its association with important business and community leaders during a key era of development in Kitchener; • A wealth of well maintained, finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s and early 1900s that are largely intact; • A number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District; • A significant range of recognizable architectural styles and features including attic gable roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed; • The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees, grassed boulevards and laneways; • Hibner Park, Kitchener's second oldest city park, as a green jewel in the centre of the District. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC 110 Page 128 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3. O Description of Subject Lands 3.1 General Description of Subject Lands The subject lands are located centrally within the City of Kitchener and bound by Margaret Avenue to the south, Ellen Street West to the north, Queen Street North to the east and Victoria Street North to the west. The subject lands are currently vacant and include open space with mature trees planted in the 20th century including Silver, Sugar, Norway, Manitoba Maple, White Mulberry, Black Walnut, Norway Spruce and Basswood. Currently, there are is one vehicular entry to access the subject lands off of Margaret Avenue. The subject lands are surrounded by residential properties to the west, north and south and a place of worship (institutional) to the east. Figure 1 : Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red dotted line (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Map, 2019) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC 111 Page 129 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 2: Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan Land Use, Secondary Plan Map 9 identifying the subject lands as medium density multiple residential within the CCNHCD boundaries; red arrow identifies subject lands (Source: City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014) The subject lands are zoned R8 55 1-R and designated as Medium -Density Multiple Residential' and within a Special Area Policy" in the Secondary Plan for the Civic Centre Neighbourhood (Map 9 of the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (2014), see Figure 2 and 3). The overall parcel area is approximately 3.01 acres (12, 198 sqm). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 12 Page 130 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario ® \P ` 0 5�. g �aP 5 6R M -1 7570. 569R. 17H Sti 1-7, A40U, 55 �,�^6.1 zit SG2R a 47 4a S� � In 8457 MUj4�1fi74'nl'~68Rr17H ^Q'3 4: I3,:.. 3 MU -1 167U,,560R yss 41 g lr 3 MU. -A 16-x.:. 562R fey ^�1J fF�.�F27U 12^ ei NsTyL X 14,- �J 54 st MU -1 167 55600, 17H 1 1 ' I, 1. (-Ml; t: ENlrff 14- R s i5 IR 11 q i � 1N � �t6Pµ9�tE 4+1Q�FT4i+F d P R -7T 31 1. I I �F 149 R-5 127U lin 1 f P -I Ili. I:d,hh, I'] Y 11 K0.h nrrGalm Wa 21 / 3 /_ Dueml hlar{1 a1e1 �f�� CITY COMMERCIAL i 4`'�Plice R-9 `� Q 2- IV N F� R 11 1 10 Figure 3: Zoning map of the subject lands; red arrow identifies subject lands (Source: Kitchener Interactive Map, 2022) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 13 Page 131 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.2 Heritage status The subject lands are not listed' (non -designated) or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, however, they are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (2006) (see Figure 4). The property does not include any potential built heritage resources as it is vacant. There are special policies within the HCD Plan (2006) that address the subject lands and future redevelopment of the lands. Figure 4: Map of subject lands and surrounding areas; subject lands are identified by the red line; green line indicates the CCNHCD boundaries (Source: MHBC, 2019). November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 14 Page 132 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.3 Existing Conditions The current site is vacant and does not include any buildings or structures (see Figures 5-6). There are some mature trees along the rear property line and a portion of the former foundation walls of one of the former dwellings also remains. There is a vehicular parking spot via Margaret Avenue on the west side of the subject lands. Figures 5 & 6: (above) Street view of subject lands looking north-west along Margaret Avenue; (below) Street view of subject lands looking north-east along Margaret Avenue (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2021). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 15 Page 133 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 4.O Description of Surrounding Area 4.1 Description of General Surrounding Area The subject lands are located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood, adjacent to the downtown core of the City of Kitchener. To the north of the subject lands are two storeys, residential dwellings along Ellen Street West and to the east is the Church of the Good Shepherd. Further to the east is the contemporary building of the Centre in the Square. To the west of the property is the heritage home at 54 Margaret Avenue, which is the last remaining house, aside from 70 Margaret Avenue, from the original row of houses on the north side of Margaret Avenue in the early 20th century (see Figure 7). Figure 7: View of the surrounding area (Source: Google Earth Pro and MHBC, 2019) The properties to the south of the subject land in include both heritage homes as well as residential apartment buildings. There is a four storey apartment building located at 43 Margaret November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC 116 Page 134 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Avenue and an 18 storey apartment building at 11 Margaret Avenue/ 100 Queen Street North, "The Queen Margaret Apartments." 4.2 Description of Adjacent Cultural Heritage Resources Adjacent lands are defined by the PPS (2020) meaning "those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan." The following Table 1.0 identifies adjacent designated properties and a description based on the CCNHCD Plan. Description 54 Margaret Street "A flamboyant large house with decorative half-timber Tudor details and grand circular turret and conical roof exposed currently on three sides. Built in c. 1904 for Herbert J. Bowman, County Clerk, later occupied by Charles J. Baetz, President of Baetz Brothers, Speciality Manufacturers, makers of floors and table lamps." 64 Margaret Street (Formerly 66 Margaret Avenue) Presently a vacant lot with the exception of a one storey accessory 116 Queen Street/ 12 Margaret Street 15 Ellen Street West 17 Ellen Street West 21 Ellen Street West 25 Ellen Street West 29 Ellen Street West building. William H. Breithaupt who constructed a house at 64 Margaret Street (now Margaret Avenue). The house was demolished in 2003. Status Listed; Designated under Part V(Group A); Identified as "Unique Building" in Section 3.4.3 of the CCNHCD Study (2006) Designated under Part V (Group B) Three-storey Gothic Church of the Designated under Part IV and I Good Shepherd Swedenborgian church Part V (Group A) (see below for with clock tower, fence and adjoining more information regarding coach house (12 Queen Street) designation). originated with the William Roos Estate, c.1885; Roos was a wholesale grocer. Two-storey brick house built in c 1920. Listed; Designated under Part V( 1 _ Group C) Two-storey vernacular brick house Listed; Designated under Part V built in c.1910. (Group C) Two-storey stucco house built in Listed; Designated under Part V c. 1905 (Group B) Two-storey vernacular brick house Listed; Designated under Part V built in c. 1905. (Group C) Two-storey brick house built in c. 1910 Designated under Part V (Group November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 17 Page 135 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 31 Ellen Street West 33 Ellen Street West 35 Ellen Street West 37 Ellen Street West 39 Ellen Street West 41 Ellen Street Two storey, brick, Vernacular house West , built in c. 1900 43 Ellen Street West 45 Ellen Street West Two and half storey, brick, Queen Anne house built in c. 1910 with _ shingled gable. Two storey, brick and stucco, Tudor _house built in c. 1925. Two storey, brick, Tudor house built in c. 1925. Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular house built in c. 1910 Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular house built in c. 1910 Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular house built in c. 1900 Two and half storey, brick, Vernacular house built in c. 1910 Designated under Part V (Group C) Designated under Part V (Group C) Designated under Part V (Group C) Designated under Part V (Group C) Designated under Part V (Group C) Listed; Designated under Part V Listed; Designated under Part V (Group C) _ Listed; Designated under Part V (Group C) On July 15, 1985, By-law 85-129 was passed pursuant to Section 29 of the OHA to designate under Part IV of the OHA the property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, "The Church of the Good Shepherd" (see Appendix F'); this by-law outlines the designating features as follows: [This property) is designated as being of historical and architectural value that part of the aforesaid real property known as 116 Queen Street North being comprised of the portions of the wrought iron fence stretching from the drive beside the Church along Margaret Avenue to Queen Street and the section along Queen Street stretching to the Church property. This designation is acknowledged in the CCNHCD Plan as being a key attribute of the property. The cast iron fence that encircles the grounds at the Church of the Good Shepherd is an excellent example of period fencing. Originally, the fence enclosed the grounds of the home of William Roos, a prominent industrialist in the city. The Church now maintains the fence as an important link to its past, and serves as an excellent example of stewardship. (CCNHCD Plan, 2007, 4.18). November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 18 Page 136 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 8: View of the cast iron fence of the Church of the Good Shepherd located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street, Kitchener (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 19 Page 137 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5. 0 Description of Proposed Development 5.1 Description of New Construction The proposed development includes eight (8) blocks of townhouses with a total of 48 dwelling units and 53 parking spaces (see Figure 9 and Appendix "B' and T'. Vehicular access is proposed via Margaret Avenue and continues into a private road through the development. Landscaped areas are proposed at the rear side of the development and a proposed park is proposed on the east side of the subject lands of approximately t0.1 hectares. The new construction includes a range of materials such as: natural wood siding, natural cedar soffits, wood door, standing seam metal siding, brick veneer, aluminum framing system and architectural concrete. S7AEF_7 I MARGARETAVENUE Figure 9: Greyscale site plan for proposed development (MHBC, 2023) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 20 Page 138 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario - - - - - - - - - - - - - h (-al azncxawecr �vA�ou F11 --------- ------------ ------------ a= o a ----o4 a --------------- - ------- 0 ----- 6 9LL3CkA EA4T fl£fATtON 101 M �.. �� • e . ���� ®� QEpla-0-M .�7.®� 1..®tf1 1 .� Figures 10 & 11: (above) Elevations of Block A (which are replicated for other blocks); (below) Coloured rendering of proposed development looking from the interior of the site (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 21 Page 139 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.2 Landscape Alterations The development will remove some trees located on the subject lands. A Tree Management Plan identified there were 92 trees identified on site in 2019, however, an update plan identifies that there are currently 20 trees on-site, 18 of which will be retained (see Appendix 'E'). The species of trees to be retained include: • Basswood • Tree of Heaven • Norway and Sugar Maple • Black Walnut • Norway Spruce • White Cedar • White Mu/berry • White Ash The trees that are proposed to be removed include an Ash Spruce (identified as Tree #20 in Figure 12) and a Norway Spruce (identified as Tree #21 in Figure 12). The Ash Spruce is identified as a dead' tree and the other is in fair condition; the trees are located along the rear property line. The proposed development includes a reinstated treed boulevard, private walkways, and a parkette abutting the adjacent Church of the Good Shepherd which includes a combination of trees and terraces. Trees are proposed along the frontage of the property with a combination of hydrangeas, boxwood and pavers to liven the streetscape. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / ZZ Page 140 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario i�BV PIATAFJIHDE�3 FA& CNA 3.'FA LPCXgR ACIIi P V iAkat= F.AY44._CA F.pRtFCCW o..R2N 3rir-_ C�66Wl1FrvR TSE iA 3aan.FM0. 4.9.1 BPpEJO, 11RF= 2� �titaxa k u �iE 9 'REE 15 ME 1& X15 UtH 111361 - at A V7 -J- r - __- ati } # A. 'A -A': - I MARGARET AVENui Figures 12 & 13: (above) Excerpt of Tree Management Plan identifying the trees proposed to be removed (below) Conceptual landscape design for the subject lands (Source: MHBC, 2023). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 23 Page 141 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario L OY Figure 14: Basic rendering of proposed landscape design for parkland adjacent to the Church of the Good Shepherd (Source: MHBC, 2022). it November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 24 Page 142 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6. O Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation Policy Analysis 6.1 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) The CCNHCD Plan contains specific policies and design guidelines for the subject lands. This area is identified as one of four (4) site/ area specific policies in the Plan including: Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, Weber Street and Victoria Street. All new development should confirm to these policies and guidelines. An analysis of the proposed development and the conformity with each policy is provided below. See Appendix "Wand T' for site plan, floor plans and architectural renderings. 6.2 Site Specific Guidelines: Margaret Avenue 3.3.5.3 Margaret A venue A large parcel of land on the east side of Margaret A venue is currently vacant, except for a number of mature trees This property was home to a number of significant mansions which were allowed by their property owners to go into serious disrepair and eventually were demolished in the 1980s and 1990s It represents by far the single largest vacant property in the District where development is almost certain to happen in the future. Site plan applications were submitted in the past, but to date, nothing has been constructed. Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly traveled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to signifIcantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. The site is designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential and zoned R8, allowing for a full range of residential uses up to 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys). The Municipal Plan contains several other policies which are included below along with additional policies that are to apply to this site to ensure that new development maintains the heritage character of the District November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 25 Page 143 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Policies: New development on the east side of Margaret Avenue shall maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). Response 1: The proposed development is located centrally on Margaret Avenue between Victoria Street North and Queen Street North. A portion of the overall building is adjacent to the parking lot of the Church of the Good Shepherd which is on the east side' of Margaret Avenue. Architectural details such as multiple entryways corresponding to multiple, separate residential units, stepbacks and landscape features (i.e. private walkways) have been intentionally designed to maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood. The new construction presents itself as separate units similar to the surrounding single family dwellings (including 54 Margaret Avenue) and is separated into several blocks to avoid a single mass. Underground parking is encouraged for all forms of redevelopment and is required for apartment developments, with the exception of surface visitorparking (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). Response 2: Individual parking garages for the units are accessed via the internal laneway of the development, therefore, the parking is not visible from the public realm. There is a total of 52 parking spaces proposed. Redevelopment should be of height, siting and design which will prevent it from encroaching on lower density dwellings located on Ellen and Ahrens Streets (Section 13.1.2.4 of Municipal Plan). Response 3: The proposed building height is approximately 3 storeys in height which is similar to the adjacent place of worship and 2-2 1/2 storey residential buildings in the area, particularly along Ellen Street to the north. The proposed development is approximately three (3) metres from the front yard property line which situates it close to the streetscape. The design includes a variety of heights, setbacks, forms and textures to reduce the perception of massing. Development proposals shall establish a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge that is consistent with the residential character of the District, through the use of appropriate setbacks, height, architectural features and building articulation. Response 4: The orientation and location of the proposed development promotes a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge due to its close proximity/ shallow setback to the street and separate walkways. The separation of the building into several units provides a more inviting streetscape in lieu of one building mass and interacts with the streetscape as singular residential units which promotes the residential character of the District. The stepbacks and variation in material along the front fagade of the units reduces massing November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 26 Page 144 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario towards to the street and consistent with the residential massing and scale of surrounding historic dwellings. Any buildingsproposed over 5 storeys in heightmaybe required to undertake shadow studies to demonstrate that they will not unreasonably impact access to sunlight in rear yard amenity areas on Ellen Street. Response 5: The proposed development is less than 5 storeys and therefore, is not req u i red. The retention and incorporation of existing trees is strongly encouraged as part of any development proposal. Response 6: A Tree Preservation Plan was prepared by MHBC Planning by a licensed landscape architect and certified arborist (see Appendix 'E'). Of the 20 trees on-site, 18 of the trees will be retained. New trees are proposed to be placed in other parts of the site to mitigate the removal of healthy trees and the existing mature, healthy trees will be incorporated into the overall design of the site. Traffic studies may be required to demonstrate that new development will not have a negative impact on the existing heritage character of the area with respect to any potential road width / turning lane requirements or access locations Response 7: A Traffic Impact Study was not requested by the municipality as part of the site plan application submission. 6.3 Land Use Designations and Zoning Guidelines for Margaret Avenue "The large vacant lot on Margaret A venue is also currently designated Medium Density Multiple Residential, which is intended to permit some integrated medium density development while maintaining the overall character of the neighbourhood. Zoning for the large vacant parcel is R8, which permits a floor space ratio oft and a maximum height of 24 metres (approximately 8 storeys) for multiple dwellings The majority of buildings beside, across from and backing onto the large vacant site on Margaret are still the original detached dwellings, primarily 2 to 2-1/2 storeys in height One high rise apartment is situated across from the east end of the site. While the zoning would allow for construction of an 8 storey building, it would be more difficult for a building of this height to 'maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood' Actual architectural and design elements, along with siting of buildings would likely play an equally important role in whether new development was compatible with the character of the neighbourhood. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 27 Page 145 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario With the permitted floor space ratio oft, it would be very possible to achieve the maximum floor area. within a bui/ding envelope of 5 storeys or less as shown below. As a result, consideration should be given to reducing the maximum permitted height in this area to approximately 16.5 metres to reduce potential height impacts on the street and adjacent neighbours Height impacts could also be addressed through the addition of angular planes and/or step back requirements in the zoning by-law or guidelines to minimize building heights nearest the street In addition, a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres is recommended to establish a street edge similar to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. It is also recognized that there are quite a number of mature trees that are located on the property. Opportunities to retain and/or design around these trees should be encouraged. Response 7: The proposed building heights are 13.3 metres which is to maintain the overall character of the neighbourhood. The angular plane analysis shown in Figure 15 below demonstrates that the proposed development meets the angular plane. The buildings are close to the street with individual entrances facing the street which is more consistent with the single detached dwellings in the immediate area. The proposed setback of approximately 3 metres established a similar street edge to the opposite side of Margaret Avenue. ANGULAR PLANE ANALYSIS (MARTIN SIMMONS SWEERS ARCHITECTS) I , I A A B C Figure 15: Angular plane analysis for the proposed development (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects, 2022). November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 28 Page 146 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6A Site/ Area Specific Design Guidelines: Margaret Avenue There are several sites, as previously identified in the policies and implementation sections of this report, that have a distinct character and/or some development expectation or potential over the long term. To ensure that future development, should it occur, is compatible with the District, the following guidelines should be considered during the building and site design in these areas 6.9.1 Margaret Avenue New development on the vacant lot on Margaret Avenue should establish a strong relationship to the street similar to that which exists on the south side of the street, by having a maximum front yard setback of 10 metres Response 8: The front yard setback is approximately 3 metres and therefore, is within the maximum setback and similar to the rest of the street. Landscaping of a tree boulevard for the proposed development will also address the relationship between the trees on the south side of the street and those in front of the new building. The development will be oriented to the street and entryways, including private walkways, are proposed to encourage the visual appeal of the neighbourhood. The subject lands front Margaret Avenue and have designed the front elevation along the streetscape to have architectural interest and details that promote a fluid streetscape. A minimum rearyard setbackof10 to 15metresis encouraged to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street (Nest, given that the topography slopes onwards from Margaret Avenue to Ellen Street. This rear yard setback is also more consistent with that of existing development on Ellen Street. Response 9: The rear yard setback ranges from approximately 4 to 16 metres so the compatibility varies depending on the location on the site. The rear yard is intended to be landscaped which allows for a buffer between the development on the existing residents along Ellen Street West to minimize impacts as a result of the new dwelling units in areas where the minimum rear yard setback is not met. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 29 Page 147 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 16: Coloured rendering of rear yard (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022). Building step backs are encouraged for any development greater than 3-4 storeys in height to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. Step backs shou/d be a minimum oft metres to pro vide for useable outdoor terraces on the upper levels. Response 10: The proposed new construction is not greater than 3-4 storeys in height, however even so, it does include building step backs to minimize the impact of new development on the pedestrian environment of the street. There are terraces proposed to the rear of the units above the parking garages. Street leve/ architecture of any new development on Margaret Avenue should incorporate a high degree of building articulation and architectural detail to provide interest and compatibility with existing buildings across the street. Details could include cornices, pilasters, varied roof lines, pitched roofs, gables and dormers, decorative doorand window details, turrets, porches, bays and othersimilar features. Response 11: Please note that Appendix "W of this report provides a visual comparative analysis that supports this response. The new construction includes flat, platform rooflines which reflect that of the adjacent place of worship (as it relates to the battlement inspired bell tower) and the parapet of the tower is mimicked by the roof terraces (see Figures 17-18). The design of the blocks was intended to reflect the consistent residential streetscape in the surrounding area, particularly that of Ellen Street. Details include: transoms and sidelights at doors, portico -like entry ways and the use of a variety of materials that would be reflected in the District (i.e. brick, wood). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 30 Page 148 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario LA r Yii-1 -s4 Figures 17 & 18: (above) Coloured rendering of front elevation of Block'H' (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022); (below) View of the Church of the Good Shepherd (Source: Google Earth Pro, 2022). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 31 Page 149 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario The floor -to -floor and roof heights of the proposed development were designed to be consistent with the established residential neighbourhood in the immediate surrounding as well as design elements. A comparative analysis has been completed using the property located at 31 Margaret Avenue which is adjacent (non-contiguous) to the subject lands (see Figure 19 and Appendix `D' of this report). Window and door details, including transom lights and sidelights are reflected in a contemporary manner in the proposed development by means of an added glazed transom above entrances, broken up glazing on front elevation fronting Margaret Avenue while incorporating large picture windows. Columns have been incorporated on the interior facades facing the internal laneway which allude to columns used in traditional architecture (see Figures 20 & 21). The proposed townhouses have a variety of smaller forms using differing heights of outdoor spaces; the outdoor space on the third storey of the proposed development is aligned with the roof level of the existing houses in the area. The new construction includes a range of materials such as: natural wood siding, natural cedar soffits, wood door, standing seam metal siding, brick veneer, aluminum framing system and architectural concrete. Some of the materials represent the texture of the District while others are contemporary. The colour palette is proposed to be neutral which is supported by the use of some natural materials. Colours proposed include: Light cream, weathered copper, dark grey/ black, charcoal, blonde (aluminium) and natural wood colours (for the use of Cedar and other woods for architectural elements). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 32 Page 150 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario AW III�11l�illl����1�1lII.I�IIII 1 ��IIN__�i���� IIII !I!I!p •�- •rrlIIFllll11 11110 II111 0 ) O � 1. CHIMNEY VOLUME (SES RACK) 2. CENTER VOLUME {FORWARD} 3. ENTRY VOLUW SET -BACK} 31 MARGARET AVE - NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSAL MLOCK E} SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 2 -,diagram afmassft strategy OUTDOOR SPACE Mill= Figure 19: Visual comparative analysis between design elements of the residence at 31 Margaret Avenue which is directly adjacent (non-contiguous) to the subject lands (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects, 2023). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 33 Page 151 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario kiphlieh¢ 4 Revisiorrs EXTERIOR FINIS9 iES AC T I VA -R—n Gl—gon smuts elevation facing Margaret Ave�- {Large picture win — h ave been resdved —dud. wigiy uw mewnrsungie+ re panes and mullw.ns with less-pa,swe gJ-1 - Glazed Ga'— here bee., g ided above all front entry doors .,�. -Columns are ..luded and nave been bapbled ®tee ""�' _—_—_—_ _---_—_—_— _—_ _—_— - —_—_ _—_ _—_ —_—_8 V_ ____ ______—___ _ _ -zP Now —' --_MARTIN '-t SIMWN5 SWUR5 e-- --------- - --------------I - — - — ___—----- _I BLACK E ELEVA�ICNC t SP3D5 -- --------------- ------------------ Use --------------Use of columns Use of sidelights and transoms Figures 20 & 21- (above) Broad view of elevations where columns have been incorporated into the design; (below) Detailed view of areas which include columns that reflect the historic use of this architectural feature in the HCD (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects, 2023). November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 34 Page 152 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Create transitions in building width and massing by dividing the building visually into smaller units or sections that are more representative of the predominantly single family nature of the neighbourhood. Response 12: This architectural design of the building uses repetitive fagade elements, such as the mirrored rhythm of building sections. The transition of building with stepbacks also breaks up and creates a rhythm along the fagade of the three buildings along Margaret Avenue (see Appendix'C' for architectural elevations and renderings). The articulation of the front fagades reflects width and spacing of the single detached dwellings on the south of Margaret Avenue. There are seventeen entrances to the property from the street accessed from Margaret Avenue which has the effect of creating individual front yards similar in character to the single detached dwellings on the south side of Margaret Avenue. The use ofbrick and/ or stone is strongly encouraged for the front facade of any new development, to establish consistency with other heritage buildings in proximity to the parcel of land; Response 13: The CCNHCD Study (2006) identified that brick was used in 87.02% of the properties in the district. The proposed developed will use a light cream/ buff brick veneer on the front fagades. It also proposes to use wood materials which are also present in the District. Parking for new development will not be permitted in the front yard. