Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2024-03-05Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, March 5, 2024, 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair - J. Haalboom Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 3.1 Item 4.1 - Owen Scott, CHC Limited 3.2 Item 4.2 - Luke Passmore, Frey Building Contractors 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2004-IV-002, 10m 1385 Bleams Road, Removal of Chimney and Fence, DSD -2024-088 4.2 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-003, 10m 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Rear Addition, DSD -2024-090, DSD -2024-090 4.3 Notice of Intention to Designate - 60 Victoria 15 m Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-089, DSD -2024-089 4.4 Notice of Intention to Designate - 72 Victoria 10m Street South under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-091, DSD -2024-091 4.5 Notice of Intention to Designate - 33 Eby Street 10m South under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-094, DSD -2024-094 4.6 Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review - 15 m March 2024 Update, DSD 2024-093 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 6. Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator 0 17 54 145 166 185 Page 2 of 211 Staff Report I K Tc�i irrarR Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: February 12, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-088 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-002 1385 Bleams Road Removal of Chimney and Fence RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-002 be approved to permit the removal of chimney and the fence on the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present staff's recommendation for the removal of the chimney and the fence at the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road. • The key finding of this report is the removal of the chimney and the fence are necessary as they are in poor condition. The removal of the fence would impact the heritage attributes of the property since it has been identified in the designation by-law, however, it is beyond repair, cannot be salvaged and must be removed so that the Region's Road widening on Bleams Road can be accommodated. • 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-002 proposes the removal of the chimney and the fence on the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The chimney is in poor condition and deteriorating. It is not protected by the designating by-law but is on the rubble stone facade that is protected by the designating by-law. The chimney is proposed to be removed, with preservation and maintenance works to be implemented as required on the facade to preserve its cultural heritage value. The post and rail fence on the property is also *** 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 211 proposed to be removed as it is in very poor condition and beyond repair. The fence is protected by the designating by-law, however, it cannot be repaired or salvaged, and needs to be removed prior to the Region's acquisition of that portion of the property for a road widening. In reviewing the merits of this application, staff note that the removal of the fence and the chimney will not adversely impact the reasons for designation of the subject property. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-002 seeking permission to remove the chimney and fence at the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Location Map of subject property (highlighted in red box). This permit has been brought before the Heritage Kitchener Committee as the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By- law 1987-309. In accordance with By-law 2009-089, delegating Council's approval for certain classes of alterations to Staff, delegated authority is permitted for Part IV designated property after consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. REPORT: The subject property is located on the southern side of Bleams Road and western side of Fischer Hallman Road, between Fischer Hallman Road and Abrams Clemens Street. Also known as the former `Williamsburg School' the subject property contains a 2 storey rubble stone construction house, which was originally constructed as a school for the former hamlet of Williamsburg in 1864 (Fig 2). Page 4of211 Figure 2. North and West elevation of the original Williamsburg Schoolhouse. Williamsburg Schoolhouse The Williamsburg Schoolhouse was originally built in 1864. It was a rectangular, gable - roofed structure constructed of granite fieldstone. A brick addition was constructed in 1874 to accommodate more students towards the rear. In 1966, the school was closed and the building was converted into a private residence. In 1987, a stone -faced, wood -framed addition was constructed at the front of the building (Fig. 3). Page 5 of 211 Figure 3. Phases of construction of the Williamsburg Schoolhouse. The blue arrow points to the original schoolhouse built in 1864, the red arrow points to the brick addition added in 1874, and the green arrow points to the stone -faced, wood frame addition added in 1987. The building has been recognized for its design/physical, and historical/associative value in the designating by-law. The building is one of the few remaining original buildings from the former Hamlet of Williamsburg, and the schoolhouse is a representative example of an early construction style i.e. rubble stone construction. The designating by-law identifies the following features of the property- - All rubble stone facades of the original schoolhouse; - The belfry; - The fence; and - The wood shed. Associated Planning Applications 1385 Bleams Road was subject to a Zoning -By Law Amendment (ZBA) in 2023, which was approved by Council at it's April 24, 2023, meeting. The zoning amendment was sought to change the A-1 (agricultural) zoning to RES -6 (residential) to allow for a medium rise residential development. The applicant is proposing to build eight, three-storey townhomes towards the rear of the property. Page 6of211 As part of the ZBA application, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was submitted in support of the application. The draft HIA was circulated to Heritage Kitchener at it's March 7, 2023, meeting. The HIA has since been approved. Proposed Chimney Removal The chimney on the western facade of the house is in a state of disrepair (Fig. 4). There are pieces of bricks that are falling off, with the chimney separating from the rubble stone facade in some places (Fig. 5). It also appears that the chimney was altered as there are two different types of brick above and below the roof. The date of the chimney's construction is unknown, but it was most likely not part of the original construction of the structure. It should be noted that the chimney is not included in the designation by-law of the building, as the by-law only references the `rubble stone facades'. However, the removal of the chimney might have minimal to no impact on the rubble stone facade. Figure 4. Current condition of the chimney on west fagade. Page 7 of 211 Figure 5. Current condition of the chimney The owners will need to remove the chimney to assess the condition of that portion of the facade. They intend to repair, preserve and maintain the rubble stone facade, and will come in for an additional heritage permit, if required, for any additional restorative work. However, the extent of the work required can only be determined once the chimney has been removed. The removal of the chimney is not a part of the ZBA application. Proposed Fence Removal The post and rail fence that has been included in the designating by-law is the wooden fence that fronts onto Bleams Road, with a portion of it on the western end in the municipal right- of-way. The fence is comprised of round cedar posts with turned ball top and two horizontal pipe rails between the posts, with the installation of modern flanges in some places (Fig. 6- 8). The fence is also in very poor condition, with leaning posts, some missing tops, and rails missing in some places. The cedar posts are also rotting at the ground and it has been determined that they are beyond repair. Furthermore, the region is going to acquire the portion of the property along Bleams Road on which the fence is presently located to accommodate a road -widening which is going to include a multi -use trail. Due to this and Page 8 of 211 the deteriorating condition of the fence, it needs to be removed so that the road widening Figure 6. Current condition of the post and rail fence. Figure 7. Rotting cedar and missing pieces on the fence. Page 9 of 211 Figure 8. Missing tops on the fence. Staff have had additional engagement with the owner's heritage consultant regarding whether portions of the fence of the could be salvaged and installed elsewhere on the property, and were informed due to the fence's extremely poor condition, it cannot be salvaged as well. The proposed fence removal is part of the approved development concept considered with the ZBA application. The proposed alterations meet the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties", especially: • Respect for historical material — repair or conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the historic content of the resource. • Maintenance — with continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. • Respect for the buildings history — do not restore at one period at the expense of another. The proposed alterations meet the "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", especially: Page 10 of 211 • Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location if a character -defining elements. • Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. • Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. • Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of designating by-law 1987-309. • The proposal is for the removal of the chimney and the fence on the subject property. • The chimney is not protected by the designating by-law, and is in poor condition. Part of brick are falling off and in some areas, the chimney has started separating from the rubble stone facade. • The chimney is proposed to be removed with minimal impact to the facade. The applicants intend to preserve and restore the facade, but in order to determine what works might be needed to do that, the chimney must be removed first. The applicants will be applying for another heritage permit for restoration work, if needed. • The fence is also in poor condition. There are tops missing, and the cedar has rotted beyond repair. Furthermore, the portion of the fence on which the fence is located will be acquired by the Region for road widening, so the fence must be removed in order to facilitate that. The fence is beyond repair and portions of it cannot be salvaged as well. • The proposed work is consistent with the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties and with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; and • The proposed work will not adversely impact the building nor it's reasons for designation. 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. Page 11 of 211 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: DSD -2023-080 — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) — 1385 Bleams Road — Proposed Construction of 8 Three -Storey Townhomes. Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 Planning Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-002 Page 12 of 211 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals �"-. 200 King Street West, 6t� Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 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: 1385 Bleams Rd Kitchener On N2E3X7 Legal Description (if know): LT 5 RCP 1469 KITCHENER; KITCHENER Building/Structure Type: 0 Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: 0 Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes 0 No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: IOAN SOLOMES Address: 1385 BLEAMS RD City/Province/Postal Code: KITCHENER Phone: 2269882403 Email: isolomes@gmail.com 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: ALINA SOLOMES spouse Company: Address: 1385 BLEAMS RD City/Province/Postal Code: KITCHENER Phone: 5196161010 Email: alinasolomes@yahoo.ca Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 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. We would like to request the demolition of the following three items: 1. double car detached garage located on the western side of the home (not part of the designation) ,2. the chimney which is in poor condition and is falling apart (not in use) and 3. the heritage fence located at the front of the property because it is rotten and missing many components. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: we no longer need the garage, the chimney is at risk of falling apart and insurance company wants it gone, the fence is in an advanced state of decay and the region would appreciate it removed to accomodate the road reconstruction including multi use trail an regrading, scheduled to start this spring. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: except for the heritage fence, this proposal has no effect on the heritage attributes for this property. the fence is in very poor shape from it being rotten and beyond repair. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www. h istoricplaces. ca/en/pages/standards-norm eseaspx): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: March/Apri12024 Expected completion date: spring time 2024 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑ Yes 1Z No - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes [Z No - If yes, who did you speak to?. d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes 0 No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 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: ball S040wes Date: January 12th 2024 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, loan Solomes owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Alina Solomes to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: ball S040wes Date: January 12th 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Staff Report I K Tc�i irrarR Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: February 12, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-090 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-003 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent Rear Addition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-003 requesting permission for: 1. The demolition of an existing rear deck and concrete slab; and 2. Construction of a new one -storey rear addition and second -storey deck on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, BE APPROVED in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: a) That final building permit drawings be reviewed, and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present a proposal for the demolition of a rear deck and construction of a rear one -storey addition on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, as detailed in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-003 and the documents that form Attachments A -X. The key finding of this report is that the proposal will not negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property as it maintains the original appearance of the primary dwelling and is in keeping with local and provincial standards and guidelines. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 17 of 211 • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-003 proposes the demolition of a rear deck and concrete slab and construction of a one -storey rear addition and reconstruction of the rear deck on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designating By-law No. 2003-179. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note that the proposed work meets the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places as determined by the province. Further, the proposed work maintains the character and overall appearance of the subject property, as it will have limited visibility from the street, and is not anticipated to adversely impact the heritage attributes identified within the designating by-law. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-003, which seeks permission for the demolition of an existing rear deck and concrete slab to facilitate the construction of a one -storey addition on the property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, formerly addressed as 437 Pioneer Tower Road. 0 I 7M Im 'W'V�k�:u7a�ar I Me, u'W 44 1¢IrI ' Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property Page 18 of 211 it,� Ali