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, or appropriately landscaped and screened surface parking at the rear or side of the development. Response 14: As per Response 2, parking is located in individual parking garages which are accessed via the laneway within the centre of the development. Therefore, the parking is not visible from the public realm. There is a total of 52 parking spaces proposed. Retention and incorporation of healthy trees currently located on the vacant land parcel is strongly encouraged to provide the new development with an 'instant® amenityand to help itblend into the heritage landscape that existsin the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Design new buildings around the existing trees to the extent possible. Where trees must be removed, they should be replaced with new ones at appropriate locations in the landscape. Response 15: See Response 6. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 35 Page 153 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6.5 Guidelines for Part IV Designations within CCNHCD 3.3.7 Part IV Designations A number ofproperties in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood are currently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act When such properties are included in a Heritage Conservation District, the requirements of Part V of the Act take precedence over Part IV. As a result, the specific heritage attributes that are protected under Part IV are to be Identified and included in the Heritage District Conservation Plan to ensure their continued protection. To address this situation, the following policies are established for properties previously designated under Part IV. Policies: The policies and guidelines of this Conservation Plan are to apply to all properties previously designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition to the policies and guidelines of this Plan, all interior and exterior features previously designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, that are or may be above and beyond those features to be protected as a result ofdesignation under Part V for the following properties are to continue to be protected in the same manner as prior to their designation under Part V. This includes: • 116 Oueen Street North (fence) — Wrouaht iron fence Response 16: The proposed development will not negatively impact the wrought iron fence along the property of the Church of the Good Shepherd. This is analyzed in Sub- section 7.0 of this report. 6.6 Other Applicable Guidelines for the Public Realm within CCNHCD There are other applicable guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) which are reviewed in this sub -section which relate to the overall public realm and the effect on the district by the proposed development. Mature trees are to be protected and preserved to the extent possible. (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, 3,3,6 (a))) Response 17: Response 16 addresses the concern of tree preservation for the overall site. Landscaping that complements the existing landscapes of the district, screens parking areas and contributes to the overall pedestrian quality is encouraged for all new development. Specific landscape elements will be governed by Site Plan Approval, (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, 3.3.6 (c)) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 36 Page 154 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Response 18: Landscaped areas will screen the surface parking to the rear of the property. Landscaping at the front of the building includes trees, hydrangeas, boxwood and pavers. Where construction and/ or construction activities on private property may impact publicly owned trees, submissions for site pian approvals/ permits shall be accompanied by a tree preservation plan clearly indicating measures to preserve the municipally owned tree and approved by Urban Forestry. The tree preservation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, certified arborist or registered professional forester (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Street Trees, Sub section 7,3,1). Response 19: A Tree Management/ Preservation Plan is included in Appendix E' of this report. Ail boulevards should be maintained as green space, serving as an important buffer between vehicular and pedestrian space within the streetscape (Public Realm, Boulevards, Sub -section 7,3.2), Response 20: The existing boulevard will be maintained as green space to serve as a buffer between vehicular and pedestrian space within the streetscape. Residents of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood are encouraged to consider the use of plant materials that were typically employed in Ontario residential landscapes during the post -Confederation and post -Victorian periods" (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Subsection 7,4,2), Response 21: Landscaping includes alternating gardens in sequence with the sections of the building; these gardens are composed of typical plant material selection for residential landscaping indicated in Table 5.1 of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). New Fences should be consistent in design, materials, and scale with heritage fencing. Wood, andiron fencing are recommended over vinyl, plastic, aluminium orothermore modern materials In the event that a more decorative or ornate style of fencing can be identified as historically installed on the property, it is desirable that the fencing should be replicated (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub section 7,4,2). Response 22: There are retaining walls proposed along portions of the front elevations as part of the physical separation between unit entries. The walls are proposed to be architectural concrete, lightly sandblasted with clear matte sealer, however, these are intended as physical architectural elements and not as fences'. Terraces include wrought iron picket guard which is similar to the designated iron wrought fence of the Church of the Good Shepherd. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 37 Page 155 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Where fences are proposed where they did not historically exist, uncomplicated heritage designs are recommended over more modern styles Unfinished pressure treated lumber fencing and chain link fencing are discouraged in the study area, especially in the front and side yard areas where fencing material can affect the streetscape character most (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub- section 7,4,2), Response 23: There are no fences proposed, however, as mentioned in Response 32, the terraces include wrought iron guards to be consistent with the character of the area. Size and scale of the fencing should be considered closely, and take into account distance to viewing points, viewing heights and sight lines over fencing (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Front Gardens, Sub -section 7,4,2), Response 24: There is no proposed fence line along the front elevation of the proposed development. The retaining walls that are proposed will not block any viewing points or sight lines. Ornamental furniture should be coordinated, and if possible sourced from the same supplier in order to achieve the same economy of scale. A bench such as the MLB 310M bench available from Maglin Site Furniture Inc., finished in black pilaster powder coat, made from solid cast aluminium, The MLWR 200-32 trash receptacle and MBR200 bike rack are also available in the black powder coat finish, and coordinate with the bench (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Public Realm, Street Furniture, Sub- section 7,3.6). Response 25: There is no ornamental furniture proposed. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 38 Page 156 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 6.7 Compatibility with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (2007) Preferred Examples of Infill The Ontario Heritage Too/ Kit (OHTK) outlines acceptable infill designs within a cultural heritage landscape (see Figure 18). According to the OHTK, infills in designated cultural heritage landscapes are to fit in the immediate context, be of the same scale and similar setback, maintain proportions of windows and entrances similar to other cultural heritage resources and be of similar colour and material. Section 4.0 of this report completed an overall analysis of the policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007). This analysis concluded that the proposed development is compatible with the overall character of the CCNHCD. new infill should tit its ]Q9 OZ ll10q©t i u➢� mmediate �QQ m m gQtl I QpQ [][]fl ° -- contest I q r'r� 1 new intlll shpuId �—g og-w.s.�I M1saeheht1 pQonoR-- Man 1100M T and widtas DOC11 i i Wal 11,313 M m neighbours r , { , newint" should have setbacks _ _ ; ;r ; `, similar ' - - f ���,•� neighbours' This is a good maimain d�q U00 [j[��] Do 11,3 —pL-ofthe proponbns of windows and nn fn-� 0�� O�Q Qfl4� �u� y ':'L: 1111 '4"e use ofrimple entrances 4l� grnphic m deruonnrate arreptable and use similar or -- A n' unacc table lilting a= no infddesign. materiels and il'� �; 'l� (Graphic colours it t Ministry of �+ e - Culture) Figure 22: Diagram showing good and bad examples of infill (OHTK, November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 39 Page 157 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Elevation on Margaret Avenue looking north to proposed low-rise redevelopment- Height ofbuiidings to be simliar to existing banding heights of three storeys near the street, up to five storeys mid -block. Figures 23 & 24: (above) Preferred example showing axonometric view of a proposed development from Sub -section 6.9.1 of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (below0 Example of front elevation of preferred example along Margaret Avenue (Source: CCNHCD Plan, 6.29- 6.30). The proposed development relays similar architectural articulations as the preferred example provided in the CCNHC Plan above in Figures 19 and 20. Although, the development is taller than the historic residential buildings in the immediate surrounding area, it generally complies with the neighbourhood. In addition to complying with the architectural design guideline policies in the CCNHCD Plan (2007), the overall design of the proposed development also considered the preferred examples from case studies outlined in 6.33 of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). The excerpt below explains how these preferred examples are compatible for Margaret Avenue. 'More Preterred'Examp/es The photos below illustrate examp/es ofdevelopment that would be considered reasonably compatible in the Civic Centre neighbourhood, in areas such as Margaret Avenue, Ellen Street, Weber Street and Victoria Street These developments generally display good relationship to the street, sensitivity to scale, massing and built form, appropriate November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 40 Page 158 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario interpretation ofroof /fines, and window placement For the most part, they also break up the buildings visually into smaller units through articulation of the front fa;ade and variation in building materials (CCNHCD Plan (2007), Section 6.33). Figures 25 to 28 provide a comparative analysis of the preferred examples presented in the Plan and the proposed new construction. Some similarities include separate unit entries and the use of setbacks and various projecting bays and contrast of brick and other materials. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 41 Page 159 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario L L L CL Proposed Development �I Figures 25- 28: (above left to bottom left) Preferred examples from Sub -section 9.6.5 of the CCNHCD Plan for Margaret Avenue; (right) Coloured rendering of the proposed development (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architects Inc., 2022) November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 42 Page 160 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 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. According to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, the following constitutes negative impacts which may result from a proposed development: • Demolition of any, or part of any, heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance of a building; • Shadows created that obscure heritage attributes or change the viability of the associated cultural heritage landscape; • Isolation of a heritage resource or part thereof from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Obstruction of significant identified views or vistas of, within, or from individual cultural heritage resources; • A change in land use where the change affects the property's cultural heritage value; and • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource. In addition, this Heritage Impact Assessment assesses the impact of the proposed development on the overall Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District and assesses the compliance with the applicable policies of the CCNHCD Plan (2007). 7.2 Assessment of Beneficial Impacts The subject lands, which historically were used for residential dwellings, are now vacant. The vacancy has created a void along the Margaret Avenue streetscape which is within one of the City's oldest neighbourhoods. Infill in this case is recommended as a form of conservation for the general rhythm of the neighbourhood and in particular the streetscape of Margaret Avenue. A building of good quality and architectural design can be beneficial for both the neighbourhood in terms of spatial organization and overall historical land use patterns, as well as visually provide a scenic infill in what is currently an unbalanced streetscape. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 43 Page 161 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7.3 Assessment of Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District The following Table 2.0 analyzes the impact of proposed development to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (including its potential impact on 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street (Church of the Good Shepherd) which is also designated individually under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Table 2.0 Impacts to CCNHCD Impact Level of Impact (None, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Major) Destruction or Alteration Negligible. of Heritage Attributes Analysis The proposed development will remove two (2) trees from the existing 20 trees on site, one of which is in poor condition/ dead. Shadows No. The proposed development will not result in shadows that negatively impact the CCNHCD including landscape features (i.e. mature trees) due to the limited height of the building in addition to its proposed setbacks. There are also no significant landscape features identified adjacent to the subject lands that would require review for potential adverse impacts due to shadowing. Isolation No. The proposed development will not isolate adjacent heritage buildings or features but rather create a fluid streetscape. Direct or Indirect Obstruction of View No. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 The proposed development will not negatively alter the view of the western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd eastwardly along Margaret Avenue. It will also not affect the scenic view of the designated wrought iron fence along Margaret Avenue and Queen Street. The coach house was specifically constructed to the rear and not intended as a building of significant MHBC / 44 Page 162 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario views. The proposed development does not obstruct the view of the eastern facade of 54 Margaret Avenue as this was not intended to be the significant view and is currently obstructed from view by vegetation. The proposed development will not obstruct the view of rear elevations of adjacent properties to the rear of the subject lands as they were not intended to be viewed (see Sub -section 7.3.1). The land use on the subject lands will remain for residential purposes. The proposed development is approximately 29.8 metres from the adjacent coach house, 17.8-28 metres from properties to the rear along Ellen Street. The new construction will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction (see sub -section 7.3.2). Drainage and grading should be appropriate based on an approval of an adequate drainage and grading plan. 7.3.1 Impact of Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views The Standards and Guidelines of Historic Places (Second Edition) defines in Section 4.1.5 'Visual Relationships" which is included as part of a character -defining element of a historic place and relates to an observer and their relationship with a landscape or landscape feature (viewscape) or between the relative dimensions of landscape features (scale). This policy adopts the following definition for viewscape: Viewscape can include scenes, panoramas, vistas, visual axes and sight lines. In designed landscapes, a viewscape may have been established following the rules of pictorial composition: elements are located in the foreground, middle ground and background. A Viewscape may also be the chief organizing feature when a succession of focal points is introduced to draw the pedestrian onward through a landscape. The Ontario Heritage Toolkit ("OHTK") acknowledges that views of a heritage attributes can be components of its significant cultural heritage value. This can include relationships between November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 45 Page 163 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario settings, landforms, vegetation patterns, buildings, landscapes, sidewalks, streets, and gardens, for example. The OHTK has adopted the following definitions of a view and vista, respectively: View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. Vista means a distant visual setting that may be experienced from more than one vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. Views can be either static or kinetic. Static views are those which have a fixed vantage point and view termination. Kinetic views are those related to a route (such as a road or walking trail) which includes a series of views of an object or vista. The vantage point of a view is the place in which a person is standing. The termination of the view includes the landscape or buildings which is the purpose of the view. The space between the vantage point and the termination (or object(s) being viewed) includes a foreground, middle -ground, and background. Views can also be'framed' by buildings or features. The CCNHCD Plan (2007) mentions the importance of views and overall effect of visibility of the proposed development on the District, Because it is such a large site and is located on one of the more highly tra veled streets in the District, it has pronounced visibility with the potential to significantly enhance or detract from the overall character of the neighbourhood depending on the ultimate appearance of development on the site. (Sub -section 3.3.5.3 Margaret Avenue, CCNHCD Plan, 2007). Thus, it is important that the affect the proposed development has on significant views and viewscapes in the district. The following diagram identifies views, both kinetic and stationary, as well as viewscapes that may be affected by the proposed development. The CCNHCD Study (2006) reviewed views and viewscapes within the boundary of the district. The study states that, "-where street are consistent as along Ellen Street, Ahrens Street or Gordon Avenue, the views are closed but long" (Section 4.3). Consistency as part of a view and viewscapes of the district will be evaluated in this sub -section. See the following Table 3.0 for an analysis of potential impacted views and viewscapes. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 46 Page 164 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario r` J, ft Table 3.0- Analysis of Views and Viewsca es View/ Viewscape Description of View View No.1 Kinetic view along Margaret Avenue View No. 2 Kinetic view along Ellen Street West View No .3 Kinetic view along Queen Street North View No. 4 1 Stationary view of western elevation of the Church of the Good Shepherd Viewscape No. 5 Viewscape (scene) of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue Analysis of Views and Viewscapes and Potential Impacts View No.1- The CCNHCD Study of 2006, specifically identifies in Sub -section 4.4 that scale and character does shift across Margaret Avenue. Margaret Avenue is currently composed of low, medium and high-rise buildings. The scale and character of the Avenue is a mosaic of types of architecture. The kinetic view along Margaret Avenue will change so as to fill in a space that historically was filled with residential dwellings. The impact is neutral to this view and will not adversely affect the streetscape but rather it will complete the streetscape while maintaining the overall view of the street. View No.2- The kinetic view along Ellen Street West will not be negatively impacted. The proposed development may be visible to the rear of the residential homes. However, existing November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 47 Page 165 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario trees in the rear yards of these homes and the existing and proposed trees on subject lands will screen the building masses. View No.3- Queen Street North is characterized by a variety of types of architecture; there are medium/ high rise buildings existing along this street. The proposed development will not impact the kinetic view of Queen Street North. Figure 29: Rendering of proposed development along Margaret Avenue (Source: Martin Simmons Sweers Architect). View No. 4-. The view of the western fagade of the Church of the Good Shepherd will not be negatively impacted due to the development. Due to the parking lot on the church property and the proposed park, the view of the north fagade will still be visible. Viewscape No. 5- The CCNHCD Plan (2007) defines churches as "distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District" as one of the key attributes of the district .The viewscape in the form of a scene of the Church of the Good Shepherd at the intersection of Queen Street North and Margaret Avenue is a distinctive part of the district. The Gothic inspired church with by its wrought iron fence at the corner of this intersection marks its presence on both streets. This scene is presented by the wrought iron fence in the foreground, church structure in the middle ground with its three storey clock tower leading the viewer to the heavens as a background. The view of the wrought iron fence will be limited to the change in the background from the proposed development. The foreground including the fence and the middle ground of the landscaping and church will, however, remain the same. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 48 Page 166 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Figure 30 : Aerial view of the Church of the Good Shepherd; Black dotted line outlines the approximate perimeter of the designate wrought iron fence line (Google Earth Pro, 2019) 7.3.2 Impact of Land Disturbances The proposed development is approximately 29.8 metres from the adjacent coach house, 17.8- 28 metres from properties to the rear along Ellen Street. The new construction will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue to the west which is sufficient distance to not anticipate impacts of vibrations as a result of construction. Figure 31: Overlay of site plan on aerial showing the distances between new construction and existing buildings and structures in the immediate surrounding area (Source: MHBC, 2022). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 49 Page 167 of 407 a i 1 ME YN-rr '"iiiii■��C�" ,v�p��� 'q�CEI ARGARET AVE # $ Figure 31: Overlay of site plan on aerial showing the distances between new construction and existing buildings and structures in the immediate surrounding area (Source: MHBC, 2022). November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 49 Page 167 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7.4 Assessment of Adverse Impacts Specific to Adjacent 54 Margaret Avenue Table 4.0 Impacts to the Natural Heritage Impact Level of Impact (None, Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Maj r) _ Destruction and Alteration No. Shadows No. On-site and Surrounding CCNHCD Analysis The proposed development will not destroy or alter heritage attributes. The proposed development will not cause shadows that will negatively impact the heritage attributes of the adjacent property. The proposed development is limited in height and there are no significant landscape features associated with the property that would be adversely impacted by shadows. Isolation No. There is proposed development on either side of 54 Margaret Avenue. A landscaped separation has been created between the development and the existing building to reduce any impact on the building. The landscaped buffer also purposes as a transition in scale and mass. Direct or Indirect No. The proposed development does not Obstruction of View obstruct the view of the front facade of 54 Margaret Avenue. This is the significant view of the property from the street. A Change in Land UseI No The land use on the subject lands will remain for residential purposes. Land Disturbances No. The proposed development will be approximately 9.8 metres from the dwelling at 54 Margaret Avenue. This is sufficient distance such that impacts on the foundations, due to vibrations, are not expected. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 50 Page 168 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 8mOConsideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Measures 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. 8.1.1 Do nothing This option would result in no development on the site. This is not recommended as historically the subject lands facilitated residential dwellings as part of the development of the City of Kitchener. The limited impacts of the proposed development are not cause to deny development opportunities. 8.1.2 Develop the site with an alternate design Alternative layouts and building orientation have been considered in the past with other proposed developments. The current design reflects the more preferred examples' outlined in the CCNHCD Plan (2007) in Section 6.9.5, architectural design guidelines; it also was developed based on previous proposals to ensure that it meets the requirements of the municipality, therefore, an alternate design is not warranted. 8.2 Mitigation Measures The following adverse impacts have been identified as impacts related to the proposed development are: • Negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands Mitigation measures include tree replacement with trees that are indigenous to the area and of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 51 Page 169 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 8.3 Conservation Measures There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions as a result of the proposed development, however, as a precautionary measure, in order to ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction avoid both of these properties, if possible, and that the storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. 8.4 Other Considerations It is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. There has been consideration for the naming of the park and the laneway in honour of former land owners on the subject lands. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 52 Page 170 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 9. 0 Conclusions and Recommendations The City of Kitchener requested a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development on the subject lands located at 30-40 Margaret Avenue. This report assessed the impact that the proposed development may have on the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) including any potential impact to the individually designated property located at 12 Margaret Avenue/ 116 Queen Street (the Church of the Good Shepherd). In conclusion, the proposed development conforms to the majority of the policies and guidelines within the CCNHCD Plan (2007) and the adverse impacts are limited to a negligible impact of the removal of two (2) trees from the subject lands. Mitigation measures include tree replacement and that replanting be considered for the landscaped area between the buildings and edge of the property that abuts adjacent properties. Any new trees should be indigenous to the area and of a type that would provide maximum screening potential to clearly define and legitimize the boundary of the development and its separation from the adjacent cultural heritage landscape. There are no proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions to cultural heritage resources as a result of the proposed development. However, as a precautionary measure, in order to ensure protection of both 54 and 12 Margaret Avenue (Coach House) prior and post construction, it is recommended that construction fencing be erected to deter dust and debris and any accidental damage that could occur. It would also be encouraged that points of entry to the site during construction and storage of material and equipment be located away from the immediate area of both buildings. It addition to the above, it is encouraged that the park be named after a previous land owner (i.e. William and Margaret Young, D. S. Bowlby, Dr. Cornell, Albert Augustine, Kaufman family) in order to honour the subject lands former historical associations. Remaining foundation stones on the property could be used creatively within the park design to support this objective. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 53 Page 171 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10 . o Bibliography Blumenson, John. "Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1784 to the present". Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. BI u menso n, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Sty/es and Bui/ding Terms 1874 to the Present Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study, 2006. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2007. City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). City of Kitchener , By-law No. 85-129. To designate the property at 116 Queen Street (The Church of the Good Shepherd) as being of cultural heritage value or interest (15 July, 1985). Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. Kitchener.- An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Glaeser, Adolph, Mayor George Gruestzner, John Klein, Ezra Kraft, Ludovika Isabella Lang, Jacob Mohr, Joseph Mueller, Revered Andrew Spetz, Albert Tuerk. Berlin Today 1806-1906 Official Souvenir. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library, 51420. Google Maps & Google Earth Pro, 2022. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County., An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. Intaglio Gravure Limited, Toronto & Montreal. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 1935. Martin Simmons Architects. Site Plan & Rendering, 2022. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 54 Page 172 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Tree Preservation Plan, October, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Site Plan, March, 2022. MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture. Landscape renderings, March, 2022. mills, rych. Kitchener(Berlin)1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Too/Kit- Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cu/tura/ Heritage Landscapes . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Too/Kit- Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans . Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Moyer, Bill. Kitchener.- Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. BusyBer/in, Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Act 2005, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 . Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: htti)s://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/9Ool8. Ontario Ministry of Affairs and Housing. Ontario Provincial Policy Statement 2014. S.3 the Ontario Planning Act R.S.0 1996. Retrieved from the Government of Ontario website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page2l5.aspx Pender, Terry. "Vacant Margaret Avenue property to house condo: ACTIVA Group plans two, six -storey buildings on land made vacant 25 years ago." Waterloo Region Record. October 12, 2013. Pender, Terry. "Local developer purchases long -empty Margaret Avenue land." Waterloo Region Record. August 9, 2012. Region of Waterloo GIS Locator, 2018. Region of Waterloo. "Infill: New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods". Practical Conservation Guide for Heritage Properties (PDF) Accessed February 17, 2019. Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C.1955. November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 55 Page 173 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Swedenborgian Church of the Good Shepherd. 'Our Historical Journey through the Ages". htti)://www.shei)herdsway.ca/our-history. Accessed February 21, 2019 Unknown. Church of the Good Shepherd. Photograph. C. 1965-1970. Courtesy of the Kitchener Public Library. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. Waterloo Generations. "Family Surname Search." http://generations.reciionofwaterloo.ca/searchform.php . Accessed February 14, 2019. W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. MAPS Aerial photograph of subject lands of 1930, 1945, 1955 and 1963. KMZ Files. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. C.M. Hopkins. 'Map of the Town of Berlin, Waterloo County." 1879. Scale unknown. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. City of Kitchener. Map 9 of the Secondary Plan. City of Kitchener's Official Plan: A Complete and Healthy Kitchener (2014). City of Kitchener. Aerial and zoning map for the subject lands. City of Kitchener Interactive E - map, 2022. Goad, Chas. E. Kitchener (including the Village of Bridgeport" . February 1908, revised March 1925 50 sheets on 4 microfiche. G3464.K7G4751917.G63x UWPorter. Rare Book Room .1st floor. Goad, Chas. E. 'Kitchener (including the Village of Bridgeport" . February 1908, revised and reprinted January 1947. Underwriters' Survey Bureau. G3464.K7G475s06.U5xGeopspatia/ Centre.54 sheets, 1 index on 28 pages, both sides. G3464.K7G475s06.U5xGeospatial Centre54 sheets. H0122 UW Porter. Rare Book Room .1st floor, Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Government of Canada. 'Waterloo County: Historical Canadian County Atlas." 1881. Scale not given. McGill University Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University (Digital). htti)://digital.library.mcgill.ca/CountyAtias/searchmai)frames.i)hi) November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 56 Page 174 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario M.C. Schofield. "Map of Part of the Town of Berlin, Capital of the County of Waterloo". 1853- 1854. Scale Eight Chains to the Inch. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. Voght, G.H. "Berlin, Province of Ontario." 1875. Lithograph. Published in in 1989 by the City of Kitchener L.A.C.A.C. with the Kitchener Public Library. KMZ File. Courtesy of the University of Waterloo Geospatial Centre. November 7, 2022 revised June ZZ, 2023 MHBC / 57 Page 175 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 Appendix A Map Figures MHBC / 58 Page 176 of 407 Tk- _ � v nye �Tk GNB ,s ,p TA s p 2 O L 2 Gtio ,o. Fi4 G�`P .►� �G WL � - y, 4 :� x `p �ffF , �� ,off �P,GCO N , •;,.r V t'r t o2 ��A �vG .F . ,�. Mq y w Q ZO + �� 00 �Qi� A� f2FQ N� G 44/ CO co Tk As, c 0 A, �� co Q- co �0 ..� fid; � . O 2 �� tv •: �uRTNp ` AVEC c Jam'" " �2 �� y��Q G��' /' V' �O tv 4 P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MHBC ARCHITDECTURE 200-540 BING MANS CENTRE C, ICTCHEP:ER, O, ;:2B 3X9 P:519.576.36:U F:.9;,76-0121 1 `VWN-f AHL(,,'I AN -COM 1pP L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN SCAPE MHBC ARC ID CTURE 200-540 BINGEN,IIS CFITAG D!:. Ki;C.r:ENEP Ot` '+.'B sX9 P: 519.576.3650 F:51^..57..121 WWYJ.N11,6CPLA?'.COM J # Itl i,• f R _ MARGARET AVE tw , Ar ! JAL ARM A . L IIi`o.rt f. P L A N N I N G URBAN DESIGN MHBC ARCHITDECTURE 900-540R1NGFVA1S�'F1'TP1D,. kliGrFNFR C,.'J:RJX9 P: 519.5763650 F:51^.57,..0;21 1 V1M1,q,MACPLAJ!.COM Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 Appendix B Site Plan MHBC / 59 Page 180 of 407 yaw= aP S13 a, — 99 107 ,E v�E o J„ � F �,dw m v piplo Oa+l a < a s 3 F a n S-71Vb'7 puo S13 — 99 107 o J„ � F �,dw Y � Oa+l a < a s 3 F — / � nn 91z 9 a ------- — U z �� y OJ . ____=U o o ED O _ ED 2 z P L ED 4 h __ - 2 � eer 656 aPS Noe_atd✓e�______�. �_ 6L5h2'as NPZd_[td✓d_ Civezoo s�rzs � s 3 r eas m��� s �bre� F � _ 3 � � I s ` o .a LL ----------------- b 0� YF �avezoo m £c£LL N. ,� O m --� m e _ ED a 00Z Nd F o[c 1 ___ w �aN s -----— C m F — ici j m r Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix C Building Elevations & Renderings November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 60 Page 182 of 407 C4 zo CC0 Q 1z C4 co LL LO T - w Z F- 10 z 06 '"03 z. . .. .. w Lij , M 19 < w < 1 Pgo . LLJ co 0 Lnsyr Z z 0 q CL 2P Fa L -i T7 _77 mEL) .......... .......... m EL 0 .......... 0 0 0 .15 om m A TF F z - I - z Ey o —EL) EF) T1 ol. 0 O 0 0 0 zo M Q Iz C4 LO 8 0 0 . . .. z 2P ------------- LIJ LLJ M I-- ... . I LIL w 0 w w W 2E 0 0 z Ln U 2P mz o m IL . . . o .1d lo F E ME ---------- .......... Q -Q- QQ 0 0 0 ---------- 0 -0 ---------- 0 C) 0 ------------ ------------ 0 0 Mimi J 0 0 a' El- 0 0 w m w IV zo Q z C4 co w 0 E Lo F- U) LO m o -E EE z z, o 2P . . .. ... 030 LL w LLJ LLi Hz 0 Ij 0. Z oN 22. K Ln 0 R 71 ens ------------ ------------ TT o _j F19 7n F, ---- T f�W =77 H 7777Fn @48❑ p —141�71 1:01N M t7-r�M7 L L" 77 T i — QL 7= 00 8 Li ------ ELL -0 8 q 0 1 . I ---------- 0 4u zF z O I ---- F --M' 0 0 0. ---------- sa EER, z z J 00 -0 0 w m 0 0 0 Ig 0 L 8 Z �OU') _gw k� In ®iW I L 8 Z �OU') _gw k� In T, 3 4 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 Io- ®oE 0 is o� 0 omE 0 0 0-4 tlD d _o - b o 0 0 0 HW O 0 V� O 0 00 Z O J m H. Poi€� ..e w O i O I I 0- I O �� 8 I 0 l o of o C) OIC (Do 0 0 0 r' o- 0 o I, oQ OZY I, ID 0 0! o i 0_ O_ o 0 b 0 o- 0 - o o T, 3 4 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 Iz 0 M HW V� Z J m H. Poi€� ..e w fli X06R� dy Jm 8 0 e _ OIC T, 3 4 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 z O a w F 3 m Y U O� m 3 4 W s 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 N M Iz o W Z H. €� .UPS N F J W m w o F X06R� dy Jm 8 0 e _ o� omE ®oE 0 0 l 0 0 ao� I, 0 z O a w F 3 m Y U O� m 3 4 W s 0 0 LL p W W so so3 o0 0 =oa o 0 3o a w ix w 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 PI 11 U 0 m - 3 0 0 LL s s W W so so3 o0 0 =_oa o o o= 3o a w ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 O 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 72 M ZLO a /O�A Z g Pes m Z W J ¢ w 0L s�� .UPS N w. HAW J8 e F W 0 F O ae z 76 w w �w=�w NJ ow PI 11 U 0 m - 3 0 0 LL s s W W so so3 o0 0 =_oa o o o= 3o a w ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 O 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 72 11 0 11 3 4 W - s 0 0 LL p W W so ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D C) 0 0 l l lz O ❑ ll l —_ F O ❑ll O O a o f o o W - . 1111111111111 � 's< c� Y U o �.1 <e, X06 M - het` dy Jm 0 8 O F e o Z o -<€< � _ 00 ®- 0 O 44 ® . o ® oe 0 ID ID a ® oe e■ O 0 .o o0v0 0 e E70v■ a ® a ea- ® ■ o ' ® 3 ® ■ �i0 0 ® 0 11 0 11 3 4 W - s 0 0 LL p W W so ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D C) 0 0 l l lz O ❑ ll l —_ F O ❑ll O O a o f o o W 11 0 11 3 4 W - s 0 0 LL p W W so ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 IV o Z 0 lz 0 a a 's< c� Y U o �.1 <e, X06 M - het` dy Jm 0 8 O F e o Z o -<€< � _ 11 0 11 3 4 W - s 0 0 LL p W W so ix J 0 0 0 0 JO 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 WO 0 0 0 0 0 m m A m OB Well O - @ ®O ° • ®_� ® —_ _, m � jaw i'��'��I ® p ■ o ' m o Cp. L _m ■ - it i� 0 it -m MON o s o m mm o 0 00 m �° I�°a� O° • oz ■ m r � �i ®® '" rem, m m ^° - r- m O O ®e ® � y�o�m�Oa�mo os ° A W ® • a o ® I■� m OO ��� 00 ■ O Oy:. �A�� —� °O- ■ O _ O mrol]� Omum !�O m B ° ® O ° m mll� O OI,O 06 OB ■■>+�■0>r � p 6��YII .- m O ■ :u; A ,... � h�t - I lil I i Y � iI��';I - 1 0 O, El O Wrl ,,i ii i�lgil Dig}®i�u I III�I ' ®° oe o d ° I ����A 0 ® 0 ■'. °. � ° gyp;-_' q Oto i�I4 ® ® 11111P INE I ®� ®0 E 11 m 11—a =.0 0 O ® 0 O ®® OSI: yll.� Cs. 0 0 • �_ q CO'I O o O o plll� moo, ®r� _posht MR US 0 0 ® 0 o o OO -- ' Q q -,EF EM n,r .c ° ®i O q q L� O O O 90 u® 000 O = 0 _ hlJra■ualwulm I�IMMwauwurwa� s B'i � !Ml uwxauuwlmllllm Pod VIII• O O _ O O �_• ® 00®®� PI 00 ®®O —__ O O O p O 0■ �nll +NNI �'7 p MNY ® � O OI Ia ® Nh�l 4 0 O I 100,®O �MI $ O 0M00 O 00 upp a� 0■ ' ® _ ® �I� Imll gal 'F 4y of a•IJIk es_ ® ®Pink Mopllbm ®®��„ l e 0- O O OI 0 0 0 0 ■ r IIIjj eq 0 O O O ® 00 ® O` O O O O O � i ■ p III O"ml�..I 1p� 0 1 0 ■ Vim_ 0 ® 1 N:4 'Ju.t�LO';by0® 0 N �- ®- ®011�lNeeoO oe o 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr os ® 0 IF ILXW141 —0�0-- --0 O ® .O O 0 0 0 -i O O ■ O .. p ■war i ®�....0,�::. wN�'�p�Ma 0 n mt� 0 47 O Lai NOW O O O O O 1 - 0 a 4i 0 00 Ndew ti ti O p O 0 00 e 6 one e o ®#� I I . I .N oo ■ ®ate O 0 0 punuar � oe 0 0 o= o _ ■ ■ �i��l� ®® oi�i O 0 O 0 O o 0 ° 0 IF o e# ' of � ° o ■ �.. :� =� ®0 o MO.! 00 O � O O O °# �F ° e O ®O OB ■ O ° O ■ y y O O 00 Mime as ® ®# 0 0 O° • O Oe O O ° ®■pq° ° 00000 is ° o 0 o i=' $i rh�'R r,S4ti i9�w kp i4M6 - - oe °I o -- _ O� 000 OB • O 00 O ° — ® 0 GOIN"', 00 El Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 Appendix D Architectural Analysis MHBC / 61 Page 195 of 407 z O a) v r YC N a > fN U O vra E O) U = �m ° o � t1c60 9 O N •- C N 6) = 0) O O .N O It -E 3 0- Q d t 0) t m H Z y y ,U C � U .S U N j o U c O o 0- U) m d t U 3 Y O t o �= U o o-0 ya 0 0 o 'a N ° �U 0- a) a) -0 C > T 6) _ t O N w s= m Q � N m 3 �s Q -C �5D m ocu M � N 6) O) d N =° N 0 O C y m t w i � N Q 6) N N 6) O 0) N U6) � = y N m O O zo rn m� a O N 6) w E o 2-, U N N 000 N m W o E O ZS -E N d Q N2 o IL d 2--0 6) 6) O1 O 0 N o m H d 2 0 I I I N Q y U t m 0 0) G h m _ a) d o t _ a L ` � .0 r" � O � N N "' � � O� N � N N y � ,y a) U 63 N m o M 0) p 0) p ?i ' m N N 0) t a) U C 0 w O O N a) N d a 0OJ 0) N p N -O t3 O 30 N O) y N Q w0 , W° U N �6) ma m 6a) t Y 006 >o yw O c c, -Q y N Q yN N O -a00N co ON UO) NQ yNN at rno E0 0 '. d Osm EyI`0aaUrooNoc 'mmyO).- `°tp E ° rnya'ao° Q ans°o c Y°s R-6 X o oman d E y n M-0 m Q 6 c3 N Wit„ m N a) a) 7 y ya -Q N O "'�" N E -p U O -O N) O1 0 -G N i W a'wma>`as a�)omo °a Edo ~am 0 a�a o N a ° o ('w W" E> N y c o °� o t E w-2 0 0 a) c y Eoo �� 0.y 0 a a>)o`o 00- Z c -20- a m o o a ti 2 0 E T> Y) o> Y m o W NYy d E -,� 0 o rn 0 m a) oy `ma QE rn� mea E U O N � ai ) 0 t N Q Q O 'X a) ?� N N a) O p m m a1 vs>o�y a�oct� vaoitEE�tNwN` a�°a' o N N m m > N 6) --6 - a m N U Y) p .� 0I � � . U N U Off) O�1 Off) �. 's' = m r t p°° a ya o m i r.E rn6s m w �:2aacO n z tQ.E asZ�U)m t o� a0 0 d so ti� ° QaOi Q 3 co I�-NQQ Z Z o cn Hew w Q cn j;: 2 Ln m to m z >- CQo Q o (6 U (D 2 Y O v _ a 0)6 w w w w L M 75 m _ m m c m m m -6 O ; ,6) y U Y y h 'O .N O m C$ f�9 m N T .p1 N m C) y in 00 N m tq i` c m (0 O N O 4 G m m y N C C -G.. '� U y f9 Q 0 3 � O y w G° O N�i -6 y �. y O m �' O Q p 'E ° �.° m G m ac o 0)o �� o u y o aa) a)0 a) 0 m c aG °i� m� E c m N m E owmo'ycwG yo rn¢°m Hwy Q Q 0) O ,p H G -gym. G) �, co 0, sz 0) y CO N Co 0 0 E c m G .m O -- E ,G b y G 3 m y vj 6- U ° T-= U N�wO M m N" O N -mG O vl 0) N'3 O m 0 U G V O �,rn m O m U'p 0 $ N 0 N� m -p tq O > g m .G co U) as m m m m a oa Gt n y a°i c o y z mmy c E G m rno rn� wM `'m 3 mmU tO a) O U . ll q p 11 (00 O ctl I. ) - G co tm my -p m O E d°° OE m o ma m 3 o E d ti m 5 co co ZZ° m d m N E_ rn G m m ro c d �NSN m' mE aw 3gSo mo co I-- Gmy c o� rnm G 3ga m y o� o G t E o a m maw E m .L o:°y a m m o_, d o mo mss: o G m a U) �j m = r q O M -i'G.. m r. .N m p t j 0)-0 U .N % p f6 6 � a aye Q'o o Z3 h� rn mm 101 m rn o Z c `o m c°,Z m.E m rn ° ° ac N'EY y-00 °y' v� 0 ¢ m Q E aa)�'� 6 m� m` N y o.� ma o '� �.°) m ma m °co o m rn Z w oE� a"i caci acitam3m n Nmmy am m a .-- M N t N m rn G N m t .� m y N 0 v) O N t G a) O N .. G 3 .� g (roll m Q -C N 6 O m p 'i N — N N U t a) m a1 a ¢ ,O G m '° 3 (6 N m 2 co o 0' d y m ° m 3G.. m N N h .q ¢ A of y N T p y o h° y N— 'N co CO co m ,� U G y m a) E O a O .N m 0 a' ZDnz °y � �N m m ° E h --Q 0, �U N � aZ3 E'c o ym G a; m o d m �Z-- y M° E h mm� co . ti o'? 3 o c°) z z 0 C!) H 2 111 W w Q cn j;: 2 Ln z O Y 0 Q Y j J m COUFL Q W N O LU 0 m mow = 0 �w� w 2 LU Q > O O O w[If > F w Z�[ a a z F -- LU c9 p Uw Q N m _ m m c m m m -6 O ; ,6) y U Y y h 'O .N O m C$ f�9 m N T .p1 N m C) y in 00 N m tq i` c m (0 O N O 4 G m m y N C C -G.. '� U y f9 Q 0 3 � O y w G° O N�i -6 y �. y O m �' O Q p 'E ° �.° m G m ac o 0)o �� o u y o aa) a)0 a) 0 m c aG °i� m� E c m N m E owmo'ycwG yo rn¢°m Hwy Q Q 0) O ,p H G -gym. G) �, co 0, sz 0) y CO N Co 0 0 E c m G .m O -- E ,G b y G 3 m y vj 6- U ° T-= U N�wO M m N" O N -mG O vl 0) N'3 O m 0 U G V O �,rn m O m U'p 0 $ N 0 N� m -p tq O > g m .G co U) as m m m m a oa Gt n y a°i c o y z mmy c E G m rno rn� wM `'m 3 mmU tO a) O U . ll q p 11 (00 O ctl I. ) - G co tm my -p m O E d°° OE m o ma m 3 o E d ti m 5 co co ZZ° m d m N E_ rn G m m ro c d �NSN m' mE aw 3gSo mo co I-- Gmy c o� rnm G 3ga m y o� o G t E o a m maw E m .L o:°y a m m o_, d o mo mss: o G m a U) �j m = r q O M -i'G.. m r. .N m p t j 0)-0 U .N % p f6 6 � a aye Q'o o Z3 h� rn mm 101 m rn o Z c `o m c°,Z m.E m rn ° ° ac N'EY y-00 °y' v� 0 ¢ m Q E aa)�'� 6 m� m` N y o.� ma o '� �.°) m ma m °co o m rn Z w oE� a"i caci acitam3m n Nmmy am m a .-- M N t N m rn G N m t .� m y N 0 v) O N t G a) O N .. G 3 .� g (roll m Q -C N 6 O m p 'i N — N N U t a) m a1 a ¢ ,O G m '° 3 (6 N m 2 co o 0' d y m ° m 3G.. m N N h .q ¢ A of y N T p y o h° y N— 'N co CO co m ,� U G y m a) E O a O .N m 0 a' ZDnz °y � �N m m ° E h --Q 0, �U N � aZ3 E'c o ym G a; m o d m �Z-- y M° E h mm� co . ti o'? 3 o c°) z z 0 C!) H 2 111 W w Q cn j;: 2 Ln m to a) z U � � C Q LQ c r S � � Y (6 � 0)o GL- M G z O O W J W 2 O 0 T LU Y U a O N d O N 0 o d 3 d C= w U 0) O N m 0=n00 may 0a aha rn m m o m a° m w ai dm d c 00 Q o U) m �� o a dami�"rn w NocU QC o myEmMZ3o w -m Q= N.dm iti o a)? OUO� 0 s a�omaco m QoEU) maoy 3.rn a m N 0) m O N m 0)01N O t w�.a h N Q C N O U ,cd U)� O N_ O N a) O N .� N y Q O) 20 h a v> Q y w N z y E 0 r31� -2 a z N N 0) 15 a N `. W U m m 0 0 LU 0 m a) m m N Q CL y 0- o 0 j N O Q 3 U N U N 'i U a M O' N o N N O S C U) cd,N U O L 0 m N n G h U z E o m w m a m a m am N p E M' Oo1U N GO) U 0 N U 3 m O U j O WN d i d N i 1�U0 G 0 0 N U N C d O_ m s G O v, O .G k2 .� U z w d g r m N N o m U oo y o o m o rn rn Q m o y o o a o z E _ma) 6--5 ->) c c 0 a 6 a w :5 m Lu= u r'c d a �a m t m °N m m Q m N 0 -0 A 20 a N y y (0 06 O] 0 N M 3 � 3 w° m E a v m y co c rn i CD �=o o t .y U �— i) U O w U LL_ .G O N A O a IL z LU z 0 J Q H LU U) LL LL LL O = z O Lu ° 0 W O J J W OQ< LU = W z S F-- O ro U z Q ? � [if W O H Q > o 0 wz W m Q �w w U)[ m N M U O_1 z zO Ci) He111 w w Q cn j;: 2 Ln Q< O t O U) m t Y U (6 m 0 9 z z DCII H 2 111 W LU Q cn j;: 2 Ln WE N N N C N 3 a) 'o o > -O �j a) -o a ' o a o 0 N E N 3 y0 Q N N a) a) N m N y C a) Q C m m t E N i O Q 0 Q O N O > N o O Q 3 U U) O a) r '6 — a) S (6 C N _ 20 Q a) O Q () a) .m a) 0) a) O) t N N a) w N Oi V) U O E T Q t °) m N i" p a) 0 U) O Q O 0) a) m .� U C ?i N 'd +�+ fl- N c U N N N Z � m U `O y O N N �- 0 tj a) N t U N t a) a) a) U N O U U a) N O .+U.' O 0) Q Q W -0 0 U N E 0-5 U N N 12 0 W oy .aE N o o O 0 a>) d O U C z UQ U C O U.O a) a) y -0 0)C O O C 0 Q a) '6 N =o 'm J o a) O o N d �' a) .N -o d °) d q as d L[ (C U) (6 N C N t O > C S L (6 •� 8 U Do- .� 0) a) (0 a) p > O N > U o u d�� j� O m d mt? W a) UN N U Q '> U H 3 d 6-6 -o as .N U U 2 t a 0 0'm (6-0 Y Y (6 N '2 � as -0 a) a) -0 U as a)t 21E N > o d `o C 0' O p U a) a ���0-y=oma= Q a) a) U U O v6 0E-0 CU 0 -0 m (6 Q m O d d 0 L 0- (u 0) 0 N d N ��od�o y O i t 0 O O .O Z d' a) .�.. Z U a) C U O U a a CD C w 0 �0 00 0 N a) m a z zO Ci) H 2 111 W W Q cn j;: 2 Ln Lf) g z �O� LLI If Ljj sc3 57 Ln a� W o 4 3 z s & s o co mom > CO > O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t cn s a w a > r Q LL a c c axwi -0o ami jcoo o 2 w w N P w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w J D Lf) g z �O� LLI If Ljj sc3 57 Ln a� W o co mom > CO > m>.N o > r Q w Q a c c axwi -0o ami jcoo o 2 Z �a c > -) > .L o 3 D L a w coO c a M � Y c co co N c c co ojf (DU w ry N m ,.aO. c L .0 0 N c mN O e L N m N m O I C7 U Lf) g z �O� LLI If Ljj sc3 57 Ln o W e� o Iz O eop 6a > r Q w oo em Z J .H €e O w M � Y 2P ¢ O e asi w§ m m 2E m Ln g Z ; �Oul LU If v—i Ljj sc3 57 Ln 0 Q! W 0 z �fi fi fi 1 O U y a $� N O m E o Iz O mj.N U O N N L w � > s N 00 N y > O Oco Q c > N > 4 L L 3 N L '.0 w J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w o o m w �, a ap o E co m k Y � > °c 3 Zs LL< B Eye o Q CC dB ry 2 Co O Z N c co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢� w J 0 Q! W 0 z Q� O U y a $� N O m N Iz O mj.N U O N N L w � > s N 00 N y > O Oco Q c > N > 4 L L 3 N L '.0 w J co w o o m c c HE �o � > °c 3 E c Q ea; ojf U ry 2 Co L O Q O N c co o 0 Q! W 0 z a $� Iz 0 eop 6a > r Q w oo em Z J .� €e 30 w HE �o w Q ea; tu Y ¢� m 2E m fifi 1 fi fi° 0 Q! W 0 z Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix E Tree Management Plan November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 62 Page 203 of 407 s"qy we„ Nva sa:sa` � w z z - O C, W = 6 W w a F �G d =�M1J o -No M1�ti4 N age - _� H H H g HbH H bH H eH - ) W a W Z F y ° 3ma =90 aa3og 0009 aY�g3 o§ �2a �0= 0 Y as s '3 oa_m�o'§�?a dz s o a n - lig i en n n N '9�.n n n O¢� g w e F z s e n x A � e 0 6 n \ e w � n 4 _ a o m u 1 1 6< ii n \ o 0 to x e n \ > o �l oho o . a a� -- \ a v �T �a 8• <5 r Lli s LLJ n m _ e w w w . sE, x. ® n x s LU s lo s - _ - o�u op ¢ �- - - _ \ )�( > § ■ K; LU Z _ >� 2 ��` = E �}\ \ \� .��.< \ £�.. �■�■�■�|�■�■� �■� ■■ ■■ Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix F Designation By-law Church of the Good Shepherd November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 63 Page 206 of 407 • Ag.zado id LpSLLD aLp oro WTLP'46249 gaaaJIS uaarD ixwly uoT4oas aro pm jac x4s mono o'4 an—AV gaze6x%i buOTe Lpa-Lo agg apisaq aAT3p aq-4 aDaj b[ITL{JgaZgS aotraJ LIOS► ggbn0JM at[; ;o SM*E-4.I0d OLP ;o POSTTdwoL, bu- aq q:jo,%j gaaSgS u'aano 9TT s2 u__TLj )�jjadozd Teams press_lode __p .4o Wed -4WZ onieA T 70agpptm oz-logsrq go butaq se pageub. ST � 9-IDLJL •j :shoTio_4 se -TauaLPgrx ;o AgTo aLi 3o UC)Tzemc IOo aLu jo TF -10D OLD ad(Li39&iL MM :Ag?TadTa?L�i�l aq4 30 X-laiO aL[4 uaJn paA as uaaq set{ uoigeubisep pasocioad agg o4 uapaaaCc� 40 aot4otl ou SKd&4ai C"Y asAaam aAignaasu0o aasgq ;o gave zo3 eaLo Ag-[pedioTm-ta agg ui uoig<rusio Iesauab buTAeq aadQdemau 12 ut pagsTtqrtd aq og uotguagul 30 aozga Bans Nasnea sQg pL2 'pagezosap sag3euiajaL( ILj�er�Zg�eLi aiau ngxc:icud Iea� Pira.,ode a�} ;o geed Begg ani en i2an-.aa4tLkaTe pue aiaogstig ;o uzuq se awwlsud 04 uoiguagul 40 a0igoiy e ' uotgepunod abegzxaH oTlwzup aLt} uodn pue 'iaUOgp:4 'A 30 AW.0 aqg uz LG -ICN gaaXgS uaOW yii 92 ATTeaioTLma uMQUA sasturazd pue spuei OLP ;o sauMo aLP uo panus aq 04 pasnuD seg xatragagTX 30 AgTO OLP ;O LaaT42iod7100 ate, ;o TTOMOD 8q4 ytCjd" (M :g8aragtrr m on-[— iem�a4T4PZe We oTzogs?L1 ;0 a<i 0a 'uoaxaq-4 sazngonxgs pug a6uTpi?ri ii$ Unpniocrr 'ACg.iadoad Teaj agvubzsap og W--[-Aq goeua CT4 AgTIVU-MturVi e jo Ilaunck) aLG 9azTjaq4ne 'LEE ja-4deLrj 'U''d6-L 'L)%3 -d '--PV a624tsati of.IkgW 9q4 30 6Z UOTIDaS Stii32i3F M (ani2A i2znaaagiq—E L— i2Jt3o'4sTq 30 butaq se sauaLr-gTx fo ATO OLP ut LP.'cN 40as4S uaan0 911 se a ouk f-iiedzoiurru Ag.xadcad aLt} jo WQd ag2ubtsaP -4 MPI Aq 2 bUTOU) 2Lji bL,i do A,LI7 iii. aO NOI,LWGdMM 511. do -e J '-3.3 Nagai mi—Aa S s �! I- C) v 0 w 0 N N 0) (6 n 3a�Cew ' -4o J eW {�LS� sl4a SauagagTx ;o A4-0 au; UT BA&4WAD irxuwJ aqC} -4e i:4S`OVd sxaam anlqn3a8uoo aaXLP .4O W.Jea1U* aJIZJ �i-4lUrkUirri ay; ul uor-4e JI .1-10 [(d3duaJ IJUTAeq aededsnlau ales a.p UT pai{sTjgnd aq 04 p,21,% eT,p 3o aalssed aq; 30 aol4w atimio c» pue uOpWOakoa abe;TlaH oTlv4uo aq4 uo pue J41aao_ld pTes8Jzo3II aq3c3 ra«r+o aq� vo paazas aq o� evet-AU 5rg4 3o kLjw a asnso 0q pa raoq-4ne % alaq el veTZ) ate, 'E -aOT;;o Ar4aT6aa paei a—ld aq; ur (422 8 suuoJ� eale paaeu6Tsap ppm aq; goTLim 3o) o+a=aq ..'d.. ainPiagos UT pegT-Msap A-4.zado3d aq-4 30 at04m aq:� a ma;e peia}sluaz aq 0; n+ei-AG 5T14 _40 lciw a asn�o cr4 pazuoq-4ne L,,dSaq sl 104Tol10S A-4TZ) aqi, 'Z P 4aT4 aQ aues atm aq o4 papua4uT sr pass 30 TaaJed prep) 'PUL 30 I—ed 6-ac4TJJSap uiaJa l �LL� 30 ';?'JITT AT18-4saM aq4 SuTMC'CPe ATaTetpalaur ue ;o }saN1 al{ -4 Cq Pae anuanlf �aJEC�JETyj f0 �iwil niJal{�Ju�y a{3 }aa Z'310 aaue}srP e 4TJaL{}J0H burp[ia7xa I-RPTM ieTnaTpuadiad uana uT I- 9 Puei 30 dTJzs a buial VIZ '4a7 pies 30 4JEd Jawo44-4o--4gb?2{ e Pae 'aesz 3-v Jaquai'i }uainugsul se pasa�srKias paaa aF -4n0 4as 9E V16 '07 PTes 30 4ALt' Jana rie;.� }o-��i�{ a ;L4.L dJ. ,ZLIS '-4uauraouaiwnJ 30 -gTQ3 aqZ 0; '4�a3 S'EUL '-4s'Ra sa-4nurui bT saaJbap 8S LL4rjoS 'awes al{� buoTe ,d;YV4i],L =anuand aaJeiiJ� 30 �ru;Tl 4T -104-4-10N Pres ai{� u[ �uroci a o4 qaa_4 G-bdj 'VId -i Pies ;0 -r-al A1Ja4se3 e44 g4TM IaTTeJuxi '4s;j6j Segnutu: SE sadzl�ap 0E q-4no-; i)iLu1L =4uTod a o; 1983 5'91 '49sl Sa4rluTw 5 saaJU& p oy L X. dJ:ViliL =4uTtx1 e o} Raaf i'GI '�sa.L sa4nuTw GT saaa6OLD IE k -4n0, i:.m11L :4uTW a of Iaa3 06 'ATJa;saM uoT:pnpwo 94T pus SZZ WI ;o 41UT ATJ��L�Jc�v ares -q-4 uUOTv '4sal�i sa4nuTw dS savxL�aP �SZG i PTEs 30 4uuiT AlJdg4agi aLL4 uY -4u [uc.i e 04 Raaf y T ' }se j sF&gnu-na 61 saa bap i£ Lr4_IcN :�13kii, r4UTod a o; 4aa.4 Z E I 'SZ4 W1 PTes 30 -4F-gT AT-'eT4 N aq4 LMM IaiTEJW '49aly sa4nunu E35 saaawp i3S 8011 :a x�L4ur• =SSL WI PFQs 90 TENT ATJa-49eg a4R uT WTod a 04 Wea3 '4jaaJ4S uaarx) 30 }zurTT ATJ04saM Pies aq4 buoTe '-4ssa segmTw ZT sea,ap TE Lr ON "L U =tiLE ueid Pres uo uaogs se -4aaJ4S r.raan0 3o 1T�I ATJa;saM OLC4 Eue mtr-A& r aaJe"W 30 -4mlml ATJa{:JO[ aq-4 A4 pa4oasia-4ur ST. amus 0J�4�•� £ZZ 4i Pies 30 aitue A[a,4-4seaggvboS aq4 -4e DNjD 2V")O o0TJa4eM ;0 A�TledtoTurq„� ieuorba2i aLR uT Pae Jau64o4FA 30 14TO 944 tri (JauaLP,4T�i 3o A4T3 aLR J03 S0S9L JAN Wauau4suI Be paaa4s-E6aJ 'VSE '0t1 ME -E -Ad Aq peso -[Z)) sauei Pue 84aas4S 83 WI 30 '438d Pue VLE UWld PeJa-48tbad 1714 Pae j[L'SGL sial 0 -4a'�Ll pug VCZ PuP EZZ s4'i 30 Pasod= baraq 'oTJe4uyj 3o aouTnoJd ;941 uT Lae ooTJaqptlgo A4TI>adTOTluj" TeuoTbad a'R UT 'JauaLPTPA fo n}Tj aL[4 UT bUTaq Pae fiuTAT 'ayerl-4Ts easnsaad Ems P"T 3o 5132z4 Jo Raz)xW uTe:Pa0 as0q•} dVI mMS UN rlV - A -(7 ,.1i.4 37CJ� Z. I- C) 0 0 N N 0) (6 n P 4aT4 aQ aues atm aq o4 papua4uT sr pass 30 TaaJed prep) 'PUL 30 I—ed 6-ac4TJJSap uiaJa l �LL� 30 ';?'JITT AT18-4saM aq4 SuTMC'CPe ATaTetpalaur ue ;o }saN1 al{ -4 Cq Pae anuanlf �aJEC�JETyj f0 �iwil niJal{�Ju�y a{3 }aa Z'310 aaue}srP e 4TJaL{}J0H burp[ia7xa I-RPTM ieTnaTpuadiad uana uT I- 9 Puei 30 dTJzs a buial VIZ '4a7 pies 30 4JEd Jawo44-4o--4gb?2{ e Pae 'aesz 3-v Jaquai'i }uainugsul se pasa�srKias paaa aF -4n0 4as 9E V16 '07 PTes 30 4ALt' Jana rie;.� }o-��i�{ a ;L4.L dJ. ,ZLIS '-4uauraouaiwnJ 30 -gTQ3 aqZ 0; '4�a3 S'EUL '-4s'Ra sa-4nurui bT saaJbap 8S LL4rjoS 'awes al{� buoTe ,d;YV4i],L =anuand aaJeiiJ� 30 �ru;Tl 4T -104-4-10N Pres ai{� u[ �uroci a o4 qaa_4 G-bdj 'VId -i Pies ;0 -r-al A1Ja4se3 e44 g4TM IaTTeJuxi '4s;j6j Segnutu: SE sadzl�ap 0E q-4no-; i)iLu1L =4uTod a o; 1983 5'91 '49sl Sa4rluTw 5 saaJU& p oy L X. dJ:ViliL =4uTtx1 e o} Raaf i'GI '�sa.L sa4nuTw GT saaa6OLD IE k -4n0, i:.m11L :4uTW a of Iaa3 06 'ATJa;saM uoT:pnpwo 94T pus SZZ WI ;o 41UT ATJ��L�Jc�v ares -q-4 uUOTv '4sal�i sa4nuTw dS savxL�aP �SZG i PTEs 30 4uuiT AlJdg4agi aLL4 uY -4u [uc.i e 04 Raaf y T ' }se j sF&gnu-na 61 saa bap i£ Lr4_IcN :�13kii, r4UTod a o; 4aa.4 Z E I 'SZ4 W1 PTes 30 -4F-gT AT-'eT4 N aq4 LMM IaiTEJW '49aly sa4nunu E35 saaawp i3S 8011 :a x�L4ur• =SSL WI PFQs 90 TENT ATJa-49eg a4R uT WTod a 04 Wea3 '4jaaJ4S uaarx) 30 }zurTT ATJ04saM Pies aq4 buoTe '-4ssa segmTw ZT sea,ap TE Lr ON "L U =tiLE ueid Pres uo uaogs se -4aaJ4S r.raan0 3o 1T�I ATJa;saM OLC4 Eue mtr-A& r aaJe"W 30 -4mlml ATJa{:JO[ aq-4 A4 pa4oasia-4ur ST. amus 0J�4�•� £ZZ 4i Pies 30 aitue A[a,4-4seaggvboS aq4 -4e DNjD 2V")O o0TJa4eM ;0 A�TledtoTurq„� ieuorba2i aLR uT Pae Jau64o4FA 30 14TO 944 tri (JauaLP,4T�i 3o A4T3 aLR J03 S0S9L JAN Wauau4suI Be paaa4s-E6aJ 'VSE '0t1 ME -E -Ad Aq peso -[Z)) sauei Pue 84aas4S 83 WI 30 '438d Pue VLE UWld PeJa-48tbad 1714 Pae j[L'SGL sial 0 -4a'�Ll pug VCZ PuP EZZ s4'i 30 Pasod= baraq 'oTJe4uyj 3o aouTnoJd ;941 uT Lae ooTJaqptlgo A4TI>adTOTluj" TeuoTbad a'R UT 'JauaLPTPA fo n}Tj aL[4 UT bUTaq Pae fiuTAT 'ayerl-4Ts easnsaad Ems P"T 3o 5132z4 Jo Raz)xW uTe:Pa0 as0q•} dVI mMS UN rlV - A -(7 ,.1i.4 37CJ� Z. Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix G Angular Plane November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 MHBC / 64 Page 210 of 407 I o T- Q CO z . .30 ..... F w Ww 0 o CD Cl) Lu 0 o N 2P U) Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 Appendix H Terms of Reference MHBC / 65 Page 212 of 407 City of Kitchener PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM Project Address: 30-40 Margaret Avenue Date of Meeting: May 26, 2022 Application Type: Site Plan Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Jessica Vieira Email: Jessica.Vieira@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 Date of Comments: May 12, 2022 ❑X I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: The following comments provided by Heritage Planning staff are based on the pre -submission application packaged received April 1, 2022. The package concerns a proposal for 30-40 Margaret Avenue by Activa Holdings Inc which involves the development of 48 3 -storey cluster townhomes. Heritage Status The subject property municipally addressed as 30 Margaret Avenue is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The property is also located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). There are no buildings present on the property. 54 Margaret Avenue adjacent to the west side yard and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North adjacent to the east side yard are classified under the 'A' Building Group, which means that they are structures with a high significance to the district. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decision of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS defines significant as resources that have been A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 213 of 407 determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event or a people, and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. The City's Official Plan also contains policies which require development to have regard for cultural heritage resources. As part of this, is establishes requirements for the submission of studies as part of complete planning applications, such as Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). It should also be noted that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan contains site specific policies for Margaret Avenue (Section 3.3.5.3). These policies require new development to maintain the overall residential character of the neighbourhood and be appropriate in height and siting to reduce impacts to adjacent dwellings. Policy 3.3.5.3 (h) also requires that the guidelines provided in Section 6.9.1 of this Plan be used to review and evaluate the proposal. Heritage Impact Assessment A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required. Within the scoped HIA, the heritage guidelines, principles, and standards that will be used to guide the development of the site are to be identified. The scoped HIA will also evaluate any impacts of the proposed development on cultural heritage resources, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Associated mitigative measures are which avoid or reduce impacts to a satisfactory level are to be recommended and reflected in the design of the proposed development. As per Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' Heritage Toolkit publication Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, potential negative impacts to cultural heritage resources include, but are not limited to: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible with the historic fabric, appearance and context; • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship; and • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to cultural heritage resources. Similarly, measures to mitigate potential impacts as referenced in Info Sheet No. 5 of the Ministry's Heritage Toolkit include: • Alternative development approaches; • Design that harmonizes mass, setback, setting, and materials; • Limiting height and density; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 214 of 407 • Allowing only compatible infill. In keeping with the Ministry and City guidelines on the preparation of HIAs, the following key components will need to be addressed: • Historic research, site analysis and evaluation • Description of the planning application and proposed development. • Assessment of the impact of the heigh, built form, setbacks, massing, and other design details on the Margaret Avenue streetscape and on the integrity of the character of the CCHCD in general. • Assessment on how the details of the proposed design (architecture, materials, colours, specifications, lighting, etc) address the CCNHCD Plan policies and guidelines • Concluding value and summary statements. As the subject property is a vacant lot, the identification of the significance of cultural heritage resources on the subject properties (design/physical value, historic/associative value, contextual value), including a listing of heritage attributes and if applicable the identification of significant views and vistas, and recommendations for conservation of identified attributes is not required. The following is also expected to be included within the HIA: • Anticipated impacts to 54 Margaret Avenue identified and appropriate mitigation measures proposed; • Anticipated impacts to 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen Street North identified and appropriate mitigation measures proposed; and • Anticipated impacts to the properties located at the rear of the subject land which are also designated under Part V of the OHA, and appropriate mitigation measures proposed. A scoped terms of reference has been provided. Cultural Heritage Protection Plan A Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) will be required. The CHPP should detail the measures to be undertaken prior to and during grading, construction, servicing or other development activity to eliminate or mitigate impacts to the adjacent heritage properties (54 Margarete Avenue and 12 Margaret Avenue / 116 Queen St N). The following components should also be addressed, in accordance with the City's standard terms of reference for CHPP's: • Analysis of the cultural heritage resource(s), including documentation, identification of cultural heritage attributes, assessment of resource conditions and deficiencies; • Short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures, interventions and implementation strategies including appropriate conservation principles and practices, methods and materials, and the qualifications of the contractors and trades involved in undertaking such work; and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 215 of 407 • Security and monitoring requirements, including measures to protect the resource/attributes during phases of construction or development. A scoped terms of reference for the CHPP can be provided upon request. Heritage Permit Application Projects that are likely to affect the heritage attributes of a heritage conservation district require a Heritage Permit Application (HPA), in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. This includes the construction of new buildings. Section 4.5.1 of the CCNHCD Plan also notes that approval is required for new buildings constructed on vacant properties. As such, a Heritage Permit Application will be required. Design Comments As mentioned previously, under Policy 3.3.5.3 (h) of the CCNHCD Plan, the guidelines of Section 6.9.1 are to be used in proposals for new buildings, to ensure that new development is compatible with the adjacent context. Highlighted policies include: • New development is to establish a strong relationship to the street similar to what exists on the south side of the street • Developments are to establish a strong, pedestrian oriented street edge • Minimum rear yard setbacks of 10 to 15 metres are desired to minimize the impact of new development on existing residents on Ellen Street West. In considering the above, it is recommended that all building massing be concentrated to the front of the subject lands. Appropriate landscaping and stepbacks at the front of the site should be incorporated as well. 2. Plans. Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Elevation Drawings and 3d Massing Model • Heritage Impact Assessment • Cultural Heritage Protection Plan • Heritage planning staff would also like to request to be circulated a copy of the Planning Justification Report and/or Urban Design Brief 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: • Approved Heritage Permit Application A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 216 of 407 • Approved Heritage Impact Assessment • Approved Cultural Heritage Protection Plan • Special condition of site plan approval o Review and approve elevations in conjunction with urban designer o Implementation of the recommendations of the HIA and CHPP 4. Anticipated Fees: Not applicable A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 217 of 407 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener, Ontario November 7, 2022 revised June 22, 2023 Appendix Curricula Vitae MHBC / 66 Page 218 of 407 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Evaluations Morningstar Mill, St Catherines MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin Designation of St Johns Anglican Church, Norwich Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton Demolition of former farmhouse at 1.0536 McCowan Road, Markham Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 1.o Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge Badley Bridge EA, Elora Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge Conservation Plan for Log house, Beurgetz Ave, Kitchener Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener Page 219 of 407 CONTACT 54o Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B3X9 T 519 576 3650 X 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Tribunal Hearings: Redevelopment of 21.7 King Street, Waterloo (OLT) Redevelopment of 1.2 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St Catharines (CRB) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) Demolition 1.74 St Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) Designation of io8 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave, Cambridge (LPAT) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) Designation of St Johns Church, Norwich (CRB - underway) LAND USE PLANNING Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: • Secondary Plans • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan Page 220 of 407 EDUCATION 2011 Higher Education Diploma Cultural Development/ Gaelic Studies Sabhal M6r Ostaig, University of the Highlands and Islands 2012 Bachelor of Arts Joint Advanced Major in Celtic Studies and Anthropology Saint Francis Xavier University 2014 Master of Arts World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development The International Training Centre of the ILO in partnership with the University of Turin, Politecnico di Torino, University of Paris 1 Pantheon - Sorbonne, UNESCO, ICCROM, Macquarie University www.linkedin.com/in/rachelredshaw CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP Rachel Redshaw, a Senior Heritage Planner with MHBC, joined the firm in 2018. Ms. Redshaw has a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Celtic Studies and a Master of Arts in World Heritage and Cultural Projects for Development. Ms. Redshaw completed her Master's in Turin, Italy; the Master's program was established by UNESCO in conjunction with the University of Turin and the International Training Centre of the ILO. Rachel is professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Ms. Redshaw provides a variety of heritage planning services for public and private sector clients. Ms. Redshaw has worked for years completing cultural heritage planning in a municipal setting. She has worked in municipal building and planning departments and for the private sector to gain a diverse knowledge of building and planning in respect to how they apply to cultural heritage. Rachel enjoys being involved in the local community and has been involved in the collection of oral history, in English and Gaelic, and local records for their protection and conservation and occasionally lecturers on related topics. Her passion for history and experience in archives, museums, municipal building and planning departments supports her ability to provide exceptional cultural heritage services. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY 2022 - Present Senior Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018-2022 Heritage Planner, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 2018 Building Permit Coordinator, (Contract) Township of Wellesley 2018 Building Permit Coordinator (Contract) 1 Page 221 of 407 CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP RSM Building Consultants 2017 Deputy Clerk, Township of North Dumfries 2015-2016 Building/ Planning Clerk Township of North Dumfries 2009-2014 Historical Researcher & Planner Township of North Dumfries 2012 Translator, Archives of Ontario 2012 Cultural Heritage Events Facilitator (Reminiscence Journey) and Executive Assistant, Waterloo Region Plowing Match and Rural Expo 2011 Curatorial Research Assistant Highland Village Museum/ Baile nan Gaidheal Page 222 of 407 PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS 2022 -Present Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals 2017-2020 Member, AMCTO 2018-2019 Member of Publications Committee, Waterloo Historical Society 2018 Member, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario- Cambridge 2018 -2019 Secretary, Toronto Gaelic Society 2012 -2017 Member (Former Co -Chair & Co -Founder), North Dumfries Historical Preservation Society 2011 -2014 Member, North Dumfries Municipal Heritage Committee 2013 Greenfield Heritage Conservation District, Sub -committee, Doors Open Waterloo Region CONTACT 2012 Volunteer Historical Interpreter, Doon Heritage Village, Ken 540BingemansCentre Drive, Seiling Waterloo Region Museum Suite 200 2008-2012 Member, Celtic Collections, Angus L. Macdonald Library Kitchener, 650x7511N N2B T 519 576 3650 x7 2012-2013 Member Public Relations), Mill Race Folk Society ( F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2 Page 222 of 407 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2011 Member, University of Waterloo Sub -steering Committee for HCD Study, Village of Ayr, North Dumfries 2010-2011 Member (volunteer archivist), Antigonish Heritage Museum AWARDS / PUBLICATIONS / RECOGNITION 2019 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Old Shaw: The Story of a Kindly Waterloo County Roamer 2014 Master's Dissertation, The Rise of the City: Social Business Incubation in the City of Hamilton 2014 Lecture, A Scot's Nirvana, Homer Watson House and Gallery 2013 Lecture, The Virtual Voice of the Pasta The Use of Online Oral Accounts for a Holistic Understanding of History, University of Guelph Spring Colloquium 2012-2013 Gaelic Events Facilitator, University of Guelph 2012-2015 Intermediate Gaelic Facilitator, St. Michael's College, University of Toronto 2012 Nach eil ann tuilleadh: An Nos Cr aig nan Gaidheal (BA Thesis) Thesis written in Scottish Gaelic evaluating disappearing Gaelic rites of passage in Nova Scotia. 2012 Waterloo Historical Society Publication, Harvesting Bees and Feasting Tables: Fit for the Men, Women and Children of Dickie Settlement and Area, Township of North Dumfries 2007-2012 25 historical publications in the Ayr News (access to some articles http://ayrnews.ca/recent ) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COURSES 2021 Certificate for Indigenous Relations Training Program with University of Calgary 2020 Condo Director Training Certificate (CAO) 2018 Building Officials and the Law (OBOA Course) 2017-2018 AMCTO Training (MAP 1) 2017 AODA Training 3 Page 223 of 407 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 2010 Irish Archaeological Field School Certificate COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Word Office Bluebeam Revu 2017 ArcGIS Keystone (PRINSYS) Municipal Connect Adobe Photoshop Illustrator ABBYY Fine Reader 11 Book Drive SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE 2018-2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Promenade at Clifton Hill, Niagara Falls (Niagara Parks Commission) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (Former Economical Insurance Building) Peterborough Lift Lock and Trent -Severn Waterway (TSW), National Historic Sites, Development for 380 Armour Road, City of Peterborough Middlesex County Court House, National Historic Site, for development at 50 King Street McDougall Cottage and National Historic Site, for development at 93 Grand Avenue South, City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Former Post Office, Development for 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo, Phase II Consumers' Gas Station B, Development for 450 Eastern Avenue, City of Toronto 82 Weber Street and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 39 Wellington Street West, City of Brampton 4 Page 224 of 407 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 543 Ridout Street North, City of London 34 Manley Street, Village of Ayr, Township of North Dumfries Quinte's Isle Campark, 558 Welbanks Road, Prince Edward County (OLT) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (OLT) 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 383-385 Pearl Street, City of Burlington St. Patrick's Catholic Elementary School, (SPCES), 20 East Avenue South, City of Hamilton 250 Allendale Road, City of Cambridge 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan Specific for Relocation of Heritage Buildings 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING REPORT Kelso Conservation Area, Halton County 5" Side Road, County Road 53, Simcoe County Waterdown Trunk Watermain Twinning Project, City of Hamilton CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS 52 King Street North, City of Kitchener Sarnia Collegiate Institute and Technical School (SCITS), 275 Wellington, City of Sarnia (Municipal contingency study) 10536 McCowan Road, City of Markham Former Burns Presbyterian Church, 155 Main Street, Town of Erin (Designation Report) Former St. Paul's Anglican Church, 23 Dover Street, Town of Otterville, Norwich Township (OLT) 6170 Fallsview Boulevard, City of Niagara Falls CONSERVATION PLANS City of Waterloo Former Post Office, 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo 82 Weber Street East, City of Kitchener 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener Page 225 of 407 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x751 F 519 576 0121 rredshaw@nihbeplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Rachel Redshaw, MA, H.E. Dipl., CAHP 1395 Main Street, City of Kitchener 10379 & 10411 Kennedy Road, City of Markham Cultural Heritage Conservation Protection Plans (Temporary protection for heritage building during construction) 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener (included Stabilization, Demolition and Risk Management Plan) 12 & 54 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener 45 Duke Street, City of Kitchener 82 Weber Street West and 87 Scott Street, City of Kitchener 660 Sunningdale Road, London DOCUMENTATION AND SALVAGE REPORTS 16-20 Queen Street North, City of Kitchener 57 Lakeport Road City of St. Catharines Gaslight District, 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge 242-262 Queen Street South, City of Kitchener 721 Franklin Boulevard, City of Cambridge HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 16-20 Queen Street North, Kitchener 50 King Street, London 35-41 King Street North, City of Waterloo (Old Post Office), Phase II (alteration to building with a municipal heritage easement, Section 37, OHA) 50-56 Weber Street West & 107 Young Street, City of Kitchener (demolition and new construction within HCD) 30-40 Margaret Avenue, City of Kitchener (new construction within HCD) 249 Clarence Street, City of Vaughan (alteration within HCD) 174 St. Paul Street, Town of Collingwood (demolition within HCD) HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS/ MASTER PLANS/ HERITAGE CHARACTER STUDY Elgin, Central and Memorial Neighbourhoods, Municipality of Clarington Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (Project Lead 2021-2022) Town of Aurora Heritage Register Update Page 226 of 407 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM III MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE r � W L2 rye ►� , r`. . � C W I_ a d 6 N C � O c O 0 lboN N N (6 a Z Z O cn H W W Q(n3: 2 Lo Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: August 1, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-359 SUBJECT: Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — 417 King Street West Proposed 55 -storey Tower RECOMMENDATION: For information. REPORT: The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated March 23, 2023, prepared my MHBC Planning Ltd., regarding a proposal to construct a 55 -storey tower on the subject property municipally addressed as 417 King Street West. 417 King Street West does not have any heritage status. However, it is located adjacent to 404-410 King Street West, also known as the `Kaufman Footwear' Building, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore, the subject property is also located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. The submission of a scoped HIA was made a requirement of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building on the subject property, and construct a 55 -storey tower with a total of 622 units (Fig. 1). The scoped HIA concludes that there will be no negative impacts to the `Kaufman Footwear' Building. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 229 of 407 ARO! Figure 1. Proposed Rendering of the Proposed Development. 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 September meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. Page 230 of 407 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 417 King Street West Page 231 of 407 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT V 69 4 0 0 F: 519 576 0121 11 Project No. 152021 1 MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCH± 1 TECTUR E 417 King Street West, Kitchener "T° r Date: March 2023�i� Prepared for: VanMar Developments Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson k Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive . _ ' .. Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 11 Project No. 152021 1 MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCH± 1 TECTUR E Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Scope of Heritage Impact Assessment...................................................................................................................4 2.0 Overview...........................................................................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Description of Subject Property..................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Surrounding Area..................................................................................................................................................................6 2.3 Heritage Status........................................................................................................................................................................7 3.0 Policy Context...............................................................................................................................................................................9 3.1 The Ontario Planning Act........................................................................................................................................................9 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020)....................................................................................................................................9 3.3 Ontario Heritage Act................................................................................................................................................................10 3.4 Waterloo Region Official Plan............................................................................................................................................10 3.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan.............................................................................................................................................11 4.0 Heritage Resources.........................................................................................................................................................................12 4.1 Kaufman Footwear Building...............................................................................................................................................12 4.2 Lang Tanning Building...........................................................................................................................................................14 4.3 Warehouse District CHL.........................................................................................................................................................15 5.0 Proposed Development..............................................................................................................................................................16 6.0 Impact Assessment.........................................................................................................................................................................18 6.1 Impact Assessment: Kaufman Footwear Building...............................................................................................19 6.2 Impact Assessment: Lang Tanning Building............................................................................................................20 6.3 Impact Assessment: Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape.................................................20 7.0 Recommendations and Conclusions.................................................................................................................................25 Appendix A —Concept Plan and Renderings Appendix B — Property Map 1 Page 233 of 407 PROJECT PERSONNEL Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Senior Review CAHP Gillian Smith, MSc Planner Author & Research Page 234 of 407 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject property located at 417 King Street W, Kitchener, is proposed to be redeveloped to accommodate a new multiple residential tower. The subject property has not been identified by the City as having cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI). However, the property is adjacent to the Part IV designated Kaufman Building, municipally listed Lang Tanning Building and within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. As such, a Heritage Impact Assessment is required to determine if the proposed redevelopment will adversely impact the surrounding heritage attributes. This report concludes that the proposed redevelopment will not adversely impact the surrounding heritage attributes. 3 Page 235 of 407 .0 Introduction MHBC has been retained by Van Mar Developments Inc to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment CHIA') for the property municipally addressed as 417 King Street W, Kitchener (subject property). This report is related to a redevelopment proposal for the property, which includes the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new multiple residential tower. The subject property is located in the Downtown (City Commercial Core) of Kitchener, and is designated'Innovation District'on Map 4 of the Official Plan. Within the Downtown neighbourhood there is a concentration of properties that are either listed or designated on the Municipal Heritage Register.The'Innovation District' more specifically is characterized by many large, historic industrial buildings that are now office and residential uses. The planning policies for the'innovation District' encourage the densification of the area with a variety of land uses. The subject property is located within a Cultural Heritage Landscape, being the Warehouse District. Similar to the 'Innovation District', the Warehouse CHL is characterized by industrial buildings and ancillary uses, such as residences. The purpose of this report is to assess the impact of the proposed redevelopment of 417 King Street West on the surrounding heritage resources. As required, this report will provide recommendations that ensure the conservation of any identified heritage attributes, the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area, and that overall design standards are met. 1.1 Scope of Heritage Impact Assessment The City of Kitchener has requested a Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment. This report has been prepared in accordance with the scoped requirements provided in the pre -consultation document, as well as the Ontario Heritage Act infosheet #5. Specifically, this HIA includes the following: • Assessment of proposed development on the adjacent heritage resources; • Mitigation measures as required to ensure conservation of heritage attributes; • Evaluation of the local context, impacts of proposal on the CHL and recommendations to avoid or mitigate impacts; • Assess impacts of shadowing and provide mitigation strategies. 4 Page 236 of 407 2.00verview 2.1 Description of Subject Property The subject property is addressed as 417 King Street W, City of Kitchener. The subject property is approximately 2,747m2 in area and legally described as Plan 375 Pt Lots 16 & 17, RP 58R12320 Pt 1. The property is located on the south frontage of King Street W, immediately west of Frances Street S, north of Halls Lane, and east of Victoria Street N. The subject property is occupied by a single storey brick building known as'Ziggy's Cycle' and is adjacent to Francis Green parkette. Figure1: Location of subject property at 417 King St W (Google Earth) 5 Page 237 of 407 Figurel View of subject property from King Street and Francis Street (MHBC) Figurel view of subject property from King Street (MHBC) 2.2 Surrounding Area The surrounding area consists of multiple residential buildings and office buildings with ground floor commercial uses, institutional uses, parks, as well as surface parking lots. The immediate surrounding context is described in detail below: North: Directly across from the property is the Kaufman building which consists of residential lofts as well as surface parking. Further north are various commercial buildings as well as the rail line and the VIA and GO transit stations. 6 Page 238 of 407 South: The rear of the property abuts Halls Lane and a future 44 -storey mixed-use tower at 30 Francis Street S. Beyond 30 Francis Street is Charles Street and the Lang Tannery Building complex, which has been converted from warehouse use to commercial (restaurants) and offices. Further south is the Victoria Park neighbourhood consisting of single detached dwellings and Victoria Park. East: Abutting the property is Francis Green Parkette and Francis Street. On the east frontage of Francis Street are a range of commercial buildings and restaurants, which extend down King Street W through Kitchener's downtown area. West: West of the property is a parking lot and a condominium building. Past Victoria Street is the University of Waterloo Health Sciences Campus. Beyond the University Campus is the rail line. 2.3 Heritage Status In Ontario, there are several ways of recognizing heritage resources. Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires that each municipality keep a public register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Municipalities can also designate entire neighbourhoods as Conservation Districts, or recognize certain areas as Cultural Heritage Landscapes. The subject property is not a listed or designated property on the Heritage Property Register for Kitchener. However, the property is adjacent to 404-410 King Street W, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is also known as the Kaufman Footwear Building. Additionally, the property is located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. There are other listed properties located near the subject property, including the Lang Tanning Co. Building, addressed as 113-151 Charles Street W, 170-188 Joseph Street, and 3-44 Francis Street South. 7 Page 239 of 407 Ibr � �� a��y,',�" ?h'�• '� � � `,' ASL /., �. ,. � � " � i L� a 4k,� . r. u�� + a -0A lk`Jsr Sfy�y .� Ju6LEE OR f2 h © C �� �, �•�^� ,\ + ewers v� � �•L~� Kaufman Footwear Building 404-410 King Street W is designated under Part IV of the OHA Lang Tanning Co. Building 113-151 Charles Street W, 170-188 Joseph Street, and 3- 44 Francis Street is listed on the Kitchener Heritage Property Register Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape Subject property noted in red Page 240 of 407 3.0 Policy Context 3.1 The Ontario Planning Act The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofprovinciol interest such as, (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The PPS also states in Sub -section 2.6.3 that, Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to a protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has 9 Page 241 of 407 been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The following definitions are provided in Section 6.0: Heritage attributes: means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural londforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property). 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. 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. 3.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This HIA has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act that outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub - criteria. 3.4 Waterloo Region Official Plan Chapter 3 of the Regional Official Plan provides policies on Cultural Heritage. The Region in tandem with the Area Municipalities will conserve and identify cultural heritage resources. Relevant policies applicable to this proposal include: • The Region and Area Municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved. • Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V orVI of the Heritage Act, and 10 Page 242 of 407 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 bythe Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincial governments. • Area Municipalities will designate Cultural Heritage Landscapes in their official plans and establish associated policies to conserve these areas. The purpose of this designation is to conserve groupings of cultural heritage resources that together have greater heritage significance than their constituent elements or parts. • Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non -designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.5 City of Kitchener Official Plan Part C, Section 12 provides policies on Cultural Heritage Resources. It is the objective of the City to conserve cultural heritage resources and their heritage values, attributes and integrity, to ensure that all development is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources, and to increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources. The Official Plan sets out a number of policies surrounding the identification and conservation of heritage resources and the function of the Municipal Heritage Committee. Of relevance to this Report is policy 12.C.1.23 which speaks to Heritage Impact Assessments. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor c) on properties listed as non -designated of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register d) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 11 Page 243 of 407 4.0 Heritage Resources 4.1 Kaufman Footwear Building The Kaufman Footwear Building is located at 404-410 King Street W and is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act under designation by-law 96-34. The Kaufman Building is located across the street from the subject property and occupies the western block along King Street W between Victoria Street and Francis Street. The foyer, or main entrance, is located at the Francis Street and King Street intersection. The building is now residential units, however, was home to the Kaufman Rubber Company Ltd.The building was constructed in 1908 and designed by Albert Kahn, representative of the 'Kahn System' of building for industrial buildings. Khan's facades were designed in a "grid pattern, as successive floor slabs were interfaced with the structure's exterior columns. The use of red brick on the facade, at the spandrels, served to accentuate the grid structure, as did the inclusion of large steel sash windows" (Patti Shea, August 1989). The Kaufman Rubber Company was the workplace of many of the residents and contributed to the local economy. Its location within the downtown and at a prominent intersection serves as a gateway to, and a landmark within the downtown. The heritage attributes of the building include: • exposed concrete frame, window openings, cornice and lentil mouldings and porticos of the 1908 and 1911 building phases • primary leading roofline to the height of the 1908 and 1911 building frame • exposed concrete frame, brick and concrete block infill panels (spandrels) of the 1920 building phase • concrete lintels and sills of the 1920 building phase • glass and metal enclosed entranceway with closed transom of the 1920 building phase • limestone Doric columns of the 1920 building phase • window openings cornice and lentil mouldings, roof and roofline of the 1920 building phase • reception counter line of the northwest wall from the floor to the underside of the height of the existing wall opening of the 1920 building phase • exposed concrete frame and brick and concrete block infill panels (spandrels) of the 1925 building phase 12 Page 244 of 407 • window openings, cornice and dentil mouldings, roof and roofline of the 1925 building phase • elements of the entrance foyer of the 1920 building phase • frieze with the inscription reading "Kaufman Rubber Co. Ltd." of the 1920 building phase • siting at the gateway to the downtown from Waterloo SUPERIOR QUALITY RUBBER FOOTWEAR Figure 4: historic drawing of t Kaufman Building (D.Y. Heritage Info) Figure 5: current view of Kaufman Builing at the King Street and Francis Street intersection (MHBC) 13 Page 245 of 407 4.2 Lang Tanning Building The Lang Tanning Building is a listed property on the municipal heritage register. It is a former industrial complex occupying an entire block bounded by Victoria Street S, Charles Street W, Francis Street S and Joseph Street. Currently, the building is used for a variety of commercial, office, and restaurant uses. Lang Tanning Company was started by a German immigrant, Reinhold Lang and was at one point the largest sole leather producer in Canada. It was also a prominent employer for City residents. It ranges in height from one to five storeys and consists of several interconnected buildings constructed from 1896 to 1956. The brick building is a vernacular industrial design forming part of the Warehouse District CHL. THE LANG TANNING CO.LIMITED KITCHENER. CANADA � Figure 6: drawing of Lang Tanning Complex (University of Waterloo Library) Figure 7: current view of Lang Tanning Complex (MHBC) 14 Page 246 of 407 4.3 Warehouse District CHL The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) defines a CHL as an area that is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community and may involve structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. The City of Kitchener completed a Cultural Heritage Landscape Study in 2014 which identified 30 CHL's. The subject property is within the Warehouse District, identified as 'L -COM -1' characterized as an industrial/commercial landscape. Many of the original warehouse and factory buildings remain, including the Kaufman and the Tanning buildings. There are limited trees along corridors which make the area highly visible. The area buildings are consistent in design with tall floors and large windows and show the evolution from brick construction to concrete and steel. Character defining elements include: "Industrial landmarks historically important to the City and in many ways Kitchener's reason for developing as an urban industrial centre" (City of Kitchener, 2014). The Warehouse District retains: • historical identity as it has been consistently used forthe same purpose since the railway arrived and retains several buildings; • Cultural Value as it informs the development history of Kitchener and is contextually important to surrounding neighbourhoods; • Community value as it is a source of employment for residents. 15 Page 247 of 407 5.0 Proposed Development The owner of the subject property is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site with a mixed-use tower. The new tower is proposed to be 55 storeys in height and provide a total of 622 units with balconies. The proposed development includes a six storey podium with amenity space on the podium roof. The ground floor will consist of parking oriented to Halls Lane, as well as the lobby, retail, and main entrance oriented to King Street and Francis Street. Floors 2 to 6 will consist of above ground parking, and floor 7 will serve as amenity space with a walkout rooftop amenity area on the podium roof. The remainder of the building will consist of residential units. One underground level is proposed for bicycle and vehicle parking. Vehicular access will be provided from Halls Lane, with one driveway entrance to the underground parking and one entrance to the podium parking.The primary pedestrian entrance will be provided from King Street W. The ground floor will consist of retail. KING ST W PF.II.0 =__ RE`_:IIENT: -L µangyial aropsrt�une — — RERA TAEL @ GDE — — E1111I_E 2.8d d -B— F 6 I I I I AMENITY 5 TERRACE (a Li I 1 1 1saem rLINE -L' -7 rr69------- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL TOWER 55 STOREYS L L L PODIUM UG PARKING LOADING PARKING ENTRANCE ENTRANCE ENTRANCE M FRANCIS GREEN PARK HALLS LN W Gl) H Le) [f7 U z Q LL Figure 8: Proposed Site plan. Full site plan and renderings are included as Appendix B (Kirkor Architects) 16 Page 248 of 407 MPH S47m 18ASm 5. Bm E s E g u35 m L L L PODIUM UG PARKING LOADING PARKING ENTRANCE ENTRANCE ENTRANCE M FRANCIS GREEN PARK HALLS LN W Gl) H Le) [f7 U z Q LL Figure 8: Proposed Site plan. Full site plan and renderings are included as Appendix B (Kirkor Architects) 16 Page 248 of 407 The building will be contemporary in design, intended to serve as a landmark at the intersection of King Street W and Francis Street S. The exterior design and use of materials will create a distinction between the podium and tower components. The podium will be constructed of concrete (pre- cast), metal, and glass. The tower component will consist of glass, including glass railings for the balconies. The concept plan, floor plan, and a full set of renderings has been included as Appendix B. Figure 9: Rendering of podium (Kirkor Architects) Figure 10: Rendering of proposed building, as seen from King St 17 Page 249 of 407 6.O Impact Assessment The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may be direct or indirect. They may occur over a short term 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. The following sub -sections of this report provide an analysis of the impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. - 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 a cultural heritage resource. 18 Page 250 of 407 6.1 Impact Assessment: Kaufman Footwear Building Destruction or alteration of heritage attributes Shadows Isolation Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Views A Change in Land Use Land Disturbance Assessment Comment The proposed redevelopment does not include the Kaufman Building. There will be no destruction or alteration to heritage attributes of the building as a result of the proposed development. A shadow study has been completed for the proposed development (included as Appendix Q. The shadow study does show some shadowing on the Kaufman Building in the spring and fall during the afternoon, as well as minor shadowing in the evening of the summer. The tower will be slender and shadows produced will be narrow. The shadows cast will not be widespread and will only be present for limited periods of time in the late afternoon or evening. The shadows are not expected to impact the heritage value of the building or significant landscape features. The proposed redevelopment will not result in the isolation of the heritage property. The surrounding area is comprised of a range of land uses and densities, as well as other heritage resources which contribute to the character of the area. The proposed land use will be consistent with other residential development found within the surrounding area. No adverse impacts associated with isolation are anticipated. Significant views of the Kaufman Building are from the King Street right of way, Francis Street right of way, as well as Francis Green park. There are currently existing views from Charles Street. However, there is a 44 storey tower being built at 30 Francis Street S, which will block this view. The proposed development of the subject property will not impact viewing opportunities of the Kaufman building and all existing significant views will be maintained. There will be no change in land use for the heritage property. The subject property is approximately 23m from the Kaufman Building. It is possible that land disturbances may occur during construction of the proposed building. However, the Kaufman Building was originally designed for industrial. The construction and building materials used, including thick concrete floors, walls and steel reinforcement, ensure that the building was built to withstand vibrations or other intensive activities. Therefore, impacts due to vibration during construction are not likely. 19 Page 251 of 407 6.2 Impact Assessment: Lang Tanning Building Impact Assessment Comment Destruction or The proposed redevelopment does not include the Lang Tanning Building. alteration of heritage There will be no destruction or alteration to heritage attributes of the building attributes as a result of the proposed development. Shadows A shadow study has been completed for the proposed development (included as Appendix Q. The shadow study does not anticipate significant shadowing on the Lang Tanning Building and therefore will not impact the heritage value of the building or significant landscape features. Isolation The proposed redevelopment will not result in the isolation of the heritage property. The surrounding area is comprised of a range of land uses and densities, as well as other heritage resources which contribute to the character of the area. The proposed land use will be consistent with other residential development found within the surrounding area. No adverse impacts associated with isolation are anticipated. Direct or Indirect Significant views of the Lang Tanning Building are from the Victoria Street and Obstruction of Views Charles Street W intersection. The proposed new building is not located within this intersection and will not impact viewing opportunities of the Lang Tanning Building. All existing significant views will be maintained. A Change in Land Use There will be no change in land use for the heritage property. Land Disturbance The subject property is approximately 70m from the Lang Tanning Building. The proposed development is far enough away that no impacts related to vibration during construction are anticipated. 6.3 Impact Assessment: Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape At present, the Warehouse District consists of a range of buildings and uses at varying scales and designs. Adjacent to the subject property at 30 Francis Street is a 44 storey tower, and fronting on Victoria Street is a multiple residential tower, demonstrating that such uses and scales can be accommodated within the Warehouse District. The existing building at 417 King Street W does not form part of the built form fabric of the cultural heritage landscape. The building is not a reflection of early industrial development, is not recognized as a cultural heritage resource and is not 20 Page 252 of 407 contextually important to the CHL. Therefore, its removal would not alter or otherwise impact the character of the Warehouse District. The Warehouse District places emphasis on the original commercial and industrial buildings as defining the character of the area. The existing building at 417 King Street W is not original and does not support the industrial landscape. Its removal would not change the character of the area, and the construction of a new tower would have a negligible impact as there are existing towers within this area. Figures 11 to 16 demonstrate how multiple residential towers have been integrated into the Warehouse District CHL. The proposed development will be of a similar scale to existing towers and will utilize building materials that reflect the evolution of construction in this area, drawing on metal, concrete and glass. The base/podium of the proposed tower will create a prominent and recognizable building with significant architectural detailing (refer to Appendix A for the renderings). I MW W Figure 11: 44 storey tower being constructed at 30 Francis Street, adjacent to subject property (srm Architects) Figure 12: podium of 44 storey tower at 30 Francis Street (srm Architects) 21 Page 253 of 407 Figure 13: Looking east towards 1 Victoria Condominium at the intersection of King St W and Victoria St S in the Warehouse CHL (MHBC) Figure 14: Looking south towards 100 Victoria Street S Condominium in the Warehouse CHL (MHBC) 22 Page 254 of 407 Figure 15: Looking north towards the 104 Garment and 100 Victoria St and 1 Victoria Condominiums in the Warehouse CHL (MHBC) Figure 16: Looking north towards within the Garment and Victoria Condominiums in the Warehouse CHL. Similar design elements will be included within the proposed development (MHBC) A shadow assessment has been prepared which models shadowing patterns cast from the proposed tower. The shadow study indicates that the proposed building will cast shadows most prominently in the early mornings and evenings of the spring, fall and summer. The shadows will not be present for long periods and are consistent with existing shadows cast from surrounding buildings. 23 Page 255 of 407 The building has been designed as tall and narrow, resulting in slender shadows. The resulting shadows cast will be minimal in size (skinny) and will not be widespread across the Warehouse District. Additionally, the Warehouse District is recognized for having minimal vegetation and therefore no significant landscape or vegetation will be impacted by the shadowing. 24 Page 256 of 407 7.0 Recommendations and Conclusions The owner of the subject property is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new mixed-use tower. The subject property is adjacent to a designated heritage property (Kaufman Building), nearby to a listed heritage property (Lang Tanning Building) as well as within the Warehouse District CHL. A Heritage Impact Assessment is required to determine the impact the proposed redevelopment may have on the surrounding heritage attributes. This report concludes that the proposed redevelopment will not result in adverse impacts to the Kaufman Building, Lang Tanning Building or the surrounding CHL. The proposed development does involve excavation, which could result in vibrations during construction. We note that the Kaufman Building was originally designed for industrial use, which housed large and heavy machinery. The construction and building materials used, including thick concrete floors, walls and steel reinforcement, ensure that the building was built to withstand vibrations or other intensive activities. Therefore, impacts due to vibration during construction are unlikely. 25 Page 257 of 407 Appendix A Concept Plan &Renderings 26 Page 258 of 407 a a UI U o r 5 N s45€a 'o S lli� z a IM z A -oN a` caN Q N, z r Mc, Kly $ iI 5 66 p E 3� f� ..rte .r .__. 2ZL� UI U o r 5 N s45€a 'o S lli� IM z A Mc, Kly $ iI 5 66 p E 3� f� ..rte .r .__. UI U o r 5 N s45€a 'o S z A Mc, Kly $ iI 5 66 p E 3� "Oaf ..rte .r .__. la x � a r 5 0 gg 44 n e n � r e�_ 3 R y". l _ 1� r f € UI U o r 5 N s45€a 'o S IL _ a ,W— e z z Y Z} �I 0 LU OJ so Z m 0 --MEW� N X \ W S 1S SIONVU=l ice= w Z LU � J U CO y J U a J - Z a LL I 2 E _ o 9LLg ---- wM9 Imo E I I' I p seg 8-1 @7 =1001dl ' KQ a � Q i7 Z � W ws " az zl I / I E yFaW 0 Wo ZOO - F- I �OyFy W aoOF CO E I I I CL LU z O a� I m' Y a z w oe a owxaxd__ w of � _ o$q, - —�1 UE 8-1 @7 =1001dl ' KQ a � Q i7 Z � W FI rcl I I E I gQ I I` -I ~ W zi u E W TUU O a� I m' a z w oe a owxaxd__ WWO _ o$q, - �W F 0 7 � 1J� N 2ZL� _ a LL U w -8 UI Z U ri N Ze Q e e d m'a 01 18 CL J .ag g ao maW as „ N „O �a M LO ---------------------------r ----- mE � ouXd — ___ oudd w o- a Q y iT 'i it �IlE 0 o ti' �ti' ',i' 'r0 i ;, An s' b4 I �� a I I i I e I i I ow m o3 i w3 MEN r --r-- r r- r-- -i J r-- --r-- �9, '9 IL LL` JI I' i � i �LL— r ---- -- do U w -y UI Y a Y 3sn3 'y v _ U c QW` a� J .ag g ao maW as „ N „O �a M „O „O „O o d 3.0 k e33 a d 3.33 E 0 E w 0'0 I I r T- 'D r ®t i -Al r -j©r z r rE,-- +, r 5 - I, y� m jjJJIIFF - 9 I rx---"� ,r 7 r 7 ,0� - I �f i ,� r r r r 7 -------- ---- - ------ --- -- --------- ------------- - ------ --- - �� I - -_---- ----------------- -------------------------------- ----------------1----- r --r � `.'9; 'rte I I 4 a LL a w N,. IL 2� do U w -y UI Y a Y 3sn3 'y v _ U c QW` a� J .ag g ao maW as „ N „O �a M „O „O „O o d 3.0 k e33 a d 3.33 E 0 E w 0'0 I I r T- 'D r ®t i -Al r -j©r z r rE,-- +, r 5 - I, y� m jjJJIIFF - 9 I rx---"� ,r 7 r 7 ,0� - I �f i ,� r r r r 7 -------- ---- - ------ --- -- --------- ------------- - ------ --- - �� I - -_---- ----------------- -------------------------------- ----------------1----- r --r � `.'9; 'rte I I 4 a LL a do w - Z � asna, „Ouv�D O M o d 3.0 k 833 a d 3.33 E w g 0'0 I x C I' ■ QoN F T -T -,j i f f °off IL 2ZL� do w - Z � asna, „Ouv�D O M o d 3.0 k 833 a d 3.33 E w g 0'0 I x C I' ■ F T -T -,j i f f °off Iml u r, J A IL 02 0. m� io J a 04 LL Z E �1----�------ate Z- ry :I 4� paMI� Im 'nnnm� ■ 'nnnm, mm�n J l T I a oo U. w000 I N wwo E ------��-���--- A IL �i 1 M y I =- e�w I J I I I� w O a I I Y "L AJa Ma N � I A v e J j aR I r _I �I E ------��-���--- A IL �i 1 M y I =- e�w I J I I I� a I I I C �■ �iir■ii 1IIIIIIIII 111111111■ � A a I I I C LL I A v e J j aR I r _I �I =�x a a c a °off LL N Iwo A6AAAAAAAAAAA ................................................................ oil Vallmom ii ME �eii=l i� =olCi ii ==== 'elle ::::: Is Is e ® ® e ®e 11110MEW 1 1 1/111111111/111111111/11111/111111111/1111111111111 1 .................................:.............................. 211�eY�eYalde4e4eY�Yd�" " eY _ loin, l min i mm Im OR iffic ■ ■ �■ ��_, oo N1 Oz Lyda 3a rW Q z m ae„.etl 0 w w x LL o s d d w d E w d d m m X O O O O O O O O O O O O it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it i it i�n - c o Lu L S O .. N JI JI N JI JI JI JI $ PI 'PI PI PI PI PI PI PI PI JI JI 'JI JI JI JI JI JI JIJIJIJI InJIJIJIJIJIJI , , $ $ JIJI , ,11,JIJI'JIJI J J J J JI a= A � �rc c O d W L o e Mnnnnnnnnnnnnnaddaddnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn0 �y� a2gy H - ¢ Mnnnnnnnnnnnnnaddaddnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn0 ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®111111111111111111111®1111111111111111111111 ®®®®11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ®®®®111111111111111111111®®111111111111111111111 ®' p V I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I 9 V N ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®111111111111111111111®1111111111111111111111 ®®®®11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ®®®®111111111111111111111®®111111111111111111111 ®' VMM 7 m q- VMM p N 0 E 0 U) 0 O 0 d M p N 0 E d c N V42000,04, r. w 04 •�•'' ' •''.' •^ � �� � • % ♦ p'r'o N 1 // C j _ _ '/ r_ 9 " o� c p N 0 E 0 U) 0 O 0 d M p N 0 E d c N V42000,04, r. .► 4 •�•'' ' •''.' •^ � �� � • % ♦ p'r'o N 1 // C j _ _ '/ p 0 E a ao d 00 N 0 E io d c p N 0 E 0 p N 1 // C j r_ 9 " Appendix B Location Map 27 Page 274 of 407 417 King Street W Kaufman Footwear Building Lang Tanning Building Complex 28 Page 275 of 407 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: August 9, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-360 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-014 15 Church Street Construction of 6 -storey Affordable Housing Building RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2023-V-014 be approved to permit the construction of a 6 -storey affordable housing building at the property municipally addressed as 15 Church Street, in accordance with the plans and supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and related heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present staff's recommendation to construct a 6 -storey affordable housing project on the subject property municipally addressed as 15 Church Street. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on 137 and 149 Queen Street South, and the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V- 014 seeking permission to construct a 6 -storey affordable housing building at the subject property municipally addressed as 15 Church Street (Fig 1). *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 276 of 407 112 103 132 a flue.,:W. P Apwtmen%als f. i0 150 14 _ �`�lhA. sr mynas: Luh a W CMren ti yy" Pa�•swnnarcnud, G,� �•. c awl; �sr 54 < CITY C©MMEf 168 r �f/ 149 MU -217928 V'ICTQRtA FARK �1 lot 199 196 flim, a K_6w.a -'y 202 Refnewron! RllidBetCF 179 64 f t,1 r rcnro.us i �"s, ire Figure 1. Location Map of 15 Church Street. REPORT: The subject property is located on the west side of Church Street towards the rear of 137 and 149 Queen Street South. The subject lands have been severed from 137 and 149 Queen Street South. These properties are located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Additionally, these properties, along with the subject property, are also located within the Victoria Park Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. 139 and 147 Queen Street South are both classified as Group `A' buildings — meaning they are of high significance. 15 Church Street is also subject to an active site plan application, which also required the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of a complete application. The draft HIA was circulated to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at the June 6, 2023, meeting. The site plan application has received conditional approval, subject to several heritage conditions, including but not limited to the approval of the HIA, and that the applicant obtain a heritage permit for the construction of this building. 137 & 149 Queen Street South — St. Paul's Lutheran Church 137 Queen Street South, also know as the St. Paul's Lutheran Church, was built in 1889 with yellow buff brick in the Gothic Revival architectural style (Fig. 2). It also includes an elegant spire with many fine architectural details such as brick buttresses, voussoirs, and stained-glass arch windows. It still contains many intact original elements and is in good condition. There have been newer additions, but they have been built towards the rear of the church. Page 277 of 407 Figure 2. Picture of 137 Queen Street South. Source: draft HIA 149 Queen Street South is a two -and -a -half storey house that was built in the Queen Anne architectural style in circa 1900 (Fig. 3). It was originally built to serve as the manse and then the Lutheran Bible Translators office. It has also been well-maintained with many intact original elements. Page 278 of 407 Figure 3. Front fagade of 149 Queen Street South. Proposed 6 -storey Affordable Housing Building The applicant is proposing the develop the site with a 6 -storey affordable housing building which will also include one level of underground parking and a two-way ramp entry/exist along Queen Street South. There will also be at grade parking with access from Church Street. A total of 57 dwelling units and 27 parking spaces are proposed. The principal entrance is proposed to be from Queen Street South with a secondary public entrance along Church Street. The new building will be slightly set back from the existing house at 149 Queen Street South. There are no alterations proposed to the existing church and house. Page 279 of 407 North pnn n.N Figure 4. Proposed Site Plan for the affordable housing building. The building will be clad in appropriate materials, with the first two storeys being clad in traditional brick, and the rest of the storeys are going to be clad with a light grey fibre -cement siding. The windows are proposed to be of aluminum framing. The light grey colour will also help in ensuring that the existing heritage resources remain prominent from the streetscape. i` Figure 5. Rendering of the Proposed Development. Page 280 of 407 NON A%ONOMURIC s W fA%ONOMEINIC RT Figure 6. Axonometric views of the proposed development New Buildings in Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District The VPAHCD Plan identifies that redevelopment within the district, and especially within the Queen Street South corridor is expected. However, the main goal of the Plan is to ensure that new development enhances the historic and civic character of Queen Street South. Policies included within the Plan for new building include: • Public Realm — New building shall contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, which is perceived as an historic, gracious and tree -lined thoroughfare. o The new building will contribute to the public realm of Queen Street South, with the upper storeys being visible from the street but will not have a negative impact on the streetscape. • Pedestrian Scale —New building shall emphasize a human scale that creates a comfortable, safe and livable streetscape. o The new building emphasizes a human scale that creates comfortable, safe, and liable streetscape. The building is 6 -storey in height and sufficiently set back from the street, being built behind 149 Queen Street South. • Design — Contemporary design of a high quality shall be achieved that is complementary to the historic character of the Area in terms of massing, materials, and scale. o The new building is of a contemporary design, which is compatible but distinguishable from the existing heritage resources in its proximity. The building takes design cues from the rest of the District, and is complementary to the historic character of the area. It is of an appropriate size and scale, and proposed appropriate materials that are complementary to the District. Furthermore, there are neighboring buildings of the same height and massing, which further contribute to the compatibility of the proposed development within the VPAHCD. • Location — New Building shall be located to create streetscape continuity and pedestrian scale. o The new building is located behind the existing house at 149 Queen Street South, and is sufficiently set back from Queen Street South so as to not be imposing on the street. Thus, there will be no changes to the existing streetscape and pedestrian scale. Density — Every effort shall be made to blend new high rise building with neighboring low rise residences. This could include varied building heights and elevations and the breaking up of the building mass. o The proposed building is a mid -rise building, and the front fagade facing Queen Street South does include some setbacks so that the existing heritage resources remain prominent from the streetscape. Page 281 of 407 • Height— Design Treatments to lessen the perception of height in new high rise development shall be considered, such as fagade setbacks, mansard roofs, gables and varying building finishes and textures. o The proposed building is 6 storeys in height, and due to its placement on the property lot, will serve as a transition between adjacent existing low rise residential and the high rise buildings on its other side. Furthermore, the use of light colours on the upper storeys will ensure that the building does not overshadow the existing heritage resource. • Materials — Materials typical of the historic Area, such as brick, shall be used. o The proposed development does include brick as an exterior cladding material, making it compatible but distinguishable from the existing heritage resources. • Roofs — Roofs shall be designed to create an attractive skyline and screen roof equipment. o The proposed development has a flat roof, which is contemporary in design. The flat will ensure that the features of the church such as the gable roof and the spire remain prominent from the streetscape. • Windows —The appearance, placement, and proportion of windows shall be complementary to historic windows in the Area, if possible. o The appearance and proportion of the windows of the proposed development is complementary to the historic windows in the Area. The proposed windows are aluminum framed, rectangular framed, and are compatible with the Area. • Verandahs — Verandahs shall be incorporated, wherever possible, to continue an historic tradition in the Area. o Since this is a 6 -storey affordable housing development, incorporating verandahs for each unit was not possible. However, since this building is sufficiently setback from the main streets and will be behind 149 Queen Street South, there will be no negative impact to the historic tradition of the Area and the streetscape of the Area. • Colours — Colours of paint and materials shall be complementary to the historic character of the Area. o The proposed colours and materials are complementary to the historic character of the Area. The proposed development uses brick and light -grey cladding to remain distinct but non -imposing. • Conservation — Where historic buildings are integrated into new building developments, the following approaches are encouraged in order of preference: Preservation/Conservation — maintaining historic buildings with little alteration. Adaptive Reuse — reusing historic buildings with restoration and/or rehabilitation. Incorporation — adaptive reuse that typically requires significant alteration. o The existing heritage resources will be preserved with no alterations proposed. • Landscaping — Landscaping should enhance new building and the Queen Street South streetscape. Landscaping should create continuity in the streetscape between adjacent properties, where possible. Plant material, where appropriate, should be used to often building size, mass and edges to maintain a human scale for pedestrians. Landscaping should screen and buffer service areas, parking, open storage and other unsightly areas where required. Landscaping should buffer high density buildings from low density where required. o According to the HIA, the proposed ground level landscape design is to include planting beds and landscape features incorporated into and/or surrounding hardscape areas. Preference will be given for locally sourced materials for landscaping. The landscape plan's planting scheme will focus on hardy, low maintenance species, including deciduous trees, shrubs, grasses, and ground over. To ensure that the heritage value of the cultural landscape is preserved, all the new proposed plantings considered will be assessed in relation to the existing heritage. • Demolition — Conservation and integration of historic buildings into new development is encouraged. Where removal of an historic building to accommodate higher density is Page 282 of 407 contemplated, moving the buildings onto a new site shall be considered. Where removal of historic building is not feasible, the careful salvage of key historic building fabric shall be undertaken so as to be used in the restoration of other similar style buildings. Applications for demolition or removal shall be to the LACAC. o No existing heritage resources are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed development. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, heritage planning staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 15 Church Street is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The proposal is for the construction of a 6 -storey affordable housing building behind 149 Queen Street South; • 137 Queen Street South and 149 Queen Street South are classified as Group `A' buildings within the VPAHCD; • The proposed development is compatible and distinct in its design, and incorporates traditional materials to blend in within the District. Furthermore, the proposed colours are light in colour and are meant to be non -imposing, so that the existing heritage resources remain prominent from the streetscape; • The VPAHCD Plan recognizes that the Queen Street South corridor could be redeveloped and includes various policies to guide new development, and the proposed development meets the intent of these policies; • The proposed addition will not adversely impact the heritage attributes or character of either the subject property, adjacent properties, or the streetscape of VPAHCD, and the Victoria Park Neighborhood Cultural Heritage Landscape; and • The proposed development is consistent with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for Historical Places in Canada. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES DSD -2023-224 — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 137 and 149 Queen Street South Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2023-V-014 Attachment B — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 139 and 147 Queen St. S Attachment C — 15 Church Street Design Drawings Page 283 of 407 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor .L P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 MNER 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(ukitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry • Repointing of brick Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2023 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2023 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 25, 2022 January 3, 2023 December 30, 2022 February 7, 2023 January 27, 2023 March 7, 2023 February 24, 2023 April 4, 2023 March 24, 2023 May 2, 2023 April 28, 2023 June 6, 2023 - No July Meeting June 23, 2023 August 1, 2023 July 28, 2023 September 5, 2023 August 25, 2023 October 3, 2023 September 29, 2023 November 7, 2023 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials means of attachment (the means of attachment should be historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: , methods of construction, colours and arranged to anchor into joints between • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www. historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 61" Floor T P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 K-('HF:'`F.R 519-741-2426; planning@a kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑D New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 15 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario Legal Description (if know): Pt Lot 6 Pt Lot 7 of Registered Plan 394 Building/Structure Type: ® Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) 0 Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑x No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Addre� City/Province/Postal Code: Phone Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Kanika Kaushal Company: mcCallumSather Architects Inc. Address: 201- 286 Sanford Avenue North, City/Province/Postal Code: Hamilton, Ontario, L81L 6A1 Phone: 647-212-4447 Email: kanikak@mccallumsather.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. The applicant has proposed to construct a 6 -storey affordable housing development with 57 residential dwelling units with one level of underaround oarkina with 15 oarkina spaces and 9 surface oarkina spaces includina one barrier -free oarkina above and below around. The proposed development will retain the adjacent heritage properties. Recommendations to incorporate historic building materials, design features, and architectural proportions within the new development have been made and these recommendations have been incorporated in the proposed design. There will be minimal impacts to the Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape and the existing adjacent built heritage resources. Please refer to Section 4 Policy Framework of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (July 2023) for further details. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: This proposal is in line with the Victoria Park HCD Plan economic goals of 'Conserving the heritage character and human scale of the residential areas while encouraging compatible infill and intensification'. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Please refer to Section 4 Policy Framework of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (July 2023) for further details. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx): Please refer to Section 4 Policy Framework of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (July 2023) for further details. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: 30 -Sep -23 Expected completion date: 30 -Sep -24 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 0 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Cultural Heritage Planner Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes 0 No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes ® No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2023 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information andlor resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of OwnerlAgent Signature of Owner/Agent 9. AUTHORIZATION Date: July 26, 2023 Date: July 24, 2023 If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be complet I I We, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/ Signature of Owner/ Kanika Kaushal to act on my /our behalf in this regard. Date: July 26, 2023 Date: July 24, 2023 - The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Servicds Division, City of Kitchener (519-749-2769). Working together ■ Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 292 of 407 2023 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 Introduction to the report C' C4 � T v 'off rF FF C' C4 U 0 } 'IT o \ / < m ¥ q � � � u u � � / \ / \ % 7\ E 4-1 / \ \ 3 � ® / / \ 2 % $ \ u \ 2 a a (U-000 / 2 � \ ƒ / / 7 / \ 2 \ V ƒf 0/ \\» 2 � ® u � / * \ / u / \ \ \ / / \ \ \ \ VI f � Introduction to the report ƒ$\$ LA TM, Ln Ln 7// / -W / \ � E � / \ � -li 91� TAORA , .. � / -W \ � E � \ \ / LA0. 0 / 0 ® e § < \ (j LU W C < o C- % / 0 \ a / < / LU % / 2 (A / E t CJ & Ul Ul ® U ° 2 � U / § / < : ° [ E 3 t0 » � 2 Ci � � ma WI y \ �� o \ E � ■ 4- z o t / ® 0 § 2 S mo \ < Q / (A ° 0� u \ o c 2 \ § § < I G 6 y 3 2 u ± 3± M IA a z / + 2 2 2 /<ƒ o 0 C> e u G k ° § o k k k o § % w o 0 0 Om am X 3 3 R Od a <<< 0 2 m qi # e @ e m @ o � » e _ o u 2 t eƒ r �/q\\ \ $ $ / + M c ° o o %£ mo/ ° a s 0( k / 9 2 $ 0 _ ° -li 91� TAORA , .. � -W LA0. 0 0 e W C < o C- 0 \ a / < % / 2 (A t 2 � t Q) 2 U Lm 2 : ° - \ » � ° m % \ o \ E � 4 / ® 0 [ 2 / ° \ \ ƒ 6 (A 0� E y o c 2 a» e ■ 6 6 +} 2 g _ AOm / u v o o ■ o o 0 C> e c e G k ° § / y y § % % o O / � \ / ® 0 2 0 � 0 � 0 3\ 5 o o u 2 t eƒ = c y e o + M E c ° o o %£ mo/ ° a s 0( k 9 2 $ 0 _ ° e ® ° ° 2 3 2 3 2 3 � D = § D / \ LU u� E \ƒ m I I I E> 0 m 7 2 g w m f o- w o w m o w o- w m e r w w w W R 3 rn m m m 11¥¥ Ln 3 3 3 -li 91� TAORA , .. � ti 0 4- 0 ti N N L rn� 4- Q Q L bo -a Q C C C _0 Q Q Q >, bA v > - O Q V Q Q D O W w LA w •L .� Z3 Q v >,•L o O N o Vu p_ O Y L 4- C C Q Qu Q Q C LA — i 4O u 'u v i L 4- O> O Q U 0 C U N C O Q Q C >, m L Q Ln 0-p~ � Q N L -0 :� , Z3 0 �E o Z3 rte--+ C a- Q L p (A 0N V 4- in Q U U O r� 4- Q Q) O O > 0- QL O C C ro v o Q> �r- .bA L r - Q C C Q L r- > O Q V 4- u E OC V N v O O � N N O M (0 to L LA d(oV 4-Q �ro ln] p_ CT v N Q (0 u iuC Q n NQ) vQbA upC Ln LA V Q M c0 •M CD - Z3 :L uC i r-CCi Q- Q QQ U= LQ >4, r✓ r✓ 7 N co 4- Q �b a v° v =a+rn � c E E Q , O FZ m=M o>NuO 4 u i Qr✓ aQ 3 °N o O v u J u, v Q Q C (6 N 4--+ V LA Q •� O� i, `0 v L— + O m C Q C � O (0 r Z3f, C Z3 In N U p- (a O- Q r u Q p_ �' rN+ C v Q i' j ro (o Q 4-O Q Q Q� C O Q'N Ul p Q V Q Q Q a C .v O Q Q v C-0 E Q Q)L u ro r O U1 - Q N 06Lr)bA O N w mQ O 4- (0 i r--' Ln (o C Q by V Q O >, V1 Q 0 m C Q i Q �+ O- 0 E m C U1LI)(aj L �' � N C C (0 V V C v V N N C Q� o ro u _ Y u 4J .� U Q L� � u Q �' 2 v bQ_p C N Q i - M p Q) ~ O W C Q i 7 O Q> Q Q :L Q i V7 C (0 O C C Q '- Q cp C Q to L Q Q ( v Q 2 ' Q-0 Q Q QL d Q > L Q m m U Q L Q 4-1Q 4 L 2 N >, Q Q 2 . _0 Q-0 Q N O -� Q !n !n O 4-i Q� Q �, O r- C C i Q L In 0 Q � D > L/)u Q M Q --0� (0 C > C C (6 J _ 7 V C U L Q i N +� U O _V O Q O C 4--+ Q Q 4 = p V7 O N Q Q Q Q 4J m Q u Y 2 Q Q p_ A >, C O O- _0 u X U Q >, Q O 4--+ N Q C Q Q U bCp vCi M y � >, i �� O >,� � v Q in bAv j Q (6 C i O Y C Q O U Q O Q (6 C O C ( (6 r- in •i Vl C >, L Q /7 Q, Q Q O Q Q V C( O L�� (0 _ r-- - J C Q4- vi VJQ 4 -u Q C V bA C >, Q U •� i vCi 0 (A bA Lp Q v (6 O Q n l E �, CT Q O O- m (>6 v E L (o - Q m 0I T v N Q U Q x p- > v m E i W Ol 4, -_ � iii C ON Q C O Q Q to p W� Q Q UI 'Q F OtLo Q Q o N 4O O D j L l T Q Q r--' V L/) .N Q a-' > L Q Q Q V z _ rte-+ J x it V i .- C C p_ W (0 Q Q m> O Q LCII (a) (A >, Q > U m al Q = U U pV (A OC O O Q U ( r- J~ W L >, W O .>•. ll�1 (A I..f) M V = (0 Q > (0 Q L C � 4-j (0 (� Q a= i J I L U Q QJ M Q L in M O 00 Q U N O L u1 OV Q O (B Q Q p E N Q r- V O �/i v C >, C U1 Q O U V O a O U L- C u O ; Q U Q� Q Z3 -a � Q - Q- �� D Q Q �(A �+ 4- C O CCA cp v U C 2 O Q ro �, � to C C N to L O C to Q �, O rV_+ U > N --+ Q C = Q E -Fu Q 0 - a Q Y 4- v U N E v Q L v 0 Q) Q v Q 2 .i Q T > X Qj 5 Q -0 '� O Q CL O W O C C O U Q Q Q Q O U L > C 4-+ C V o- Q Q v U V (A >' Q E Q 'NO }' O r Q�(A V v (6 O� N Q N Q N O Q Q O � 4-+ O-�Y Q� ( L O �Ur_, ENS O Q (6 L Q Q al7 (a-0 (a v ti 0 4- 0 ti N N Introduction to the report / / $ M \ ƒ ƒ / Ln ƒ $ \ E e :L - CDL e u g 2 CD - y% z I y ( \ ƒ y .ƒ / 7 o _ ® ƒ O Ul c o / / Q 2 ® / / / / \ \ �� \ 7 ( / / / o C- / c % / a « e % ± ± / mo w 2 Ul Q/£/ 0ƒ % o / U § : % J2 ƒ J E s 2 y/ / i / E § / 7 - U f 3 o J s e 0 0 e a— tLO 0 § / ƒ .- \ / / ƒ —[ -5\ u ) oE /o \ \ \/\ * ee4-a � � / / \ t a % / E / / $ 0- Q) / / \ / ( « E- = o � U\ ?\ _ £ — '- \ 0 2\ 2 E/ > a - c ._ y \ § \ J o = § / .- / y/ o° S� y E 2 e/ / 2 //\\ / / § \ / \ �f c> \ o© J oƒ\ E a$ 2 e ( \ \ 0 / £ / / 2 y / / \ ƒ ( / / § 3 / / % o R e a R e±4\ a R -j ƒ . . . Ln 'qE � .■ ,. � rl- O 'IT 0 m m N ¢ 2 n � E _ � \ ƒ 0 / % \ j O 'S Gro o _ 2 a 4- z 2 e R ® � -6 / { / \ ® / u/ J § " r 2 = u p QJ « o c \ / / 2 y \ / / ? D 3 / y \ / ƒ \ / * § 2/ I f f / 9= 3 2 \ I -# 0± 4- \ r j: / o N / ~% \ f \ 3* 2 I c %° a® 2 o o e o o a 2 u o =) d y 2 3 $ / o ƒ f $ ƒ \ / 0 \ E \ / / / / 6 x 3 3= e g - 13 ƒ / E D 2 c / / / y < » / / 2 D \ 7 / 7 J > _ * ® % / Lr) ƒ 9 � / 3 2 J \ x% 4- G e u e e/ a a u g d u a a- - u 4 / (Li / / \ .4 \ $ G 2 2 2 LU \ $ 3 / / $ / N N O L CL M r v=yam 41 C C —( NN bo -0= 4- >, L/) O r6 V � v) 4-1 >, O�O N O v > p N M ao C 4- C V 0 tLo —_ O C V M C � C U1 pV -0 N O -0Q) = N 4_ LA L y O� }, U1 C O .O rte-+ v1 bC--O V L v C 4+ N 4- N C)_ L N= � In U 4' N 4--1 ON 4--+ V L Q O L b-0 O - N C 4 V7 V1 a - a N N p -0 �, b0 C d N b.0 C C c N N � N N Q) v 4 N p •N (, v N N j CD- 4- N O p rte--+ = C �b-0 D_0 Q b.0 ate- , >, 4-' V V bA Q r- 0- O 4' b0 L V a- C O 4- N - +-+ 4- Lf) O LA O N N 0- bACLO b -0Z3 Q L C MI)CO C •Q L b.0 O c CF— V v C � C b0 V1 cp L O (o C N }' ro �O to N U LA C O Vl i �E M N � N N O O C O vi i Ul — V7 O' Q ro >, v v 6 >, >, m O Z3 � (o v V) �--+ C V > 'i > C C'Q 7 N Q p_8 O O ul v E Q ul O c > Q L p O N N >, > C L 0 V1 v1 C O O L ul ate-+ N 0 Q O 4--+ �--� 4--+ (0 -a ciU O }' N V1 Qu vl v1 V - N Q) 4- C Q Q o N � N v O r > N N N a--+ C L U,C C 0 O } N r6 N a-- M N V N i >, V1v1 N r6 v OC O -6 O i U 4.1Q O 4.1 � C O N C •N 4--+ V1 C C O V 'O O O �, Q W C > � �""' C N C 4--+ V N ro C O L V '7 Q O r- NC N p u :L' N O= C Q r--+ 1Ui1 4.1O N N 4--+ 4--+ }' L i N Q� - Z3 4.1 C E L Q) V1 N N E E O N O C X r bp N � Ou > c > •N v C �O O v -0 OU = -0 4- ,--� C V bA � C �p 'E c � V d .- O O L � 5 N V � C C D O i Q O N rp O E E c Q) V O C U') c -0 >, O Q V q O O C O > N a � � O Q) w Q > N N 1Li1 d N V OV •C rp m O C N O oN C 41 C C —( NN C -' 4- > O 4-1 N O N O v > p N te- C No O i U1 4A 4_ LA NN O� }, C N v1 bC--O N O Q N= U 4' N N b0 V L O L O b.0 C V7 V1 a - a C •N — v N C D_0 b.0 U N 1�i1 b0 V O - +-+ LA r--+ — -+ ro X C •Q L b.0 N CF— c M v1 C cp L �+ (o N }' N C O Vl O bA U i � In •C Q V7 v N V N in u N N ro b C:(o > L/) N +� — L 4- N N N 4+ ro -0 V C Q 4--' � .- C C O a� C N .� v1 > N C N b0 X vi r� a� Q r6 4 v 0 N O N L V 'i C ro v� ro b0 C J O M O �0 0 D L� V ~ N O ul-0� '� Q a V OV C � (� N C O Q O N C >, O C i OQro i 4, c V V L 4- O N C N Q C C O O O C y N p 0 C .� N O C a- Ul N •i Q O m L U V -0 m V -0L V7ON — >O- N C > i V +_ 4-O C N 4--4J C O L i '� N b.0 N C .m b.0 O C) Y �, o O C O V 4- N C C O O L i p C ro O a — y C r N W Q 4, N > N C O U p v p N N M N L b0 4" i N N O N V Q C+ O a N v1 O r- —C) O V i >, r--+ 4J V c Q r+ Q C LA 0- N N u N b.0 N v N Q E O m ate--+ L r� F O l O C 4- N U -0 to -0 O O N v C N C p C 'i > O U1 N - 7 N O N w C > m+ O LA v1 + N N C V 4- b0 Q = > N vt N �O N O 3: A O= � O 4- O C O (o O N O Q (oN (o 0 (A Q) 0 OC — 4- N ro O N O C ru Q 'N O- N �, N C O N '� N ro bC-0 C •� L N E C •� O L V O V1 fl E� v1 O Q � O C S U C O Q O Q VO C V U '> >, — N N .0 - OQ Q b0 L N N C� C C C rte-+ vl O Q) v_ v1 � Q O N L p V Q p V C E V 0- v> m— v C-0 Q v1 L N L ro V) C V V O N S v 4-7 v v O C v 4-V r--+ 4--' f6 N ,C V) b 0 ate-+ V) I C + C C) N — C N C N UN O -0w N VO '� M i L/) C N = § M NO '> ��I p N +� o Q) = in L N L co 4 (7)i O U v .O N 2O X >, = N= v M + L 4- � 4- _ U Uq Uq 4 'C)-_ Uq � �_ v O v Q v u M W W= O M L C V C i I O N - c0- C L 4-O r N O 0 N v N )n p v ro N N O wN in � N N 0 O ro C O QJ v V C 4 O_ 'L 0 p L — C a' c ca )n to N 'E C a +�-+ J O_ u l.7 co ro N N — Q) N >, 4- O 4 Q) in N 4+ N V) u Q bA C .O O —> ro w O N �_ to Q 3 C Q r--� D N L C om— C O p O ro O Q) L X O U 4- C O - N O V v ." > v 2 N Q Q) Y a = u > v C N C Op V U > ro v _.N� L 0 ia- V) vpn Q O bA V ( Q Q = Z� c- N O D Q= rul 4 - p O_ V } w Q C U U Q) 4-, i- v V) N CO E O N N u •�_ O } (oN pU N v IQ Q 4- 4' Lfj + iv bA tLo — m i > N O p i L Q)} N L N i N V7 W N bA N w D >, N Q } V C p� v L Q N v v c C ro ro )nN 0_ N L L O_ 4+ bA i bA L L O O U .i _ C) uN N v N ro C V) rV U M__ ON m m ' ut O ro L ro V) in Y Y Y O— O 4- ii o� ro in v O .� O .� O N r6 .� r6 .� Q CI ci= CD- MN N_0 O> O O b0 r6 M O_ O > O O 4- L O U Q L — VN) 4N-+ bA rte+ ��+ ��+ N C C In O0 Q V V bA �I O v `u Q v `� o u m u u D O O 06 a Z3>> o >I ) C)N :EOV) O_ r0 i L Q d V)>> Q) � L N Q) — ut r6 L O 4--N O N 4-bA O N bA O N N V) CO Q) O Q) L V N C N-0 V D O' Z3 D � �0 N a Q ro b00 ate-+ r ro V Ol C Q) V r6 V) L O � -0V gp ru� V) O c ro_ O ro 'i L p L O C ro C C Vi C N V) a) cn V) >, > 4� v r V to N U N M C •a0 � C ro + v b0 L L Q) i ro N r0 r6 CO ro > N +, C O _ L Ln v 0- Q) ro V V) C 4- N r""' N U = N � p O Q) r0 bA ro v r--+ C F O i i Q V Q) �' O 41 In 7 ON N C ro .N CO v to fl- O L N C C vi V) O C •� C X O +, V L p C N Q O C U d V) C .- — N � Q) co N r--+ Q) O_ O Q) vpi N O_ V) C ) j V) �' O ro V C> C o (o c Y= r� v o �, v p Q+� � Q' v v v �+ ro O L i V Ol N U N 4+ ro 4- C E ul y °�' v +�4. fYl v n ro iZ ,Q C C V JL' N >� m ul ) U > .� M V N Q) = �> N N O_ Q > U L i Vi C '- > ro O > j O O 4' C p •L O > O_ r6 O_ O V -0L C i 4- r--+ O r--+ c ro C_0 i C L O- N Q N O a O ro v V) Q L N C N p N M M Fa C p O v 0 O u C)bA 4 c O V1 O N L 4- C C C p_ L-0 c -C v 'a 6j QJ 0 C W O (o E � O V N CDL N N D ro Q v ro ,+6 V � O\ O ro + i r6 ut Y O i = Q) N N O Ol N C N _� N L r r6 V N M C N ra N N L Q i r� ro ro ro >, °C p� vl Q) L O 4-1 p N E - •O O Q vl) ul O_ O v p C .4- �O N C= -L' = ro N Q) C ro -0 in N C C O 4- 4.1�' ro r d 4-+ p C= O p V 4 N M u-0 N Q) p r6 O_ +-+ C O V M U N ro p M u O C r6 O 'L O L i O U N L N U 4J C C V V) C .� N V O_ rOo N V) O N O J- O O_ C in Q) V ) �_ N� ro N C r L V1 ro = N L C ro O C m Q O V L a--+ 4+ C r6 ro to C 0 L O_ i Q Introduction to the subject site U > 4- �v v 4 4- 0 in C C W Q) Q) +- c Q) v v� y V V1 C Y O += Cy U �v C O m Ln Q r N N � 4- - U1 C N N N N D Z3 0' 0' m r- IZI- m4- �D i O N = Q O 0- .4- CJ- 4- 4 - 3 N � •� N N � L Q V — N V + -0 O Z3 D 0 N 42 4, -0 N O 0 V a--+ O_ N M O C)- 0 O i 4- 0 - ml V7 2) 4, X C w 4- 0-- X --+O_X O °J v O > \ � N � � � V � � N O N C N O � +� J 4- :L � V7 > E N \ > In O O_ 4- N � N O E w t O LE Q WO. cx (I'),- WQz L- ai ro 3 m V W V o vv.. nn w,i L � f ^ V ! 0 C Q L C L2 Y L Q L V] 0 +-+ C6 C Q C Q r 3a- N r V / U 7 © j Q) i n y C 4 � m eI7 V) + C f6 L; b.0 47 ❑ � T] Y Q Cl) L ❑ ❑ L V `I i7i {-1 CL v 7 0 L V a E u Q v LA a 0 U L C au 4—J Ln a F- F- u L S1 CL .0 o a 4) " f6 C � ¢ O Q CL `u 0 V _❑ 0- +o Q i a J a--+ o o I_- D CL Q � +, C v +j + V) - fQ u C- ❑ bA E O C� G J C °' J v7 0 v ,� p ai +1 U5 p �¢ 0- 0 .- CL N +� C wit V a 4 ' � N _ L.1 r6 +- O m f6 D cr C f6 L 3 0 V1 Qui D1 V] c CY 4- V 1-+ L- 73 3 =) 0 � U -0 -0 cu u 0 Q1 V) u Vl a� a� �v Q CL d 0 m as C 0 f6 V 0 J C) ,A -0 r- v 4+ 7 M cr 0r CA C C C rG E: o vv.. nn w,i L 0 C Q L C L2 Y L Q L V] +-+ C6 C Q C Q N U 7 p-0 m OJ 4 v cz V) + C f6 C i7 ❑ .A-, u 4 L ❑ Z) +-J V ❑ 4- U 7 0 L V 42 L Q v a 0 L C •� Q L � V C) L S1 CL C V C (D❑ 7 4) " f6 C NE C CL ❑ V)i LU _❑ 0- +o Q i (v Y L 0 u m +� [UCL I_- D CL Q � +, C v D a + V) v � v 0 C- ❑ u , E (V L V} Q1 V) Ln 73 M 0 > C °' -a v7 0 v ,� p ai +1 U5 p �¢ 0- 0 .- CL N +� C wit V a 4 ' � qui Qj _ L.1 r6 +- O m f6 D cr ❑ SSS C V) V) +J F6 t6 C E 0 > 0 L V V OJ Q a,p C cu rL m E ru o Q � o cp 0 ='Ln -C ¢ ¢ F - ,A -0 r- v 4+ 7 M cr 0r CA C C C rG E: Introduction to the subject site O O T O 7 N U � m c6 N O O cV H 7 N (6 lU � 7 LTJ I.l Ot \ \ 2 2 o e § / 9 Q) « a ® �� e 3 c o• ƒ / f / /4- / L / m $$ .a e2 2 c 4 0 0° O � / G q t / / 0 \ />� 4- ®9 0 \ / � a ) o / E > - < \ ) yj / / y = 2 I t /�/ f / � /\/ / U,\ © o@ g ® / / f° \/ e /ey C ° o n / > •- 4-J D* \ / t 4_ 2 ± ƒ ) a / 2 D / $/\ ) o 0/-0 c* 0 2 3 c a » o \ / a § / - y \ o% / 2 0 / 0 \ 40 14- 'i 9 e ' / \ / \ ƒ 2 / \ 06/ ) 3 c: 3 a u o y C-0/ƒ 4- c a/ g / ^ 2 y \ / � o ° 3 \ « c $ Lf) \ ƒ / \ ( > t CL / / / / \ / \ � » § \ y U t G o f U y t y % y / E o �\ y z 0 2 @ E z o 2 y \ 0 e \ E y $ E 6\ / E o J4 a o MG V) c e 2% - L � ° / / \ / 2 ƒ 3 0 Lf) ^ / / 2 \ / \ / \ / / / \ \ / N o 2 2 0 2 8£ 7# o=ƒƒ \\/ N f§/ f G\ ƒ o%/ f f# 3ƒ/ Introduction to the subject site - N N bio aJ ro Ul � � L U -0 7 C L �6 U -0 U C � a✓ U � C C r6 N i N � Cr5 o C O LJ C 7 Qjrl U Qj LnL N O 7 Ln v1 Ln N m QJ QJ + Ln O �i On N N QJ Cr O 0) O 'T O m M U Qj i ,J Ln Qj Q i 0 LI .0 Q V -a > > N L O > V 4J N tp v O N N O Y v Q > N O Q� 4+ Ul 4J Q O j 0 -0 C O � U C M r--+ C X U m4 O > N E �--+ > v" L C 4' v E E 4- � D U 4+ i 4- 4-N N QO O UNNq C O p CA LA Q-0 Ul O 4 U1 M OLN C v > j N Q CJ C -0 i ObA p N 4 4- !1N D - N > >Nv `� OO O C +- �C U 4- NQ vO O N>`4- > V LLn ceicL46J+ 4 N -0N O N > - C OV C C C O N Op C J N Ul O�, N N N N bA C V1 N — L_0 C N N L O N Q 4- C L °� ° o CL m v 4J Q .0 X m N Ul o C L 4 _+ V E -0 N C m - N i� �, N }, N N O_ C > O N 4, N N C O to N L i� bA C C p L N LA N > O Q O V = - V C C Q 4- V LA U C N w O U O O c v +'> 'C — '� QJ L 4- V) C �J N � L r--+ Q L U N C 4J GJ L L p > Q C L bA -C Ul O U O_ GJ V Q .� M i CJ U N U C C Ol C C L 4J N C 4J �+ -0 O U U M N te Q) 0 QC to v 00 m N M iN_C O U Ul O O a - 4� N O N — Q m C vi C � a N -C a- a - Q - G1 U C C O C O JCp O �,V a- r- C C a - (A V Q) —i -C QC N L + V N V M v v v Q p > i QJ v N '� V N O E T.- N L to i N L N r6 � O ate'-+ C� ate--+ N >� (A QJ L >' i }; O Q� m �6 O L �, � O O O (A 1 Lv1 � - N N bio aJ ro Ul � � L U -0 7 C L �6 U -0 U C � a✓ U � C C r6 N i N � Cr5 o C O LJ C 7 Qjrl U Qj LnL N O 7 Ln v1 Ln N m QJ QJ + Ln O �i On N N QJ Cr O 0) O 'T O m M U Qj i ,J Ln Qj Q i 0 LI .0 Q O O v O O O c V � O L V1 L i Q V> .N N 4-- vl b.0 (0 Q 4- Q) c N v v N Q O Qj V Vl >' Q 4--+ (oC bCA � 0 in C O N L V (o i O O>> > V) O 4C- V 4---+ L N _0 N � N tj � C p 0 Q D N �' C C G- = = N C Q V a--� r--+ V N � N 4, L C N (� N V V i (6 -0 CL Q -0> v O O C '- N C M-_ N 4-�' V M (J N Q 00 N N V) N C C C 4J V7 tj z3 N C� Q' in N ro 4-+ D Z3O rte-+ a--+ QJ C j Q' V N N 4- O O N vl N 0 N C O � i> ro O >, W C Q V Ol N -0 C C a O > p p 4--+ co -,t N � N u c— Q O N p >i �6 i O V >, Q O N L M V1 �6 V r- N 0 C V N N 0O L p i V i N V) N N 4--+ � N 4 -+ N L Q E ) N V � vl L - 0 4J v i O V1 V1 V C C �' _ �+ +� O Ln Ln C O - O O O > O O O O - 4 0 p � ro N -0 C p :--' O 3:C �O N r6 N 0 bA N ND CN N V= 0� O N 0 C UO y O N bio C U1 4-J.� N V � bio N V) v j--+ i N -a C 0 NN N C Q vl vl C (� O > N > N N 3:41N O N C V) ~ O Q > N a-+ vl N N C O' N S bA N V1 N -0O N> L bA � C -Y QJ i M = C 4- b.0 w a C ) L V L C C �, 4--+ C o = C C 4- .X M '� C N N4- ,, o -� 4' O .- O Q) -0 V) � L bA O C N 0 00 � C > �Q, Q) O 0 C 4J > E v v+ -+i v N E >> O (p L V bA L C N L N m N ( a � 0 L U 42 m= �� Introduction to the subject site aJ O 7 In p Q QJ O L/1 Ln Q Q Cr ra Ln O Q Q O Q L 0 L Qj � L O U ro �"� U L � � L Q) Q � Ln QJ O N m U U L Ln QJ O Ll `� U bio -0 O O C) C u C i U 4J L% 4-i N O Cr bio= C J .ra 7D N �6 In m N UO �--' 4-i O X O N L/1 N O N u bA CJ C r C N Q v N n I 4J Cr Q V Ol N 4J t5 H L i QJ N L Q O E Q Lri O bQj A ra 7 O QJ i..- c = m i - v Q) 4- O Q v Q) Q) Q) � v o O x bA v c � ro c Q v Q) Q) Q� N i L � O U V) N i O L i O Q) i .— bA O i� O bio C O O v v u u u bio c r6 L � u U u v Z3 U Ln v � c � O -' 7 UI J b1J , C (A 7 7 d bio V) C � X N N 4J L i O � O Ln bo v v bO y 0 .Lap - nLn ti 0 0 rn 0 c� N c6 Introduction to the subject site an c O O v Q) U U L U bioC O i N C)- 0 O C) - Q) N L c C) U C) t O N N U') > U u 7 L U E O 4J 7 Z3 bA U- On 2 QJ by i..- v Q) c QJ C) D Cr O TD QJC E Q v U v u t v D O Ln N > E O i Ln N v O bA O U-- C Q) N N i Ln Ln C N N 7 a �J Q) Ln Q� O u Q) Q� U v Q) E E E O O U LnLn Q) v U m w rB � O O � O 0 O 3 v v v, v c w i- N RE m \1 v u u v 0 v t O v O a,o c O O v v +I N L u t u 4- 0 3 v 0 41 41 L N � u U L L u a,o c 0 u u L 7 L U V) N L C u V m V) N u � v 0 o 3: v Q) > E O Ln m m v QJ bZ bA O LL 0 Research and Analysis un .Ul > W U L LO a) Of L U /m W C) N -0L-0 r--' -0 O N N N vl o C Co C v C C C S 4-C 4- M L v O x D v 4-C M C O E v v, o v — O V D C O o CDL E LL E 7 o °—}' o O E '� v L _ C v v C ao L Lro 4- LU v M z ° O� v O O N c i�} CO> 00 Lu Na - o V o_ Ln O +-� i °= O=3: ro Vi C V) ro N ,- UN O =bjo -0 __ oNLnV w Z V O C Lq o l7 Lnc v o E 0 O 0 `� N o V) v E •- ° V, C C _ N 4J y '� J C u �' .� V N N u O N V1 Q O > ul N C v C N C ,NQ Ci 3: o- L v C o>� 4- ro >, 0 O Ln � C Ci u in v L � C o L/)om C O C C v ° E >, _ C > ao E °J ao v V v C o 4- O C o v L v o M O c 0 O_ L v c V) �' " v O O V O M i N N L vOi O Q) `o l7 C V O 'C O E O i >, N >, E N 4 i - O N j N Ln -a O L O_ O_ ro N C a--+ O C - N N C C c6 C N V i V) C C i O_ V7 N N +� L— ro N N M �N to OEE i � y �M NE� �iGo O = N> —V,> C Qz 0> 4-- v M N oO ° �0O � OO 0 O —, oO bV (u ,- ,- O- Q v (o O 0- o rirooVN V) V) V) C Z3 '=�C0 Ln o C E o o �i o E O C v° d v V) O ro ao ,� V O ,n v v C ro .� vru E v E ro =,00 ~ E O 20 u Z3 V v C V (o E r, 4' v C 0 O Z3 in C= � E oo x= � v v� ro N -0 Fu -0 >, u v� L V)C L x C 4- 4-1>, u C v N C V C M > C a0 O� n ro i ° v v >, . v ' D •L ro L ro C 4 +, U 0 L� v�� Sao n J Q v� C � �' 4-o .� v v M '" L o E o M Y o o Q v �, o 'w m v L C C v= ro >= O ,� ro O i a v= Q° D V) v= O >, }— ao oo C Q) L ry0 NL N >+ (o 1 O N VO O }-0 b-0 O NC tOi N u C (/) C � C C C O CY i rf),-o V N wo N E m v rn v v o o M -0=b0 �, O O v E V �, o>_0 E C 0 °,�' C ro in Q M u V) O o 0 C i N O i v o a v MC v, E o- v v tLo 4- Ul v 4' V) 4-Oo O O _- v o E Z3 C O L v� L vi x v O C v Q Q)L C ro u 00 C Q ro u 4- m o -a O L ro ° v M ro - v o 4- 4- ro 0 E V o o .� Ul N C ro C 4 v E E L v L v u 0 m ro o `o C v v o-0 Vi O C 4' O Q U Ln ro v v C ( Y ro in v= v Z3 VC eo Q) O 0 v 'ro -0 r- � Vi C ro C C E V O o v o ao M •rL-° O o m E >, r—o .c o ro x( o C 4 Q v L v� v �, +- v O 0 L v c� L in v o ro41 Q) L,J O C �= i v= L O >, (o O v C C E � V) C �0 0 0 0 0 4- in N i �, N N r6 N O a--+ O_ i N O U MM r0 C V) O C N N i L o Q O �, L i m (/)r V a✓ > 0 v v �, o in v M� ro Z3 :L, ro v E = ,- ro C C C V O = .� E �n Q Ln — 3:Q ao o M Y Z = ,- F-- .0 3:§ D ro -se V1 C i - �s�ar - -- • =rater � � c O_0 V ° u E r o 0 a--+ A0-• - ° N Z3 bb a c o Q o 0 L � o u Q) v ,.- � m o Q) -0 rp E u ° U -0 v �o N J QJ _ U 00 ZT m °° U� ru O Y 7 Q 3 N Y L 1� m N v Ln U L C r6 v -0 O U i y -Ln(1) u N bjo 00 i E (L)— 44w r v > E — � V E wi' ... � y a--� V) ru U Q) O U) N bA U - z .r3 � U ° o c* v � E E v iM- a� ''r Y N _ C y L CL) cu T' #" �� i 4" - • O 4� \\U f / Y N' v v E !, Uo v 4 4b F 00 c c 00 Y ru w .� N c O ° r6 y C L x N v 0 y ° a -E v v E '- v V) - x v b v O0 � N Q v 0- E ° tjo Q) 7 QJ 00 Research and Analysis N M C _0 v aj Q) D u Cr O � m O N O N Z to U) C)- 0 O aJ L 2 O O C O u '� i ro Z3 Z O V Z m O u u Qj -0 � Ln C u •� QJ Vu N QJ _0 v Ln O L +L L 0 Qi O aJ c 7 L U I O V) L Ln u 06 0 O v v aJ 7 aJ v bA i i L/) i -0 Lk-- r--' `� aJ C L C - aJ aJ in -0 `e N - L C M4- pvi O Ca O .4-1 O O� p N aJ Q C �*FF+vi O� 4- r--Q V � N 4- 0 QJ aJ JN V n O NE C ro aJ i C OaJ_ 4 C 4 O Q LaVC Q aJ oO LI) -0�4-N—� dL Q L > O a-1 O4 - D OO C VC aJ + Q 'N OQ O N �O m O- n aJ n al 4 >� -0 ro a V E= Q V C r- aM-- 4.1 = �>O m00 a" C 4LL-1 Q Q O aJ •�, U~iQvnl O i U1 C � O l0 aJ '� l— C O Q Q C aJ Q O Q Q 4 C O CJ Q �— Q 'L C O Q 4.1O Ln >, Q 4- in L in Q U in >, 4-+0 Q Q cyC J Q- V1 v L Q d b0 aJ C Q Q r6 aC-+ T C O Q O aJ Q 4 .� C L O � Q O O V DD C 0 Q O L u V Q M C Cb0 C N a C u N� Q_ � � r� � Q � O� E M 00 to to Q C i Q Q aJ N C +-+ C aJ Q C 4C-+ 00 Q� O C C Q O ru C C OC ~ 000 E A L L Q V L ((/X C V O(o> 7 M L m Q i L vi aJ i i o r- U1 N r--+ O 2 a�J a .� o Q" -0 O V= aJ N N 4- Q +, +� O aJ = +, O O D C ao L Q O � .� = � (o O >, +, Q v Q C O (o O _ Z3 4- C r--+ L 00 Q � C o O v C V i- L Q 0 — Q v � U O� N C E p aJ Q L u u Q Q m a"' E O_ Q L00 V O Q .0 v = te a Q 42 00 C Q) = C �O oo oo C +, Q 2 C Q Q in C O v O 4- O v .� > V7 Q V U1 r V7 •> L C Q C N Q Q j M V O N aJ aJ V- v O Q O C Ul — O N Q N O ( i u N U1 C L a) q -- N Q Q >, 4- a � O V) N O C � 'L O > iii Q (a) 4-+ b0 (.0 Oi _0 — i - in C O 4-1 in a�J O N ro Q L A N .� C C O 'L Q bA Q N O o N Q '0 Q 4O � Q 4- vNi (o 4- > o> e -o r O Q J 0-0 4 O_ ru m O+ LI: -0 O_ in ro Q ti d� 4--E iy):� Y /�5KL I L v bD v 2 v v u ± =wam ra = a n = 2 3 § c0 \ / u u } m w n = _ Dol t \ # a = ou uu 2/ LnT, u = � G \ § u t 7 t § = 7 k 3 » / ( / j rn o _ \ Ln \ °2\Vt g=/»� u M e U � 4-; E $ >k { \ > ± u 5 df 0) 2 J -t 2 J -u � _ ® � _0 0- \ \ § g Z3 / 3 > \ E u o = u \ ± 5 % u \ » 3 u ® _ m e a e \ - < _ L e u \ } ƒ 0 { Ln = e g u 6 cr t § u 9 ° § ° _ \Qu/\ e 0 C >*7E\ _ =2. u \ / a �»®&� /in>f/ \/-0-/ r>7/® ± _ ° m 2 \ 6 / = s g ; 2@G\\ / 5 ° £ 0 '4 w2 c _ [s2 £ 0 \ » m syr> . f / �. / 2 S \ \ / \ » y 2 / R \ Ln § w u j \ \ 5 3 Ln a G u ms s %M ƒ0 \_©% ± s % 7 u u = ± g § _ «�=u2 — g � e = Ln rl- O 'IT 0 LO (Y) ¢ 2 n � � )■\ I ■ 2� # � 22� � 2 2■ 3 ± =wam ra = a n = 2 3 § c0 \ / u u } m w n = _ Dol t \ # a = ou uu 2/ LnT, u = � G \ § u t 7 t § = 7 k 3 » / ( / j rn o _ \ Ln \ °2\Vt g=/»� u M e U � 4-; E $ >k { \ > ± u 5 df 0) 2 J -t 2 J -u � _ ® � _0 0- \ \ § g Z3 / 3 > \ E u o = u \ ± 5 % u \ » 3 u ® _ m e a e \ - < _ L e u \ } ƒ 0 { Ln = e g u 6 cr t § u 9 ° § ° _ \Qu/\ e 0 C >*7E\ _ =2. u \ / a �»®&� /in>f/ \/-0-/ r>7/® ± _ ° m 2 \ 6 / = s g ; 2@G\\ / 5 ° £ 0 '4 w2 c _ [s2 £ 0 \ » m syr> . f / �. / 2 S \ \ / \ » y 2 / R \ Ln § w u j \ \ 5 3 Ln a G u ms s %M ƒ0 \_©% ± s % 7 u u = ± g § _ «�=u2 — g � e = Ln rl- O 'IT 0 LO (Y) ¢ 2 n � r >, Q) L/)>, 4- � ° - ° c v O O c= _ o E o N v a V �_+ LA � i N r--+ U ,v i , .- E V1 m •L v V •� Y Y >> QJ L OO� 4-- V 4, O O c6 QJ 04- LA QJ N QJ O N> LA N U O Q) D V C N O O •E L •- O QJ N O c(L) V LA O- O L L bA c O O-0 QJ ru Ou C r--+ Y b-0 O U >i L � QJ Q -0 n aN C �O �I mZJ Ci m V U V 4-N a--+ Q r--+ C r6 ro Q) L a- ru QJ ro 0 I V C Q) N v- O�M O (A _ CD-O �C c iC J=XuC b.0 > � N ro � QQ vi _te O N 4- O 4.1 O QJ 4- M C M ++ - O U O QJ C ro co �' 4-U L �, QJ m L O Q J O C N bA QJ Y} N C N Q v� .� > 4- O W ro U�i ro C Q)bO0 QJ L N NZ ro �+ 'L QJ in Q) N O co — N 4--+ U 41 C N r6 L r6 Q _ f0 = N C --+ N O QJ -O w v w c a--+ N 4--+ O C o -0 .��— O JI = Ui N M O ro +' v DD N v O O rte--+ O bA C=> i M Q) 4-ro C w L O -0 E O_ QJ in r N 'C f0 p Q) bA i O w4- i q � �_ co +� N O 4 -1 N O OD in NZ 0 O = O � Q -0QJ > � -C 0 N bA f6 M in 4 N bA O Q ro C C L 0 (6 N �' V i Q) L bA W C ro �6 r C O Q N QJ C = O i v C L V ro W O QJ in N C 4- tAd0 in O �_ Q) 4 -bo v> > v � Q bU C U -j4- 2 4- L [-- -0O 1 v U Z °o a o o -zz o c o rn .a a° a- a a z a Ln rN 2 a °J a s° a a s o � � -Q Z aN =o a oo vw a o a `L L o a a v o o a a° a o c .� o� a a -C3o' ao �, o - o ° v v by v f c co m o v � � a °�' a0 a° o .� rz a o �0 c LU _ s ^ °' � a a '� o o a Ln Qj Q oj o- Ln a o� a = o a tn tn >Qj of ao a a °' m o 0 , 0 ° Q a � v° a a o a �_° w 00 V �, v q) ?z r*, a s v, � Qj a s a E- U o� o a -C L N a S N- 00 Z a ° Z .� •� � z a C3 o +- c o a° a m o �, V7 W N Q o U L,)w o ._ v Q .bo � a v Lnkz q)a >= °' L') a a a C7)ro vrN i i o v •� i L c v p o +� i p i vQj Q) L s m s ,� �, o� a o O 00 s LU a Q !- �, �, s a a o) v vai ° 7 0' bA in in i� N u C tjt i V �U Y > O v l- O L Q V U4- m L�-v v > cp L -0O 4--' >, i N M V N i O 00 d0 N 4 DN N aC V C r N N N N V O N � 4- +' Q Q C Ol O N W M L L In W O E CY) N +- M 00 O v-0 C > 4- L C U1 V v .� Q a O L O_ V N Q -i N 00 00 a--' C L N a--+ C 4--+ N 4-C t N aC CLA ) � 0 zll a ' N Q C J a� N O O_ y NLA N N a� N O v 41 C b.0 N >, N M a--+ L C a N -0(o M O ON r--� N N L N L in O i i Q b0 vi O N v N a--+ V N N C)_ Q) Q V y O C O Q_r6 v N 0 v C >i V 4- i b0 U4-— a--+ In N N Z3 a N O C N ate-+ F- = N M 2 O FZ > ru LN N Research and Analysis N Ln 4-+ u N C1 Ln W i 4- 0 i O N M M 4 - Ln .� M o -0 � 00 4+ O � � L O C6 V V r 4+ 4N C N O D � U ut v � � � N C N a D 00 � v v Vl tj 4.1 4- v Y O N �: C O O Z Q N C V 4 v v O 4- ro _0 O v N -0 V V C O V 0- (A (AN ro -E D ' O Ci V Qj C z _ U N 0 roV +- vi Q O A QJ M roX O > v LU b0 vi C i C Qj O +' 4— i C N p � o � 4- U v v N a abb a L Qj O + o o°J v Z,3 QJ of z 'S v v 4- O a � n O s U s p o E .a °LJ � Q, v a � M V1 Ln -zz 0_J �Qj O � of of v Ln a s a L Z •� O L U v Ln N v `ti a .a0 o -C3 ~ C3 Qj 0 00 Ln Qja 4.1 Q Ln Ln °L o .� Qj v o of _ 7z- Ln � q) N0�J Ln 4- 4--L 4- a --L W o a a Ln ao OJ Q L " OJ �a�o�a a sLn 00 W' C3 "t 4-1 Qjv Z voaJ M a a o Q 00 00 Ui X Q 4J 4J N O > E QJ = L E Qj Q) � U ; U � � O L L � O i UI 00 U�q Q C 7 CO c v i C L U U > O ro U C N C C > ro bA }, 4J m ro v w m ai vul Ln d-� Q Q O ro N '�O 00 N N N m v O .� bA bA � 7 i.i w m N Ln Ov L Qj O + o o°J a Qj OJ QjQjv of L Qj 4- O a � n O s U s p of QJ � Q, o a � M V1 i -zz 0_J O � of of O 00 s a L OJ N ," L U Ln of v `ti a .a0 ~ a Q a Ln 4-3 s U of n v a N0�J Ln a --L W o a �a�o�a 00t��°� Z Q 00 00 Ui X Q 4J 4J N O > E QJ = L E Qj Q) � U ; U � � O L L � O i UI 00 U�q Q C 7 CO c v i C L U U > O ro U C N C C > ro bA }, 4J m ro v w m ai vul Ln d-� Q Q O ro N '�O 00 N N N m v O .� bA bA � 7 i.i w m N i- �1. L 5 u p 3 00 c O u •.;71 N bA N 4J � bA N C O 4J u u r E u L c u m C N Ln Q Q) J O a •u v � bA u � v f6 L> LU � L C L L J N u Q Q) C Z3 Q_ ~ u v Y c Q) v � E u rn u Y N N u bA 0 Ll 2 Ln v ao c .3 0 t 00 61 � v J U_ u a) 7 Y d N L N C 4J U N v u � u i bA O L� Ln Research and Analysis 40 r 0 � � o Ln °J Qi U O � i 7 Q L � U 7 C In N QjN � Ln (A J Ln M N N U N :3 E b10 Q C row -0 Ln ro m m O d Ln O � C � QJ C m -0 LD Ln to J N 4J U O Q L N N C N CY) N Q) L O Y u C 4J i N H N N O 7 C) Cr 7 r- 00 to LLIP - U N Y O > U ti z f6 ol� f •TMJ + � _ o � • _ 4—E bA _ pk� u O N C 9N l ` • . , LL -0 0 H Q u v� Y RS CY) U u 7 00 U i � u U 7 4J C O N O ao (0 = = i O ai N7 2 C U fl Q) O a Z3 � C aJ � u vu LJ 7 7 LZ V) M u U Ln b1� N w C O M U L LL d O E J IL (0 L N u 7D u Q = C ',"•� + N u c v L LA �f re �., p v a Y aJ Uu aJ Yel �.$ Ln 00 V y: 00 L 00 �..' C� X U aJ 4J O i o m O Q 4J in 2 O E U �E) #�y U u t y A v C v F 4J m O N in U i OC Ln Ln r C m C A N f I 4 Ln M D O 'tn O 1F v � N � er ! f6 4J f •TMJ + � _ o � • _ • ^' bA _ -e 00Z3MWi l ` • . , LL -0 (A 5 Q) O I 00 O Ol C) u C 0l N Q) i 7 bA LL f LL rn C) C v O uu bA � C C 0 C Q) u Q) v Ln Q) Ln V) C 7 O O C L O Q) u ro 4; Q) C 0 p u Ln QJ � J C i Q) .0 7 Q) 7 u Cr 0 - Ira I Q) L Q) Q1 i C J v U C) Z3-0 cr0- N i (J) C 6 Q) Q) � L U Q) L Y C Q) U i O C Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines r, N —4 U1 L C r 0- N W N a0 O -p N z NQ N W 4+ N C -+ M N _ to N `6 v C a a Ln o of o v m �n ° O •`j O EF v v a o E CjQ � ao C° s °' 'a ° a v° = O D Q V CtLO ° O CF D a s �o C Q v > Ln° v N N ru -E U c � � °' v 0 C LQj n U vo t a (Li o v� aN oo Q O L 4� v QJ a Z3 a 4 � v Q_Q v, CQ OQ� =•V 4- N ic° -a=x NO N ° O N k 'a r--+ r--+ N4-1 (UO N L Q--0 Qj 0 ao Ln' o q) FU C= Q) 4- bA v O bA •N O L OJ OJ OJ O V . C C V ° o Qj o - c° -C3 Maa Q) U bA o v M v )� -C bz NvC- ° v � °o p• Eov ruo `o r, v v v v Z ao a Z D vQrn It i , Z. C � vip 4- O o t p _ — (0�r CO D +-+ U O ° ii o v t o a L v m m L Z3 Ln v V o v o a v a 'a s a a o� Q� O ru Qj bA C � �o •u E ui N m Ln v te- - O ru •O � 4- 4- ° Q s a o C) ° c a to N m N O O- a OU O- N L/) —} U v v o o >� }wvU U Q C o o Ln v -a L. CL N U O _ 7 O W CJ N a s bO a QJ ,n v v4- •; f0 N cp N b-0` 4- q) q) C by ao v v ° a a v a o in v C v> v ru •� A ar v �— QC) nN0 N C aQi •Cj O U Ul ch ° � Q) L ru LO� N- F: _ rnp L/) C O D �O 4b - (0 (L Ln l laO -t:3 4-4� V L L N !n r !n C C C ru J > 7 7 = T N 4�— U O -aV C in v N v 4-N C O u O in D O-_0 U in in (U v C O i N N N in (6 U L -0 -0 4- M > C N � f6 Vl 41 � U U Q N i (0 4C-+ C OU mO O N L O 2 n L (Li a O_ r C CI OV Q= Q O O � iro J r V C U I V z 7 C 4 ro N O F- O_ N C N U ro Q FU O ru �I C mr--' = V v N4- C J I r1'[ QO Q 0 ro FU 0 D U O a v) L O — v > U N O_ 0 v E CDL U O U te. li- C O C U j— L O V V7 Q w C C C =O > 4--+ 'tn O O U C N C +, _ O O c)- N 0 ro o V i P1 /� 4-1 v Y 0 4 v Q)> � V 4-> '� ° Q N N O v> O_ N p Y 0 0 0_ � i SVT C 0 0 0_ L ML i N Q M N O0 L L 7 VI r, N ti 0 4- 0 ('7 N ('7 O) :Z- oo N � o 0 4 ti Ismcc,na o = c �� c 3o w� 7YOd C7 C7 L7�� N '3a e = cc O x m ! 1. p � 'c ❑ o o 3 a I 7 - e ac � m oa '� � C a Y w U O ` COS f m c ... c r� - _ Em _. Q o U O a acCP T.O N a� �n9 v � M p Y' ❑ d. o O A .O_. N Q � C co g NO �ry U o o m > N N 4g N O 7 O i N � ii � CC C N N Ln v ci ao (A � L v v v4-1 L c v NLn J 4.1 N N O O j O O cp OLn N O GO v r° t0/1 L- in Q O� O N Q o., m oj O u iii O = M v 4-' O N E Z3 c O vV (n O N .Q a Ln v O Q v �O Q O l7 N O V O aQ O L, E Q GJ O 0 C a N ro N i O Q (A OJ N Q N V1 O l7 mozv O uN NO_E LI) qj Q 00 vi � O 2 ° v °sQ O o o v oN v ro Q.v o v :� -0 v N4- o i y u in O_ Q� in O_ U 6 O O O_ O O 0 l7 � N O L N N I� L O L a4 ~ O l7 O N (A GOnj O U1 V N N O O O Q .0 >, O C N U ON o�- N i o i o -0 ao a C) (A o� a °; V L N C N O_ O O N L O N ro ,0 .- O w c O in � V +' v NN �� O �_ 0 u O LO CD- N - ate--' Ln (A O ro N u O Oy a a l7 0 u C: o� (CA) L D N a L O L v w v U U-; `n O L' O C D - — o 0 b 0 (A Z3 O O Lq U w v a+ O L- O c Q v_ N O 0 0 v v O 2r C v U a c v= Q O a N v N a� w w o v U o l7 in 2 0 c N in 4, lD v by D— •c v 0to N O o c m lD N Q y z c)} i L o o C)o 2 c v in in � i `� v v v v v L7 ~ N 0- in •� � a Z U 0 viil7 o 0 o Tm Q a v a Y v _�-0 r°00 a+ v O} V tia o c i U ON QJ a0 0O C C EO mNf'V uu 4 ° �""' o O O WO to 4-1 (A a - aucc c no o LOJ vove c o v o a w •� N •v C t> N S Q O fA D Q V N 00 L L N i U Q m b0 vii O-0 O_ a O a OC .E (A m L7 o N ti 0 4- 0 ('7 N ('7 O) :Z- oo N Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines / § § \ LL l- � 4-E Ck� � CrYc 6K a / \ \ \ E z. � m ) 2 \ � 2C �} /3 ac §) S !■ � - Z/ - .. � / § § \ LL l- � 4-E Ck� � CrYc 6K a / \ \ ! ` w 441 t , fV r `� r� yam'' S �a �� �,# + �" . �'- sJ7� t ,4, ��� i• � v� .5 t N 4C♦ I � c --�+ ,. _ .� � ���ti4- SFJ' ' •'�U+ Q is � All 73o CIO 654 o _0 Q Mm -13 wo w O > Alir3 '' Q r- _dL' _i 410 +b� 44 40p 41to t� 76b It rl- O O LO N C7 (1) c� I Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines QJ O_ U N C D D U M C L QJ U1 U aJ co � D ca U1 >, c QJ Q ca Q u � � co i 7 a+ u m O y C O f0 L G1 Q L O Q1 Q i Ut QJ Ln bA C C QJ �i N C ra Ln C N O QJ � C QNoJ QJ U Q r aJ ru >, O L 2 -0 U U O QJ Vi QJ bio 7D Q � U �_ O E 3 u QJ 0 L L D Q vQJ ° aJ W Qj O C Ln 0 O -0 -0ro E In ro Q U N Q� Q ro QJ L,O N C i 7 O° aJ � W U QJ C O C O- Q O O QJ C LC QJ QJ H w C C w •� - 7 U QJ O 7 O C ut 3: a Ut Q vi - O ro bQ by •�' ut X ut O •ro QJ C E Q) C O QJ wi O Q E c) O C i _ r' C w -0 -0 rru = QJ i 7 Ui C L - r6 a QJ � -0 N OC i, bQ i �, ro QjC QJ QJ • - m C QJ C 'i •M �•Qj O O� -Q -=Q, N�O v u 3: bC-0QJ CD OCQJ Q QJ 7 QJ C N = C � > N r6 +_' L 7 O C Q1 Ut H ut H ut Vl -0 U ro Ut ro Ut Ul bA Q Ut M O U ro U ro C � Q1 i 41 42 Q v 0 U Q U ro rCo Ut ro �..� Q Q C ro C � N U-1•� U O vi Q •� Q) C Q1 E Q ro '� QJ C Ln U .fl- QJ C C bCA +J O r6 C O N ut Z3 =QJ •C Ln CO U .� N •ro Q bQ C C L '� 7 •� C O (p C UI N rp �--� r6 cc iJ U U QJ m C i ° QJ HT1 N bio m U O OU Ln L" QJ Ol O - o C - v ao _ M b. C QJ U -E i in m 7 Z i U-)7 QJ O bio QJ 3:O O ro ro ro U ;J✓ O Un U t U U 0- O O U Ln v Ztj j •� U _ i O O O 7 ro '� 0 O Z LI) vi cz ro U 7 N m QJ � C O v= C i r6 by N O _ •� O d LI)QJ � O ro U C i a OU N O i U C C C O QJ QJ � ro QJ UO � L QJ 7 Ul N i O C 0 C C7 L i O QJ 7 aJ Cr Q> E •i O QJ �' O OU C O Q L bA O QJ Ln O QJ ro Q U v O O W ro O C tail O QJ C C D d +ra wi QJ ro •X QL/IJ OU bi C QJ N u C L Ln 7 p d O7 O bQ i 7 ro bA u t Z m U d r m C a N fl- Ul bQ o ro U •,_ O C - C ro !E O roN Ln Qi Uri O ro O Q' L 7 N '� Q U .0 C C 3 C E u ao Qi 'E v v m C X m r,° Ln O ro Q O aJ O E a E U E C w -0 °U o LO '> - 3: u Ln U; 3: o v O QJ ,� i QJ QJ QJ C 1-M U t- m -0 bQ 1 -0 m Q C QJ QJ Ln QJ U UO bCA C U O �— O a)-0 � .�_ M •� ro O QJ C L N o a, 0 -00 O � o 0 4- C o � v, m bio bQ C C � 'L QJ v U = Z Ut C -0 v= + Ln bA C O N C O L2 0 O O E U C >, O- c) - QJ C QJ Ln QJ Q L O �QJ 0 H O (D C Q C)- ram C- v !E5 - O QJ ro m 7 Q H -o Q - .L Ln U; 3: o v O QJ ,� i QJ QJ QJ C 1-M U t- m -0 bQ 1 -0 m Q C QJ QJ Ln QJ U UO bCA C U O �— O a)-0 � .�_ M •� ro O QJ C L N o a, 0 -00 O � o 0 4- C o � v, m / 2ra_ $ \ J E ° = E c / \ / 5 % 7 ®�e £ 2 / / \ ƒ / / \ ƒ $ § \ \ 2 E % .- 5 \ 2 \ - m \ Q) 2 2 o e t % e t / ( \ 0/ 2's c e \ ƒ \ / / s G % e / \ % E 2 \ z = o 2 ® c ) 0 5 / a § / % M § c E E a & 3 \ G u / / / Q a \ . \ » -0\ / Q \ ƒ o « = o « c e c/ e z 5 E g Q) 7 5 e K/ t / ( 2 g j G / =z3 7 e e 7 / « e o = / % = 5 2 « c o c e=§ a p e s f\ J e M a/ = g= E/ c 2 \ 5 % \ ± / ® t \ 0 / /� . \ } 5 ƒ @ g a s± e c e/\/ 0 c a g g e ( e a 6 5 3@= a \ \ g 7 % E-/ § § * » a a)e 0 / g / 5 a e = = e \ \ k \ / 5 ® k _ G \ E a\/ g/ 0 4 g > e @ s � e / \ ƒ \ 6 \ / 0 \ \ \ Qj \ \ \ \ 5\ 3 0 a -o% 2�\ E 2/ 3 / \ / Ln c \ =07 > 3 a y \/ \ m r c 7 / % % Ln o o -0 = g 0 2 ® s 2 % s ® — (e«2 _ = _ ± ± Q) u c = e Q) -0 E % M \ / 7 = 2 \ \ E G y °\ QJ/ # c § _ E f 'k e« Q) z \ = s % e = = 2 E e /44 5 5 5 rl- O 'IT 0 rl- N q ¢ 2 n � Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines y M 'O bio U V) U C C biob vro C v o U v 'X v > Q' o f6 v a Q) QLn ) v c o C v E C v M�°) v v .a E c- 0 ° o 0_ 3 a E •� Q m U a a o U E v v v QQj MLn m `�° oLn Ln Qj bCA v Q U Q C v °u C a) Q O M L N C O v Q) N O_ ro ro C O �_ •7- ro O E .j E E Q) ro Ln `- p 1 , M i O v fl p C +� L bA -0 N C in Ln O Q X i N C 4J N �' in > C aa) v D U E Q E n D `° Q .O .� = C U-Op C N O U O N N - - ° � L _0C Q v O ° N O +-' C C C — C p 7 L U Q ru O > Ln U o m O 0 C O Ln OU N N � 'Ln O > N ° in O C in Q E O 5 U N in in in Ln N U C N N N Z U p O 7 C O Q — ° E 7 O U N O i .— Ln i Q — CD- C N > CC vii m E bA bvA bA >° C C C° m N N 7 m m E u. N -E -0 F bf� U to U C C i C Ln Ln (6 O U v x v __ > Ln C p � v ro N ? = in QJ OQJ O A bA N v Ln N O Q 1 �_ E �..i C L U N M � '+� ° Ln° 0— V Q E '� Q N O Q L t6 U 4J Q O U ,� O 4J U f0 i C v >� Q Q 7 O bC�D Q O b_p 7 N •U v C U U r�o n C N i� +� C Q i L N C O N N O N m �--� L f6 f0 Ln Qj E Ev v r6 U 4- p L b1J -0 w C in Ln O � �--' X i 4J to C N QJ ° N C ro > O > O Qj Ln > O L bCA ruo C U � U •� Q C C v O v 0 -0 '+' '� in p ro C Q Ln E O +� 7 L — O N O �..� •� C C— C p Q L U Q Hn m N U to H m O vii i O u 'i i _O N X Qj Ln �_ Ln N �' N •� C E ro ° E .i Q O Ln O C o a, v � .� v o Z u v v O = � Q Q Ln c)- �, E Oin n bn E m 'r C^ O O X> p i C UU E N v C C— C ii m m- LO W O L -0 Q N N bA C Q) bf� t Ln Q 00 Q0 00 O QJ C E O > N Q) N rnu Q Ln U � Q U C O U Ln C L m m o a4 v o v ti = ago 4' ao (o `o ago (o C M 4-1 � 'L a0 •L � � ) O v 2 � 2 � O p O � Z3�_ b0 � C vl w N Q- C m N L 0 N NS •gip N N N }' C �--+ O C 2 (6 in L o— o O o v } v L C �� v o O v C +� 4- O O � .�=_ �' o v o V) L p N o O 1— o � 3 m O v 4- (0 v v ° >, p Q O Q Z3 v-0 O v p (A w O W C v,Q v '� •C Q ° o v, N 4- p p- 2 i N N 4-O N N U b0 O— ap L c L v ro C C Vt C .N OS •� Z3� N N -C O C ro p- N U-1 C N ut O o N p in L o O 2N O GQ +' 2 ul w pv 0 O O N L— O E C M v C E � v C N4- N O p `l L v 0N C p N O p ul Fu o o +, O i 4J i o p V L O p> i O y O>, N T O N 2 O c �_ v O C O O � >, in = N C �+ O N N N +� - N in O' N vi vi N N 0-2 Q ul v W ; O v W -0O O_0 N C o LA N v v N v v Q C O C �> 0 _ J 2 v > X L(1 N N Z S to O U> 2 C Z 2 I� � 0 m[-- , bt N U1 w iJ N L p �' L U L ~ U U i � L N O N N2 N 4- N O N i 2 p a E O C N N v a+ N O - V Op o pu o r0 C pLn vi D DO `� ul +, ul Z3 vi vi m L O C w 2 m V O w w Ul � N O 2 v N E v> r-' 4- a i v D N ut i �, 2 2 O} v v O O_ m 2 v Z3 -0 N v C 00 2 L v N Z3 r i N Fu C N U p 2 O U N O N N O p w N in w O u u N '� N �_ 'L > U 2 N ut 4.' '� 4' 4- i C 4.1 r- L p O C O L y p ,i u >, —> N o M cp N N v41 v QJ v G ; O Q L ~ C L b0 p i N C U i t O C U C C 2 m N ul N p 'N 4.1 O U � O_ 4- 2 t in 2 O, u� in ul L X 2 N OU in 'X 4 �, 2 N X O u N O_ N r--+ _ Q N O N +� 2 U ul C in v C .N ul N U p v i v N C N �_ O N ul L O O v v Xi b0 Q 2 � +, �+ ul N r --, O a --, Y � > N vi O b0 m U1 n w L O v C O G1 v O N N W a 2 2_ +- N a--+ -0u O-0 4- o E N N i N ut N r= ul 4--+ 4- m m ul v C i 2 0 O N i N O_ � O O Yv° > M ul O Ua v� v- 7 O O N 2 LA �� O O O O 2 bA N O p •L O -C ut C N GQ .� N Y N C N 2 � 0 0 L � Ul v O i p O v = +� in O i b0 N i 2; O .� L N y N N v 7 c C O O � N a0 v � v 2 O� c Ln (� v 0 p .F `� +' 0 0 0 L E U 2 �+ cp 0 `� +' p 0 G1 +� +� u U +� a+ a+ 2 2 O L v ul N W m N M bA Q .i v Q- p cCL v Q v v GJ Lu O O N N W C woo—MO p - p O N N 2 1 S N N Ln i L p O N O O y L 2 4' O N O C a .N U U L Z N C N O m� .� Z L Z v M Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines Ln m QJ � 4- ° 4- 4 C L QJ r O QJ , C QJ in N QJ N O Qj r--+ U v L QJ C b.0 Q y 'i L •� i M b0 4--+ N QJ QJ 0 N O U1N N 4- O_ L LCL O QJ O r6 +� p +� O U1 Op >,0 0 U v 0 M M in O_ v � 42 MQ O O_ -— O N . u— x L+' QJ� U U ' QJ ON C: 4- �N 4 - -' 0 O F O E p U v C QJO 0-- 4-0 vi M N N p U U p U QJ _ ° EaJ E 'L C Q (0 t Q v > v-bQJ N QJ U o Lp __ O_ m N � QJ — �b0 QJ O_ U ro O Q 0 O v = QJ �o Z3O F QJ F M ~ N N 4- U j D O_ vi QJ — r--' a--+ — (o 4- C O N N N (n :FD O_ U N N N QJ C +-+ C C U QJ 7 OO" U a--+ 4--' QJ i= (n p_ —_ -0b0 QJ �' Z O N C LQJ 'in N ON L O U QJ L U O O a--+ O —> to " r O O N lin O QJ > 4 L- QJ X v w QJ (0 in •E p U N .0 `1 bN0 N N O N •� QJ p- (U L(n M 0 Q O> M U m v U M y b0 N �O > m � QJ N i U1 Qj N= L U .i O QJ �+ �6 rte-+ C C L — N 0 Q N O U o Q 7 U QJ - D U O QJ QJ 4- QJ V N U 1 U M QJ ( C � b0 b0 O� p ci O b0 > U N p O O L p- •N LQj L L N Qj Q tA Q — -- QJ L QJ O QJ QJ U >, " O _ QJ i O QJ N p L p C p U > U O L -0i r--+ U ro m m U L .� N QJ QJ OJ -0 b.0 4- 4' C -0 OJ Lq a ai O O c vv v v aJ V � C3 QJ O j U UnQ O Z3 0 ' Z of ao � i -Q 0 -0 c °O n LLn Ln -2 a NN QJ 0- OJ NU Q U J L _ a U UN O ° O, Q U NOL U 0) z N O U �O L q) Qj a L o 0 � aJ a �, M= U QJ � — M v u a- Q � by C O •O LO a s O O-0 .U CLo � ° a v v 0- U p_ '� N 4- CL.a, Qj o = v M > (Li (ro J Ln vU Qj QJ M M `� QJ L I— O_ -0 i..� z'-� o OJ 0 a 4- c p ro U aJ o o Z 00 4-U L Ol ,x (� ,� QJ v1 a N L p- QJ C of c L ND C c v �, •� C QJ C: W> Vj C� ro 4- L U rz V) Y of N v C U N C QJ O _ •— Q .N _ 4- `a U Qj L Q . U ,J �6 Z U QJ fB QJ QJ L OJ a ° o ° U QJ. N b n aJ U �J a aLnO a 0O Q °'J C ��' m �o Ln L- J 4- M y ^ 4- o s�� 4- V) � Ln Q o Q°v ' Xv v a sv � �'aaO Q Obv ° - Q Oo cU in } QJ U D C QJ v `�'O oJLn Lo v i o�J O 5 O N O a o� in b0 N " C >, o o v N U aJ c c v p Li CL 0 z N U�� Li a Q °° 4- Q U _ E- v = z> ro� _ 'Ln a Ln m L -a z c O v a ,;, c bA c i M v c a ,n v-0 a b°o V)C-0= ._ d U c v= bA.i p c V a c Z3 c L c bA v Y v v c a`o v ° ° ° v bA Q v Ln o c� Q ° c— Q) N N 4, 4- O M p bA ) N O 'L v v V c of +�' Q o •c a Cvno o4N o Z3 4- 4+ p v, v c 4- V) ( - v U( p L a a� bA c X Q 2 a °- v c .N 0,C a '>, v O' c c v ° v o L c V N (o Q) 4 a O L V O bN.O N 0 L °- , = — bA O N M4-+ C L M ice, r--+ L O Q V_ � 'L L .N a s u E 'L �, O v v Q) D a D c b0 o c c v> -0 4- O v r6 bA -Q bA _0-rZ > o c 4- c Q� O C A s v ap Q s N N N pFZ C b�0 bA p N Ul QJ o °' O -0 c v c v c� N o x— v Q v o a Q)m N O '`nul c v v C) 'c c v bA c Z a bA c c L v E n v N _ > Jv o a v 'v — v `� � vi 4- U m v E m --- 4.1 O m E �� c in m ul 4 Lnm ,o bA Z3v O 4- v c 4 v Q v m a a c c �° 4- v° `a v v v v p a Ln QJ 0 c v a b� i °J p 4. V, o z a o� a o p i .� M U Qj OBJ OBJ 4J v1 O Q i N f0 N > pfu 1- QC N -t:3 = N o E '� ao u o) bq v `n a s 0Z5 uvLn c N r� � v ,o o L v a v E E m O C m i p L = bA i N L i., -0 O N C N C N p N _ N bA in V) mN u C C u c° E s a > o �.a 0 `V' V) c o v c a� v N a v = V) V 4- V) c i C ° _ bA V v � V) _ �U Q, >vo -4-- E— (o = v � vv Q) N v QO vpi ~bCo v rco Q) Q L c a v 4� >, n Q a--+ (0 V) Z U (p a N N+ v N C N U 4�Q + V C N bA L M 4--0 ate--' . V S N m- N O N ate--+ C v> Nci Q V1 C V1 p v O N bA L N a N N O I Q I OM Q O Q v C C -) bq C bA N a C O Q v Ln c O �' C 'i N O C N � O C Q N C N V i bA L N 0 7 N O Q z_+ N 4 a Q O N Q Q > Q, v° �_ o a o, v, N a s v, M C v v Z3� v �_ m Z D° ,� °' x v a a� t o D= V 1 4, " v1 s E N N v v= � d� O O � Heritage Planning Policies and Conservation Guidelines u o., v y 'a � N i V_ -ZELI v vC O O OLn0 C 'in O 4- N O C3 O a C Q Fz qj V, o O ao v o a Q C v 0 `n O Q OJ t LA •Z3 Ln .� V) V) . D U +- O `ti OJ v OJ Q ao a o O O C a — Q v L + NLn O_ OJ V C °q' M a OJ � v v v "'Qj 1 p F OV -C3 a 0 'L v) u CLJ CLJ U i OJ V) �_ .0 -C3> OJ C r OJ 4-- L b.0Ln C, a p v .b-0 .�Qj 0 o o o o�42 QJ o o, 'a L U a Z Q v L Q 0 v— ao Ln i OJ 2t, +--' Q t 4- x o �--+ -CZ O U1 � 4' U C v rO O Ln qj qj >� � 'X j b0 OaQ C vQC C O p QC Ln -0 C v C E ov a -°-0 =qj=v ui ° aO Um 4,o V m� Q=U s- v v Vi v �; v, v� v, ao C C a N M U i + � O N ,pi, S Vi Q O C x d N Ln E m o v v V Ln OJ C M N a O� M� ro j V, - C -o bo v '� O a _ Q -o ao — UO 'a UO L OJ + C C pCO m sU> aN0 OEJ 'C ' � v -0 �ao O .- ao b-0 _ LA of i N `ti o. v pLAO V p v O O C a v a M Q-2 Q) U1 C o �, � .� 4-- o> s U Ln U O of N LA bA N ro O_ v v Ln a C3 v bo o C C m Q Ln 4-1 U o� v Q) 4- >< 4- I Qv > >, ¢ > ci 4 v o., S O v v v i Ln o +- O a S Ln C v O Q, v, Ln V w p_ O m L N C U '� s vpi O U m O �, O j o °J L m v i .- L 4J O-0 p p M p o., C Q -Q Ln > O °J 11 v U, m �; m E o v svm —_ �U o � 4 Q a0 v Ln i Ln , L Vii •N v v" O O_ m O 4- ro -0 V tLO L O v O C O L N ro LLC +�' Q b 'a �° v �0 C '� >v o a L � v, w°t ci Ln a ,� o 2v o a v�o� b-0 a O' L, °; v +, i Ln O o ai O aiav C v � Z Q v, C " p N v v, O_ L o L +� 'i o V1 U i 0 C a� Q c° °N' ao o o� v a .� o v +) Q) Q C a� a v 'x ° °J o'., a v, C O v 4- x v >, °' 4 - v, ui Ln z o., v Q V a 2-C3 ao V v >, ao 4- Ln +� u bio :Z- oo m � oj a ° a bp a .� Z5 C3 .a v a °V' v, �, +- 0- a s a v D o —_- �; v L D= i N C v .a a c v O a v a, J v- L C a Q s �" 4 v z a L� Z O O v v U O s v 401o v Q) a v .N ° D v 4- v C o v c v 4q -) Sao a o �� •aZ3 > -o `� '� m 0 - v LI) 0 0 � O� oQ o� v -4-- 4., Q v O ) Q ,- � QJ N Q a v° � °' a a v a� Q— (o a0� Q v a° =' C)� v C Ln v v Q ao a ° 4- o 4-_ o .� c Q)u Q o s O O s° i> v v v N v v C N X s � .N aq in L - i LA a N Q �, ao •� a �o .V M N (A a � v Qj v •� a � OC N vi Q > O a° O a Q v v o �° s a N Co C> v o .i o a a L a ZLn J z o c v i v o Q J o o �; a QJ O (u(o N 4- •� C3 vN 8 ul C ai 4-ooQC o o Q J bio a U -zz q, Ln sa N°' N O --- (Zq°' � ° O N '-- p c: O(Li (a �n z v -Q O O `� -Q S O" O C C (o 'L V N v O M p N i Q- C O — N 4 Qv O O o) s a c O� s v `� M— Z3 = C J v) -Q v7 � Q- A= Q N E O b.0 V :Z- oo m Description of Proposed Development O ' L I N ui to N N W N � N L b0 4--+ Q) r V N 4- --+N v — r6 L N L -0C C1 cc� ate--+ 4- D L Q v a� Ci Q O LU l7 0- N 7 c v L a✓ O z3 LU 0 � - >, N O C C 0 0- L �E D ru O in L - C LA N L r- C2 ru �: Q b0 = L C1 0 N b. w D O v Ci C2 .> N L _ v m > L C 4--' 0 •� O 0 Ov N N O i, v (A Q _ 4 N C M C L N Q � N '� Cal N in O - L 0- L = a - L 4- N i O O C ul C V O O O N N O: LL4 b0Z3C •� ON V)i Z3 O N 4- O N C U7 M -0 M N O C V O .N O C1 Q U Q) O Q) v L N LA 4- O '>4- 0- Q L w bA Lru N O 0- 4- U O -0 O �: N a--� C w 'N •N 4-C a v 0 ru 06 " v NN O ' w vl C Ln LQ O ro C O N O O N � L ru N N N 2 Lfl Lfl 2 vii Ln + •L U r (A atO V � L a1 -0 M x X U')N O 3 Q N N O V M 4--+ V L O V X 4-^ M N V) 4- L C L O O Q m N C 0 M � Cz Q fYl L Q Q 0 L - a>-' i 4--' N (0 '� 0- +- 0 Q) N N L M r--� X m -6 - Q (1 0 N > > O N O O 0 0 C1 N O N D N Z3 O Q � u'1 a CL E O L 4- C " C: b0 bA O C 00 0o N b0 b0 -0N- O •- N } N C C Cal Ln N i N N O � ON C i, N j d N Ln N r6 N } L O 4--+ -0-0� u H � M CL 0L CLO vNi N U Q O N M _ D M O to Ln - v N N N V `C)C E N Q O O O � Q) �C) NO�� L tO C C � N LVC i i i V N U, L OC C L O N N = y ~ O O D M D N . M � O F --Ln to N J m M M m m 00 Z C N N � b0 4--+ Q) r V N 4- --+N v — r6 L N C -0C C1 cc� ate--+ in D L Q v a� Ci Q O LU l7 0- N 7 c v L a✓ z3 LU 0 � - >, N O C C cp �E D ru O in L - C LA N L r- C2 ru �: Q v w v Ci C2 .> N L _ v m Q D N N O L v (A Q _ 4 N C M C Ut O Cal N in O - L 0- L = a - L Q D i O O C ul C V O O O N N U LL4 •� ON V Z3 O N 4- O N C U7 M -0 a--+ - Ul Ut O .N i Q U Q) O Q) v L N LA 4- O '>4- 0- Q Q In N C N 4- U O -0 O �: N a--� C w 'N •N E C _ O N " >, NN O ' w vl C N � b.0 O ro +� X N N � a ru N N N 2 NN �: 2 vii Nt�O N N (6 L N M v — r6 L N O fl- -0C C1 O in D 0 0- 0 O L J L V L ate-+ V 0 4- U 5 U v -0 , -0 -Fu cp �E D N .N c: v in N N v 0 0 N Q = to O a- — C2 L L _ Q 4 W (A (A Q _ v b00 -0 C1 M U O cp O C2 in L L 0- L = b�0 O N 2 C N = v M O v N ate--+ V •� ON V O- bA fYl O Q N E j N O 0- O Q) v L N '>4- N N C N V in -0 O O L L to a--� C N CZ -Z, O N " >, — + O ' ru C N � b.0 O O V C2 L O V � C N (A N N N (A atO V CL L a1 -0 M N 0- N N N r--+ M �6 (� V ru V L V - l j 4--' V O �, N > M C ru N N C C C C � C) -d U 0 N T b0 v Q0 bA r6 N OL C O N 0- L�- ru +, a- � L .N C aO= v N C1 ru to N C a� V - Q E �, Z3 M O O o M v L Ci V L b0 C = O- O C i ru C2 N N N O N .� ru 4-O r.,.- C C C1 O Ln Ln N (u = O _ N L — N O O O L C � ro > v N4- (0 Q � v N VI 4L v i' N M OC C a--+ C E O O O L C2 z N Q C2 O .>' D a✓V v O> Q (Li N N O N O� b0 4� N i C2 '� O V) N N -(-u= (LjO Q)i O O V N .� 4- C Q ate--+ Q 0- C b0 C U O3: OL N Q) O •N v E C1 y L' = O •x OL v O = (-U N µu 4- O z ---------------------------------- f i - 4- 0 v LO (Y) (Y) m (1) a u u u Q, J V, 7 d � m � N O in N QJ 7 V u A � �J O u i V1 Q LU v l7 LU � w an ai u O0 � O L C � QJ QJ E Q •— O in u N E v QJ ai to QJ n O +J n Q ra Q O O V Q ca mCC C d � u � O w cJ o ro — d O v Qf in al v a, � v � Y c Ln Q) L Q) V m cr t QJ m u j u1 O Description of Proposed Development ---- --- - ---- 00 01-0- Ill ---------- ------------------ -------- ------ ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ui m N i 7 by Li- -El1- - El �o — — — — — — — —I — — w — I— — 00 O O 0 O oO 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ui m N i 7 by Li- Description of Proposed Development . . . . . � [—n CE \(z F; F�- .E .[Ed .F .E .F E -O F -D F-71 EL -T] ' S C G G 0 . � E FHF� E Ed Ld � \(z \�_ / \ }\ \RO S C G G 0 7 7:1 E � \ \ Q � ,q- 4-E C� � Co< a) -j O_E ƒ % \ \(z \�_ / \ }\ \RO / / / / a a O O Q O 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ El ❑ 0 } } t ,\} \( ( - §j j{\ : ; §j O O O S O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ \ \ Q � ,q- 4-E C� � Co< a) -j O_E ƒ % \ \(z \�_ / \RO ^O / / \ G` \ ❑ 0 \ \ Q � ,q- 4-E C� � Co< a) -j O_E ƒ % \ i - ti 0 4- 0 rn (Y) •Ed 'Ed 'Ed ❑ Ln ❑n ❑❑ L I ® LL .. o O �o —D 11MWIIWLO t i i r i z �V-' --- �_ - Q o 0 0 A. W� 1 o J Oo 3 L p� —o w �o� o w 0011 zh =o ?U 00 O d0 wJ 00 00 00 �o No U Q (D 0 (D (D W ■ O 10 LII -� tl� "�I t� LJJ L EJ I� I- . 1 o o o 8 0 o L] C L_ 1.-0 L uhf o L O O O O O c ❑L 11114 ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ w I!. E C) N .� •� •� •i L z a QQ a� o > E Qj C) ° '0 U�d �o z(�O zoo QJ Y V ~ o�� g�LL 0 LU w O J NO O t6 -011 0 J o0 00 -uw mOo O 0 0 0 OLU v am om m m m a or m oEl® Y ods o V Mt d V i 7 Ln L Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Strategies / § % 0 2 / / / a / \ ƒ 2 / G / : \ Ul 4- X / 4- 0 ) ƒ e / ƒ / * R 2 / © � / e R § ƒ / / / / ) - a 2 > ± 4- 4- /® § Q) / / / \ o & 0 \ 4-1 y / a z$® - M / ƒ # £ ƒ% z f * )/ƒƒf 9 / /» 4 2 % > # 2 a= o y § e / S / � \ % / » % 2 $ / = / - t y \ 2 £ / \ \ §: ® c 2® k 9 V)° z 6 « o c 2 g » / � / � 7 E 0 ± M\/ � Z3 f fig: 2 / \ ( / ° \ \ ® � ® / / Ci o / t% / § C)- / / ): 0 ul 2 4- \ ) o /- M % \ c E / / \4- \ u \ o y E e@£ e 5 = E 0 9 w / * ) \ / § \ / C « o c t / j/ U°/ j % E k g/ z 0- ± 2 § a o / Ln o 0-/ � ©e 7- y / 2 0 e o 0 e u\ 7 / @ C QJ f/ U a y E/ k 0- 2¥ u/ y$ a e y o# c a» « c � » 4-- g = o c ® %� ® \ \ / k § / a \ * \ / / ƒ \ ƒ \ ƒ / / 7 ) / © � / e R § ƒ / ) \ / a 4- 4- § Q) / / o 0 0 4-1 y f4- a z$® - M / ƒ : £ • G f )/ƒƒf 4 2 $ > # 2 a= o y o e j / � / 2 = / c - t z ) \ \ / \ - §: c 2® 9 V)° z 6 o c « - / � / � / � Z3 f fig: 2�/w � z 2 o g > 7 / 2�� o / t% § C)- 0 2 4- \ ) o M M % d c E k\/ E\ u \ o y E e o/ \\fƒ/y % C z o « / 4- / j/ U°/ j J z $ £ ± 2 § f / �(A- 7- 0\ o e o 0 e u\ C QJ f/ U a y E/ f 2¥ u/ y$ u Q $ t Wƒ {ƒ\ 0 0 / \� e 0- D - t I / ) \_ \ / / G± 0- e %� / L G '- \ O 4--J / \ / J / ƒ \ / \ 5 s \ 5 G %7-3 M 0 4- / g \ / - e 2 0 3 \ §\ 0- 2 § ƒ \ V)� / g e ° £ % y 2 / a / 14-- f § 3 / / t o < G o ° 0 C)- 2 2 $ E @ 2 � / 2 = ƒ E4-1 - \ \ / \ / f 0- / ro a \ ƒ ƒ 0 g 0 9 o l 4.1 / e e o a/ 0� / _ 0 ƒco y a 2 ƒ ®9 » 3 $4-7 Q f E I o a o / u o 2 0 f 2 e f 0 5 \ 0\ C)- f ƒ a / / C)- o- $ Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Strategies L -4-11'r QJ C 0 O L QJ QJ Q > QJ L bA -�,- N -0 QJ 4--+ 4 + V !n O 1n 4--+ C 4- O C C O C— O Ul V Ul 4- 4- O Q b.0 M �, Q � N Ln •X — > a O O_ to C v1 Q N X Off--' .- QJ -CO) O C (0 Q }, V O i Q L L Ul (j V Q+ Z3 M C O_ 4- O 4- C >U1 O O v1 0O -0 C QJ �--' >� C O ro to V uq C -0 to QJ C i Q 4' N C QJ rte-+ O O 4J .� Q QJ QJ — 2 QJ — Q -QQQ C to C pp (Y d bio C 4 vi O > M� - Q vN0 � +- W O M L w w M O't b-0 'i.� O rte4-O C QJ E C o to � .� L L C Q 4 C Q V =� E Q 4 U V O N QJ 4- L _ v OV V In a-' b 0 C Q QJ C C C Q ru O L QJ QJ N C +, +� C O un Q v1 , O_ ro E O -6 - C NO Q Vul CJ Z3 � O- NpQ _ -0 O N C 4 Ci O Ul C O > C = U Ci 0 p a� b0 O� v QJ b0 O Q bUl).0 V1 a= V C 'L p O N O- � C - b.0 Q •C O Q C V O Q � O_ X W Ln C N 41 -0} 4-1 C QJ L 4- O Ul)O _ O >� V �o �--+ QJ QJ C QJ 4-1Q C M QJ QJ 41 V C- QJ M C O- N W O QJ i Q L Q to C +-+ fo - O W QJ Q QJ O- NQQO QJ v +O C CQQJ , 4J t C Q O O 2 OQ o O Cl- _ D o QJ Q->>4- vOO N = 4- Q 7 QJ QO + O to !n z O p +N_ O >> 4 O Q) Q 4-_ QJ �+ QJ QJ L C N QJ V — QJ L C O N O V O C) 4- 4 v V1 Q QJ Oto QJ — +, Q CLO -a -0i O i -0 (u QJ �•+ O C � C 4 -+ O +, V7 L N O V Q Q E v N i O C QJ Q N Q C — Q OCi > Ci E . Q p N p M >, Q�J QJ 4-- 4.1QJ O N ate-, = to > QJ +N, N O_ M -0 O C) +_+ Q_ V -0 Q i D O V O i M Q_ _0 i QJ Q_ +-+ C)Ci V1 10 U') C O QJ to C O O Q r", QJ M b 0 O 0- O 0 O L Q Q O V 'L M O M L W O_ 4-u O_ v QJ Qi QJ C O Q L C .1 Q J O Q L 6 E 0O iQ f6 C � C Ul � v � l W 1/1 4.1 C .� i L N 4- O C .v + O O -FuC LIP C u 'v1 o O v aJ i Q) >, 4.1 a c o"i C Q Q- 0 O N v 6 i- I- 0 0 C7 C7 N �, (/) v v M v v C v v t t' aJ w '- = >, V ao v v p C -F- � C o �+ o i = ° 4- 4, E 0_ v E v 4 v u 0 O O M p o„ V Q p � C N L O ro V 7 O N O > 4_+ m b0 C C i C N .� C O � 4 O � N O OC f0 rl i V) 4+ 4- M C V CQ) N .� O L C O N N C i ro L bA N r--+ r C t� w L C v b0 = � O 4 ' V) D C QJ b.0 C -0> L V) V�1 t v O v M. w.5X V �, L v �, �+ 4, p_ N •v C O C O> O � b -0O M (o N N C 4-Q= u M C N N b0 .� X C C> C= N L!1 Q L N V) > m C 4- N_ L NE Z3 to .1 N > V N C —_ O C N N4-1 QJ Q C ro V) 7 C O 0 .1 4--o O �, i u Qv N Z3 O to N C 0_ N =_ M EV Q O WN� OC 3:N E N ro L — C Ln N -a N C b0 N V O O m> O N C O i, L V aJ in C c d. C (o m y 0_ _0 4--p O C v v Vl L O + C V to N 4 W O N u }' vOi O O C C' -0 C O �+ b0 C 4 C N v > .O i — V N VV) O -a �, C V Q L C QJ V 0 N C N N p— �--+ C 0- Q v V)(o Q O D '� C C C Op- b0 O> b0 O Ul 0 V) O Q) N L Q 4.-, C v v Q a L Q L Q C N V - 4- N 4J L-0 Q N C( 4-+ N p_0 C N O C� N O O4- C Q p L V1 p_ v V O L C O O N 2 z z c6 (o (oz r6 V) z Q m z U V1 w C C N N4J In V) QJ N LI) y oO � N 'i Q N C C 4-C V 4, C 4- C N O X I Q 4- b0 i i C U 00 N v.� m v - N vv p-�°c� o o v 4� N � ro V) O � v 0- i w C— O N O O N N N � O N vi N i C b0 L �, CO N N N N N u '� C M N N N r� > rte--+ > .. E4.1 v r✓ r✓ O D C C to N V O N V O N U C O vii to tA C O N O N C O C p Q v O C O, Q C O O U1 O L C _>_ N o>0 m -0 p O> LU C M r- —>_ � r--+ QJ C C c N o 4- C OL) 4.1 C Q ao C �, r-- C 'L -0 Z3 0 zj 0 r✓ ap V N .0 c m J C p. �, C C C NX N O O L L C N 'N C b0 Vj 0 E N N C vl C N ul N r- N N i L L r- 4 L 0 0 N p ut V) m W to M Lf) 2} C -o u-) N N N0 O V N b 0 L- (U(o Z5 ;w vCi O r� (0 +' v (o c �" .� - v Q- > � C oyi D o o E v H v C +-+ N O V) .� X U O O L QJ ;6 � �; a Q `= L v, v v v ao c v u o v o a v v (oo •�_ a v� O rJ O C O o, ,bo H 7 Z3 r--+ > V V 0 �6 0 ,� V) O C f0 f6 C V N i O +-+ 0 •� aC-+ b.0 ( o v v O u) o Q C i NO c a v o " C)t� a • ' . 4.15 C � i�.� C t-0 .Q .� C V1 f6 ni m O� bo a v F/, I o � o f r✓ Q> I- 0 0 C7 C7 N Impacts Assessment and Mitigation Strategies U 4- 0 N N W ru N L i O V ru 0- 4- u 4--+V N L Ui L N O L 4--+ D V N v N 4- C: C O U . M C b.0 C L N 4--+ Q 5 O (A L N 0- 4- 0 - 4O bA C D O = L 'I -- 4- Q) N E O 0- 0 O O > N � � C N (A N O 42 O E Q N �--+ V -0 ('0 O C_ L � V 4--+ N � � In in N 4- D C'O C N N N (A N v 1 i b.0 � N N V V N � L Q M N N L 4- 0') a O C-O O N W C N N D b0 L N N > — V N a > O C VbA 4- - r- - N � r N a- V w in C N O LA= •� O Z3 j O U') C)- C r--' b0 + O Oul O A 4-� VN > O r6 r6 � bioi N O Q N �+ N C N Oru N � N V 4-O N �+ O O N p bOA N 4--+ �- LA OV f6 C C O N N V i ru O i V N O _ _ >, O N C — > C i a N ru, C O E E V ul v 0 o a a 4.1 a U -)i 'N -a O M j 0 O O O N N O — N L L O O O U vii 0 a) > O 4- O b0 O_ M Ul (U 4- C N V N Z3 N CJ C (� QN N r> N N to N N N C V > E O C E ('0 N N ru O E O S O E ru N �_ •� O N O 4- N N +� } O V O O O !� C L C N a E 4- i N V O C ru r--+ C r--+ C i w N i O Lfj Q ,N N> U C 4, O Q O M b0 N O Ul C O N C O C O W N N +-+ O N _ M b 0 L E QJv E 4 vul ru to N r� N M N C v O in > V t N 4--+ Ln V V L Vru N N N Q N N N O b0 L D M _ V i C _ L U 4+ ru V Q� C 4--+ O Y O N D u b0 N O N N p in N � C i N C C O N O N j N N E C N b0 C .O N > N f0 i N V i V Y N O O 4- N N MW Q V inL r6 r--+ O> O O N O � in : v e r O N N O N [--ru O M W O C Z L M N QJ N N N W CJ i C 0 (Ai V M Q Ol V N N D N O_ U V C vi Ci � '� V ru 07 4--+ V V VI V N N i V N V N o 7 Z3a +� c ° L > ; N .Q .� D N 'E V N C i C- a cru bA in G N N > w 0 v o W aJ O y -L -I-- v C b0 p a C L 4 V Q O a J V4.1 Ul)C V O= N i l0 E r O_ > 4.1 L M U 4- 0 N N W ru N L i O V ru 0- 4- u 4--+V N L Ui L N O L 4--+ D V N v N 4- C: C O U . M C b.0 C L N 4--+ Q 5 O (A L N 0- 4- 0 - 4O bA C D O = L 'I -- 4- Q) N E O 0- 0 O O > N � � C N (A N O 42 O E Q N �--+ V -0 ('0 O C_ L � V 4--+ N � � In in N 4- D C'O C N N N (A N v 1 i b.0 � N N V V N � L Q M N N L 4- 0') a -0 c = o � a°Jo QJ —> Q) C ao > C QJ 4--+ QJ 'L L QJ _Nu :5 bioO O N 4--+ > QJ } C C C QJ ru V) C(o 4- L QJ QJ p E QJ O LLC Q - Q VQJ M 1L= 4' Q omMO >, V+ n N - O O O -O O � COO 4- � Q) O bb . E QJ >-0QJ V O QJ (0 N Q QJ 4--' QJ QJ D O QJ O C O QJ QJ C r--+ C c (a bio � •- C Q QJ >> C v QJ o- X N QJ L a--+ N L L QJ Q M V C ru O QJ (0 O 4 O V) O Q 'L Q) V) C(Li > N V) QJ O L v � bio QJ 0 0 - L C ro O C V) (o p V) (a 0- in v (6 4- V) (0 QJ 4-1 V ' � C � �, C QJ S- r O i N 4-- O -0 QJ a-- - QJ E M Oy O C ut O L Q� v E C p Q� O � (U v 4- O u QJQJ QJ +, o p p Q)O (p V u C N QJ QJro (6 O V4-- (0 0- L•u�t A Q) � V O V V) VQ C a-Cp(6DOV 4 - C�� V) - U V Q O C: c ou O 0 CJ u c E (a s� O C v '`�' vci > C c (0 'L v L (O l0 L V �+ V1 C O N O N (6 QJ > Q Q —_ (0 QJ VV) C V c L O- p S1 y �+ v QJ O L QJ � QJ QJ bA i O V QJ QJ � •L CO c w Q bA dS � S- r--+ v Q N (6 v > V QJ V) � QJ QJ 'L •V OV � C v C QJ (0 LO bA C C (0 Vp) (6 L Q p O>> X E Z3 C OV QJ QJ C V N �N-+ QJ Q O CJ �.- L � -+ > QJ 4 c O M E N QJ :p N= C O .� Q�J — c Ul iSn 0 C o O v O wa; O(64-1 NNN-0 O O 41 Q O E° NO QVV 0 QJ _ V. 0B OV CJ ro Q O O s0 00 a p -0�o a uOQ u O >, L QJ QJ bA L bA -11 S- bA -0 4--' } W QJ L L-0 c V >, D c� S. C C •N C c > U� s c O M V C in E M 4-Q 4- (a V t 4- C u 1= i c E sD O E (6 ii O s C- �O L (n N (a Q V N � N 4-4 c V1 o O 4- Vl �' `� � � L 4 �V+ c QJ ,v L> i -0 QJ S E � QJ O V - NO V OQQJ p � - QJ QJ i O E OV) L Q QJ QJ •O .v l_1 (�< v' >, bA Q � O C a --' C 4.1L QJ y� l L n ) � QJ L QJ QJ V) > v L 4- v O (o O v X v 0� Ln QJ a--+ i • p Qj Vr1,/ Q (6 QJ (6 1 V7 -0 p O (0 QJ -C 1 ul 4- 4-J bA ._ V V) >, (o (0 QJ (0 bA p b.0 OL QJo i `V `� L -jDO�X� 2 �Q� L E v+- v F .L �•� E uCY s �J U V �j `� '� v � i v s= �_ 4- (o .c QJ N 4 ro }' QJ v O o L Ul (0 (0 O l N V a--+ C N �_ Q p E N O N D i 4--+ tLo o C C V) (� C C N C C •L Q> QJ � QJ O 0 i ON L U) 0' V1 O Z3 O (U p ro O- O C O� C S (a QJ § } c QJ N in .� ut C QJ O vCi p v CLO b-0 14--S- bA O O i J 1�/1 Q E E QJ (6 V) 41 L QJ C O QJ C O Q bo (o QJ O r--+ .� � C QJ �--' V) Q (0 V E QJ C m C O Q+ V) QJ L V (p L= QJ p X M V C N Q bA L V) QJ •� bA Q .E N i �J •� In O N 0 Q C V) — bio 6 4 s� V) C NO l L vl > L L Q1 Q •� LL N Q + V) bA SZ .N > QJ O -0 r-+ ro QJ (6 M — bA .(o _ : ~ Q QJ E QJ N QJ �_ O SZ a�O-+ � QJ E > (� D bcA N L •O Q i 4-+ c L= E •(/) QJ Vi r N V)ci QJ S (V6 O V) QJ X QJ QJ O QJ ro c (6 = p c Q 'N l�J Q .� QJ _0L N V •i V E a v = Z3 C QJ :� v> v 1. V L o .c (p a v QJ V) Q Q - < o 1 L CQJ F �, QJ L v QJ C L � QJ L - N Q 0- 14-- Lin- m�4-s0 ,-s0-0 E u E os= Q� v, ti 0 4- 0 LO C7 0 Ln References e t a° 2 y s « y / / / \ / o \ :Ll 0_/ u 2 2 0 y% [ /) 7= e o D o® C) 2 \) • 7> 3 7 o 7 7- 0 4- 4- o% // t 40- / 'E C) f k/ o 0 ƒ O o / 0 // /_/ c y 2 t $ Gc / ( / J \ y u D / [E0/C- \g 3 2 / 2 a) J e t* 2/ U o e± e o e f/ a c e a 2 o a£> > t «§ s t a o \ / § % J 2 2 � Q) c o§// CY ƒ / _c: a# 2« / ) / ' o \ 0 / 6 G 2 / / / - ƒ y o 7 s e o Ul c a y 5 � c %- e e e c/ o/ «- c/ƒ 7 c e Jƒ f[ƒ 2 2 g -/ 9 y U &ƒ \ E t o c 2 0 D \\» / u%/ a/_ e m k E 2/ / y)= « e// e � 0 ° J 2£ 2/ u 2 c e o / 2 E y u/ e E D t a% u E " \/ t V) ƒ / ƒ o u/$ u § o?- y / E° 2 : \ / » « [ / �� / / ' \ g G\% 7 2/ 2// 2 g 2 2° o a 7 £ > \ § \ / / / / m % ) 0 » > > E 2 / 2 £ _ / ƒ / 2 / G / / \ / / / 2 : 2 / / \ 3 ƒ \ ƒ: ° 2 / / / § ± G \ o [ t § e a / / / ® / o > g i e c " � ° § ƒ § ƒ ƒ� ƒ ƒ § ƒ E \ $ \ « / / ° u ? / 4- - ± c- £ / c ° o _ % / / ƒ ) ƒ ƒ c e 3 / / / \ (/) / ( $ \ / / § / 7 D / $ \ ® C / R e a R o e±� a R� E 2 E% o D ul / e ti 0 4- 0 rl- C7 N Ln M O v U vii V O in 4--' V l~il p C + Q) O >, - + = c O QJ b0 b0 (n O O O i N L in V O � QJ u QJ vii p C 4 to O LLA u I N Y O CO vC > O LA 4-Q) -N NQ 4- •MO 4, U O p r`• N O 4- QCLAJ z I O 4- tj—O U O O4-4' O gQ� QNJ Q) O Ol iQ) � D U C LU ro VM 4-- O> C 4-1 - 4. to C 4-4.1 DU -)U cp O QJ U D . QJ LnQ . A C)ate-+ LA 4.1 4.1 ciO N O N N O p aJ a w� v Y �_ V 00 •� 4-' � i L O i O V C Q— N +, b0 Oi p O U O V N O QJ '� O> U1 = U1 W C O C v N to 4--+ C co L �6 O 'L C) Ln ro Q) C ro C O " C v :�:! L " N > e Y w O F CL 2N C N v 2 _ C Q V O O aJ w 4, '� O O QJ = O O 0 QJ 2 (p li > QJ to i U C pEi C a M o> un v .V O C � >i MO>i C O LN O U v s O in 4 QV i IC N > O ON O N to to to ON N ON -- v N ON p N ON Ol CL C ON L C O ON C a .� l7 l7 O QJ 2 E LA u I O II Jz O O O Q QN O a Z N AU r C> a � i QW c N• o O - ° 4- ° g O M � U C D I to p- C V = Qj = O QJ Q p U1 � > � QJ I Q > U1 +� N N O 4- O O O_ 4- N v Q 4-V ,L-+ c mv ate-+ in Y O 1 V QJ Qj E N L QJ N C O 0 O U VE Q V C p > r C u O z U N QJ N (u O 0 J QJ > N QJ N V Q) V7 V a Q Q) Q)CLO Q) > j > D -- 4--O� O U �O r6 QJ XI O_ 4--+ = O l7 = ro Q Q C I^ L/ > a ro QJ QJ QJ Q f6 i X N 0 C � QJ +/i } to QJ �i QJ L O Ul i Q L Q N QJ L Q L J v c v f6 o I aC-+ v `� O `� al M N >> U N C v N U i V i I Q •C U v iJ V QJ N U UI � QJ i C O OC Q _ Y in C O L QJ i Q) O O V QJ LAV QJ +-+ J J N JI c c- >, L y V l7 r0 v i -0 a, e C O V 4- %I tLo i U + i o m Q1 C M C T E 0 U1 L �I L Q I= i X C N — Ill N C 1= QJ QJ C L = m N �I Z 1--+ QJ N 4- Q C M V b0 f0 I..L 2 0000 a C L V Ll Q O_ vi M (o 4-( 2 v 2 ro Y QJ 2 Q O C L v O C i UI i O I U J' Q QJ q ru ro O ro M n m C C � Z —• p C C— C -0 Q ru -0 V L- >, } Ol p Q i M M O (o QJ i QJ O C Ol J O O Ll C Vrn' 00 U U N U U L 0 U Q V U —14-- a N U1 N Y ti 0 4- 0 rl- C7 N Ln D m O C O M i N V) C O U N N 0_ V C b.0 C D 4--+ L L W N N L N O c 0 O N 0 N O N V) N V C N i N O N N Q 2 U L X C N Q Q Q N V i D O M 4- J O U E dS O 4- 00 F L U1 V N V 5 N � C J N V m � D N Z i v � c O v Q� ti 0 4- 0 co (Y) (1) c� a ti 0 4- 0 rn (Y) a� c� a El .4 1 I , I II IF r VAv - q aa ' 1 I F !' P .. A per•_ PF AWL Appendices ti d� 4--E CN Lrg CrYc QYy EME YL I'1 City of Kitchener Development Services Department - Planning Division Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 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. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. Page 356 of 407 The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, 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 Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. 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 Page 357 of 407 3.0 4.0 5.0 any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 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. 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 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and digital copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one digital copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until Page 358 of 407 the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. Page 359 of 407 ti 0 4- 0 0 m (Y) a� c� a //\: �} \\} � �� \ ....... ) � , , / !; :,()} ())}/ /) / /)( \(!!! » - } AM:}}}(( \ ^` ji _ : AMA ....... ...... / !; :,()} ())}/ /) / /)( \(!!! ; -2 }}\}}}}}}(} ---------------------------------- /-- -------- Ho 133HIS mo .133HIS HosnHO C14 CL » - } �:}}}(( \ ^` ji _ : .133HIS HosnHO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �` \� �-= / - --\y -\t-- \- \ /`\ F -I El g \: \ -\ ... ... 6 --------- --- -------- -------- 1-11,11,11--1 ------------------- ------------------------------------ I ---- I\\\ \ \ \ ................. (D (D I 01 CL » - } ��:}}}(( 4f \ ^` ° � 12, 1 - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �` \� �-= / - --\y -\t-- \- \ /`\ F -I El g \: \ -\ ... ... 6 --------- --- -------- -------- 1-11,11,11--1 ------------------- ------------------------------------ I ---- I\\\ \ \ \ ................. (D (D I 01 �— — CL —it —t — —� —�— — —�— — t — —-1— — ——Ll — — t —t — —� — — — soo — —--— —H- H - - --- - - o{ - ❑ 1 1"`❑❑❑Ot - - ---I - -T �- - oz— - e � tom= -- - m d� "U "U X o W bb O b b O O O b b —it —t — —� —�— — —�— — t — —-1— — ——Ll — — t —t — —� — — — ❑❑❑❑❑ — — —--— —H- H - - --- - - o{ - - - - ❑ 1 1"`❑❑❑Ot - - ---I - -T bb b b b b b b b b �- - oz— - e � tom= -- - m d� "U "U X o W bb O b b O O O b b 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 G 0 (D (D 0 (D 0 0 0 0 Q ]2i,EMEIMMEIMEIEIEIEIMI:IEIEMMUT Hill CL Ed Ed H I H PH PH EO F-1 III 1� -- TF 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 G 0 (D (D 0 (D 0 0 0 0 Q ]2i,EMEIMMEIMEIEIEIEIMI:IEIEMMUT =MEN' ol F-0 F-0 F -n F -n �mm,. ECHE Ei El� E� E E EL om F -fl Fl F -n E -D 66' 6ono e 16 -6 3:IR Hill Ed Ed H I H PH PH EO F-1 III 1� =MEN' ol F-0 F-0 F -n F -n �mm,. ECHE Ei El� E� E E EL om F -fl Fl F -n E -D 66' 6ono e 16 -6 3:IR CL \ /�: �} \\}�: 2z \ \ LO ( CL �21 �U } 6 t - \� �� Am » - FA I/ ff, I E C14 LO CL soo �21 z Am 2 4f I/ ff, I II FA LO CL II FA off, FI)i II ff, FA Lri CL 3: x off, FI)i II ff, FA //\: �} \\} � �� \ ) � , , / !; :,()} ())}/ /) / /)( \(!!! » - } Am �:}}}(( \ ^` > : - :_ _ : _ -2 }}\}}}}}}(} - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - L- - - - - - - - - - Ho 133HIS mo / !; :,()} ())}/ /) / /)( \(!!! ; -2 }}\}}}}}}(} - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - L- - - - - - - - - - Ho 133HIS mo .133HIS HosnHO C14 CL » - } �:}}}(( \ ^` ji _ : .133HIS HosnHO C14 CL �21 �U » - } Am I! �:}}}(( \ ^` ° � - : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Inv �` \� �-= / - --\y -\t-- \- \ Mg �: _. \( -\� -�- � \gEl \: \ -\ 6 --------- --- -------- -------- 1-11,11,11--1 ------------------- ------------------------------------ I ---- I\\\ \ \ \ ................. (D (D (D I 01 �- - E C14 CL -it -t - -� -�- - -�- - t - --1- - --Ll - - t -t - -� - - - s - -� - tl - t—t- - --- - - o{ - - - - _Am ---I - -T �- - oz— - e � tom= -- - m d� "U "U X o W bb O b b O O O b b -it -t - -� -�- - -�- - t - --1- - --Ll - - t -t - -� - - - ❑❑❑❑❑ - - - -� - tl - t—t- - --- - - o{ - - - - 1"`❑❑❑Ot - - ---I - -T bb b b b b b b b b �- - oz— - e � tom= -- - m d� "U "U X o W bb O b b O O O b b ]2i,EMEIMMEIMEIEIEIEIMI:IEIEMMUT II Eld F E F•I E I� E F E-0 ED EU [:- 0— 10 11 1 1 E 0-7 0 1 E PH P � 0 F --o F� A :11 F� =Omni F 4J--L-L-L- EO E-0 Eo (Y) CL Hill E :E P� Ed 2 -H P�--H PH PH PH ErT ED F-1 III 1 -- TF ]2i,EMEIMMEIMEIEIEIEIMI:IEIEMMUT II Eld F E F•I E I� E F E-0 ED EU [:- 0— 10 11 1 1 E 0-7 0 1 E PH P � 0 F --o F� A :11 F� =Omni F 4J--L-L-L- a I ED E�o EE L -i -- F -n ECHE El El� 70 6 0-6, L On 2 a -a 2 3:IR EO E-0 Eo ED Hill E :E P� Ed Ed -H P�--H PH PH PH ErT ED F-1 III 1 a I ED E�o EE L -i -- F -n ECHE El El� 70 6 0-6, L On 2 a -a 2 3:IR CL \ /�: �} \\}� \ \ LO ( CL : » } Am 4fo 12i - FA FA eW " , ff, eW " , FA Ep N tV C14 LO CL 1 Am 2 4f ff, eW " , FA II FA 60 r 4r, O O 0 0 z 9 z - LO CL II FA 60 r 4r, O O 0 0 z 9 z - I/ ff, FIC, Fff -.41. 1p� ,A . Lri CL 3: x I/ ff, FIC, Fff -.41. 1p� ,A . Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Planning Director, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: August 11, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-362 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue 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 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council direct the Clark to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North possesses design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. It meets the criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener meeting, consulting and collaborating with the owner regarding the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and consultation with Heritage Kitchener. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served to the Owner and Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper. This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of Sheldon Avenue North, in between the Edmund Road and Sheldon Avenue North intersection to the northeast and the King Street East and Sheldon Avenue North intersection to the southwest. The two buildings were constructed in the Tudor Revival architectural style c. 1936. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 381 of 407 '3 f•t / 39 44 f 35 40 BS E;..tli.•II .in -i, ,li itLitli."i.ir 3+;„1 � 27 34 34 lin 23 30 � I7 14 , 47 t� sem” `,� 10 aP i„ i,,,l e„�irn 232[ r n 12 42 1252 ..0 1-1 S a t a{. 12. r'` EASI1N6CaQ 19 k 7� 1306 257 �• 1 31 4 1253 132 4' 7 18 22 32 23 / 27 31 35 S�. 43/ 4{ 334/ '4.- _^+.�- 55 134-1 EashvoodCommuhity ` •Edmunc 321 1354.. , Condominiums 16 f g,Z* 77 1327/ 02 ti 1414 j I / 1333%� i /g '1 4, -, / J Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property The submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of a Site Plan Application that was submitted to the City in 2020 for 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North (SP20/057/S/GS). Though the property was not listed as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, its assessment was required as it was identified on the Kitchener Heritage Inventory. The site plan proposed the construction of a three-storey building in the rear yards of 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North. The new building in addition to the two original buildings on site function as a residential care facility known as oneROOF Youth Services. The resulting HIA was dated April 21, 2021 and prepared by CHC Ltd. It was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on May 4, 2021. Approval of the HIA was given by the Director of Planning on July 6, 2021. The HIA confirmed that the existing buildings on 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North meets six out of nine criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and would be eligible for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner agreed to allow the City to pursue designation of the property as a condition of site plan approval. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give our City its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value; encourages Page 382 of 407 good stewardship and conservation; and promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognized the promotes awareness, it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. The property municipally addressed as 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies six out of nine criteria. The evaluation, as included in the HIA, has been summarized in the table below. Table 1: Designation Criteria Met 1. Have design value or physical value because they i) Are rare, unique, representative, or early examples of a style, type, Yes expression, material, or construction method ii) Display a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit, or Yes iii) Demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement No 2. Have historical value or associative value because they i) Have direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, Yes organization, or institution that is significant to a community ii) Yield or have the potential to yield information that contributes to an No understanding of a community or culture, or iii) Demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, Yes building, designer, or theorist who is significant to a community 3. Have contextual value because they i) Are important in defining, maintain, or supporting the character of an Yes area ii) Are physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to their Yes surroundings, or iii) Are landmarks No Design/Physical Value The existing buildings are representative examples of the Tudor Revival Style, which was a style popular in the 1920's and 1930's. The buildings are in good condition with many intact original elements. They have an irregular but geometric floorplan and feature the following: • Steeply pitched roofs with cross gables; • Large brick chimneys; • Overhanging second floors with eave returns and finial details; • Stone lower floors and lintels and timber and stucco upper floors; • Multi -paned, leaded glass sashes and bay windows; and • Front doors with side and top lights. The symmetrical and complimentary design of both the landscaping and the structures themselves are also a unique characteristic of the subject property. Further, the buildings display a high degree of craftmanship and artistic merit in their stonework, leaded -glass windows, and landscaping. Page 383 of 407 A. 1 02 r J r� R � t � r - �l ,J, n • w �r� ■��� �i Figure 5: East elevation of 35 Sheldon Avenue North Page 386 of 407 FU+r'� 1� ^�_ "RR" Y j .sly ![ � •� d. � � JAMMAL �,.» ', •. ti ev WR AIL Tt is • i � k y�rSt w u. rr 1 � ! fl* ir r IK4 Nil IJ 46' k- w 4. "0 jr gar& I -k%L- i Nr- FE -1 Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative value of the subject property relates to the ownership of the home as well as the architect who designed the buildings. 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North were constructed by Barney Joseph and Irving Somer, uncle and nephew. Both were prominent merchants within the community. In 1910 Joseph founded Joseph & Company Inc., a scrap business that is still in operation. The current generation of leadership are relations to Barney Joseph. Irving Somer established a clothing store in downtown Kitchener. Originally named the Ref Front Department Store Ltd., its name was later changed to Somer's. Other notable owners of the two properties include Edith Macintosh, who purchased 35 Sheldon in 1970, and Egbert Seegmiller, who purchased 43 Sheldon in 1951. Edith Macintosh was Kitchener's second female councillor, the City's first and to date only female mayor, and was the first female member of the University of Waterloos Board of Governors. Between 1972-1974 she also held the title of Regional Councillor. She gained the title "Crusader for Day Care" by organizing a committee to lobby for working mothers and sole - support parents in need of childcare and can be credited for the establishment of four of the current regional children's centre. Egbert Seegmiller was co-founder of E&E Seegmiller Contractors. E&E remains a privately held company, employing between 200 and 500 workers depending on the construction season. Local architect Charles Knechtel was retained in 1936 by the original owners of 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North to design the mirror-image houses on the two lots. Knechtel established his office within the City in 1895 and practiced until 1930. Notable work of his includes the original comfort station and pavilion in Victoria Park, Berlin's Carnegie Library, as well as work to Victoria Public School (25 Joseph Street). Contextual Value The contextual value of the subject property relates to the contributions the buildings make to the continuity and character of the Sheldon Avenue North streetscape. The buildings are located in-situ and as such are historically linked to their surroundings. Further, with consideration to the history of the buildings construction — being developed as one by and uncle and nephew and hence possessing symmetry in their design — 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North also have contextual value in relation to one another. Heritage Attributes The HIA has identified the following as being heritage attributes of the buildings: • "Tudor Revival" style cottages with o cross gables o steeply pitched roofs 0 overhanging upper floors with eave returns and finial details o random -coursed "Credit Valley" stone lower floors and lintels o half-timbered with stucco infill upper floors o multi -paned windows, 8/12 wood sashes o bay windows, leaded -glass sashes o gable windows, leaded glass sashes Page 390 of 407 o panelled front doors and doorcases with side and top lights o massive brick chimneys Symmetrical front yard landscapes with o Common circular drive o Bordering Privet hedges o Cast concrete walkways leading from the street to the front doors of both houses o Mature deciduous trees o Cast concrete fountain with floral motif impressions 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: - Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 - Memo - 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (May 4, 2021) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Page 391 of 407 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: September 5, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: August 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-358 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 90-92 Queen Street South 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 front fagade of the property municipally addressed as 90- 92 Queen Street South 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 the front fagade of 90-92 Queen Street South under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 90-92 Street South meets 5 out of 9 criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be 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 90-92 Queen Street South is located on the north side of Queen Street South near the intersection of Queen Street South and Charles Street East (Fig. 1). The property consists of a two-storey unique Art -Deco building. The building is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 392 of 407 s� RIA�A.RK I- 44 !f y! ! '7 R �..h I i c 58 45 Q1UM.y Nur � y l 84 S }@3 CITY CONIFAE RCIKL CPbfFRE j�9 Figure 1. Location Map of 90-92 Queen Street South. 90-92 Queen Street South is subject to an active site plan application, which includes 84-88 Queen Street South/1-3 Charles Street East, and 94-108 Queen Street South. Out of these properties, only 90-92 Queen Street South has heritage status. Heritage Planning staff had provided comments that included retaining at least all the facades of 90-108 Queen Street South, as when viewed in its entirety, all these facades reflected an eclectic mix of structural facades, which contributed greatly to the Queen Street South streetscape. As such, the proposed development includes the following: - Demolition of 84-88 Queen Street South/1-3 Charles Street East; - Retention of the front fagade of 90-92 Queen Street South; - Selective Deconstruction and Reconstruction of 94-108 Queen Street South. - Integration of the retained facades into the podium of a new 44 -storey residential condominium tower. The draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was circulated to the Heritage Kitchener Committee at its June 7, 2022, meeting. The site plan application has received conditional approval, subject to several heritage conditions, including but not limited to submitting various studies outlining how the fagade will be retained and protected in-situ during construction, approval of the HIA and Conservation Plan (CP), and the designation of the front fagade of the building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give 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 Page 393 of 407 appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. The property municipally addressed as 90-92 Queen Street South is recognized for its design, associative, and contextual values. The building is a two-storey unique example of Art -Deco architectural style (Fig. 2). This building is the only one of its kind to exist in the area. 1 -LICKS 309M=N Figure 2. Front Fagade of 90-92 Queen Street South. According to the conclusion of the draft HIA, the building meets 5 out of 9 criteria for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (Fig, 3): 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 contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 5. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. Page 394 of 407 Table 2: Cultural Heritage Eva Iuatlon of 90-92 Queen Street South Facade The property has design value or physical value because it, I. is a rare, unique, representative Y The fapade is representative of the architectural or early example of a style, type, tyle known as Art. Deco. The facade is the only expression, material, or ksxarnlple of Art Deco architecture in the area - construction method, II- displays a high degree of II. yields, or has the potentia) to The exterior finish and ornamentation are of high craftsmanship or artistic merit, or Y yield, information that quality and reflects a greater then normal level of present with the potential to yield information Contributes to an understanding craftsmanship and artistic intensity demonstrates a high degree ofI °Jor)e observed technical or scientific N The property has historical valve or associative value because it, L has direct associations with a Y Has direct association with the dry-cleaning theme, event, belief, person, industry, particularly the Pearl Laundry Cleaners activity, organlzation or and Dyers business. institution that is significant to a community, II. yields, or has the potentia) to I he property and associated structure dr.) nut yield, information that present with the potential to yield information Contributes to an understanding ':hat co j10 contribute to our understanding of a of a community or culture, or nrrmunily or culture. III. Demonstrates or reflects the N None observed, Architect is unknown. work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual va lue because it, I. is important in defining, It is important in maintaining the maintaining or supporting the Y commercial/industrial character or Lhe character of an area, surrounding area. II. Is physically, functionally, visually Is visually linked to the history ofthe area by way or historically linked to its y nF the original 'Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dyers' surroundings, or ,iQna9,,e. is a landmark. Figure 3. Table of Cultural Heritage Evaluation taken from the HIA Design/Physical Value The design and physical value relates to the Art Deco architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features: first floor cast concrete construction (ashlar) topped with an egg and dart moulding and acanthus leaf mouldings, which are carried up and across to frame the second storey; first storey has yellow brick trim. Second storey is of yellow brick construction arranged in horizontal and vertical rows with wide shallow gable parapet wall with beaded cornice and three cast stone mouldings. Segmentally arched storefront windows, two rectangular basement windows, temporarily correct lamps flank each side of store front windows. The second storey also has central cast concrete mouldings. 90-92 Queen Street South is a unique example of the Art Deco architectural style and is the only example of Art Deco architecture in the area. The available evidence indicates that the current configuration of the structure was achieved between 1930 and 1945. Given that the popularity of the style has decreased by 1940 and due to World War II, it seems likely that construction of the Page 395 of 407 current Art Deco facade occurred circa 1938, whereas the building could have been constructed earlier when a small parcel of land was purchased by David Knipfel from the City of Kitchener Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the early use of the building for the local business known as `Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers'. Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers was founded by David Knipfel in 1897. Pearl Laundry Dryers and Cleaners started operating out of 90-92 Queen Street South in 1928. In 1946, David Knipfel sold the business to Berlin Dye Works, owned by Abraham S.Uttley. David Knipfel only sold the company, not the structure, and entered into a long-term lease agreement with Abraham Uttley whereas Uttley continues to operate the Pearl Laundry out of 90 Queen Street South and rents the premises from David Knipfel. This arrangement continued until the death of David Knipfel in 1961, after which Uttley purchased the premises. In 1966, Uttley sold the business and premises to Newtex Ltd., another Kitchener based dry cleaning company. Thus, the building has a long history of being associated with a dry-cleaning company. Contextual Value The building has contextual value because it is important in maintaining the commercial/industrial character of the Queen Street South streetscape. This building represents the industrial development that was taking place in Kitchener in the early 20th century. It is also visually and historically linked to the area by way of the original `Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dryers' signage. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of this building were only identified on the front fagade. According to the HIA, while the entire structure at 90-92 Queen Street South was subject to documentation through the HIA, the structure is divided between the Art Deco Queen Street South fagade, and the balance of the building, which has undergone many alterations. Other than the fagade, the building is not attributed to a particular time period, and no other heritage attributes were observed. Furthermore, the building is abutting other properties on both sides, because of which there are no notable heritage attributes on those facades. The interior of the building has also been severely altered. As such, only the fagade of the building has cultural heritage value. The heritage attributes of this building include: • All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the fagade, including: o Cast concrete mouldings and finishes o Ashlar finish first storey with yellow brick trim o Yellow brick second storey o Shallow gable parapet wall o Segmentally arched storefront windows o Rectangular basement windows o Temporally correct exterior lights o Round headed structural openings on either sides of storefront window o Pairing and symmetry of rectangular second storey windows o Cast stone crest second storey o Rectangular Plan o Flat roof. • All elements of the front fagade related to the contextual value of the building, including: o Its location on the Queen Street South streetscape. Page 396 of 407 Forthcoming Heritage Permit Applications Should Council choose to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate, staff will be returning to Heritage Kitchener and Committee with two heritage permit applications; one for the partial demolition of the building, and one for the new construction for the 44-sotrey condominium towers, as well as a heritage easement agreement. Since the rectangular plan and flat roof have been identified as heritage attributes, a heritage permit will be required to demolish the remaining structure. Furthermore, according to the HIA, the rectangular plan and flat roof are not considered characteristics of the Art Deco architectural style, and will not negatively impact the design/physical value of the front fagade that has been recognized. 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 Bill 23. Once removed, it cannot re -listed on the Register again for five (5) years, i.e. January 1, 2030. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -2022-271 —Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 88-108 Queen Street South • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Statement of Significance for 90-92 Queen Street South Page 397 of 407 1 I�TcxEr�ER STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 90-92 QUEEN STREET SOUTH77, j 43 45 J64 94 CITY C ONIIAE. RC IAL C DRE 91 a ti AC, /f t3 IC TOR IA PA FIh Summary of Significance ❑x Design/Physical Value ❑x Historical/Associative Value ❑x Contextual Value []Social Value ®Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address- 90-92 Queen Street North Legal Description- Plan 391 Part Lot 1 Plan 393 Part Lot 5 & 27 RP 58R-858 Parts 1-3 &5 Year Built- c. 1920 Architectural Style- Art -Deco Architectural Style Original Owner- Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers Original Use- Commercial Page 398 of 407 1 I�TcxEr�ER Condition: Good Descriation of Cultural Heritaae Resource The municipal address 90-92 Queen Street South includes a 20th century storefront facade built in the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.46 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Queen Street South between Church Street and Charles 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 c. 1920 Art Deco facade Heritage Value 90-92 Queen Street South is known for its significant design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Art- Deco architectural style that is in excellent condition with many intact original elements. The building features: first floor cast concrete construction (ashlar) topped with an egg and dart moulding and acanthus leaf mouldings, which are carried up and across to frame the second storey; first storey has yellow brick trim. Second storey is of yellow brick construction arranged in horizontal and vertical rows with wide shallow gable parapet wall with beaded cornice and three cast stone mouldings. Segmentally arched storefront windows, two rectangular basement windows, temporarily correct lamps flank each side of store front windows. The second storey also has central cast concrete mouldings. 90-92 Queen Street South is a unique example of the Art Deco architectural style and is the only example of Art Deco architecture in the area. The available evidence indicates that the current configuration of the structure was achieved between 1930 and 1945. Given that the popularity of the style has decreased by 1940 and due to World War II, it seems likely that construction of the current Art Deco facade occurred circa 1938, whereas the building could have been constructed earlier when a small parcel of land was purchased by David Knipfel from the City of Kitchener Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the early use of the building for the local business known as `Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers'. Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers was founded by David Knipfel in 1897. Between 1897 and 1899, the city directories list it as operating at 52 King Street West. In 1901, the business is listed at 9 Page 399 of 407 1 RTCHENER Queen Street. In 1910, the Pearl Laundry is located at 54 Queen Street South (which was the original address of 90-92 Queen Street South). In 1919, the business is listed as operating from 52 Queen Street (original address of 90-92 Queen Street South). In 1928, the address is listed as 90 Queen Street. In 1946, David Knipfel sold the business to Berlin Dye Works, owned by Abraham S.Uttley. David Knipfel only sells the company, not the structure, and enters into a long-term lease agreement with Abraham Uttley whereas Uttley continues to operate the Pearl Laundry out of 90 Queen Street South and rents the premises from David Knipfel. This arrangement continued until the death of David Knipfel in 1961, after which Uttley purchased the premises. In 1966, Uttley sells the business and premises to Newtex Ltd., another Kitchener based dry cleaning company. Thus, the building has a long history of being associated with a dry-cleaning company. Contextual Value The building has contextual value because it is important in maintaining the commercial/industrial character of the Queen Street South streetscape. This building represents the industrial development that was taking place in Kitchener in the early 20th century. It is also visually and historically linked to the area by way of the original `Pearl Laundry Cleaners & Dryers' signage. 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 attributes of this building include: • All elements related to the Art Deco architectural style of the fagade, including: o Cast concrete mouldings and finishes; o Ashlar finish first storey with yellow brick trim; o Yellow brick second storey; o Shallow gable parapet wall; o Segmentally arched storefront windows; o Rectangular basement windows; o Temporally correct exterior lights; o Round headed structural openings on either sides of storefront window; o Pairing and symmetry of rectangular second storey windows; Page 400 of 407 1 RTCHENER o Cast stone crest second storey; o Rectangular Plan; and o Flat roof. • All elements of the front facade related to the contextual value of the building, including: o Its location on the Queen Street South streetscape. Page 401 of 407 1 KrT HENv R Photos Page 402 of 407 Cast Cross located at center of front parapet ; Detail of crest located between second floor windows Page 403 of 407 1 KrTcHEN�R Page 404 of 407 a Pearl Laundry Cleaners and Dryers Signage Page 405 of 407 Page 406 of 407 o -p o 0) c `u 3 c 0) L 3 c Q .7- 2 0 O p O i 0 LL C i N N .L.. x O C O 0) � p N w N N O 0 0 (i ° y0 o f -0 m O C C o O .L.. o N m E O c Q C Q)) 3 U O- .o W❑ C7 c .' O w c Y i 0) O aE Co N y -O L .� 0 N -0 x -p y 0 (6 c O C L 0 0 _O _ _0 0 _ C C O C _ N (6 N O_ N N L 0 o CZd a C 1) O- cu 0 y O _0 Q) c ._ -O O a) -0 0) o o Q) ° o m ax 3 ❑p o 0 3 O c O O O '- c Q) 0 O L O -p (6 c U ` O C U -0 Q) 0 L E E C� cu p O W a) (E ` .o -0 c S N v L m w �= 3 c O L p E CO E 2❑ W p p'7- -0 i U U 0 N 0 N ❑ O. O E '3 C 0 C ap a O a o ❑ a O U a` Q v > Q > O O o bq pCL a- q u ? N N bm •V N N 1., d ❑ ❑ x� 0 �Q CA7E 0 0 0 0 E E E E m m 'c m 'c cu V o o _0 a Chi U U U U a m co M M M M '3i y N (V N N N N N CL CL v F Q g in in p Fp4 � MW N N 7 (O (O (• 1 t N N N M M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 I� p v w� N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ ^I (n (n (n (n (n (n (n M N c a � � o N •� U A v to a y v (0 z a a Y (5 0 C i O) m 0 cu cl yQ HLL > o U rn p v (moo M ago o i= 000 M pN M O O O M 7 (n (O V d i o i M 0 i M 0 i M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 z N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q N Q a a a a a a a a ax x x x x x x x x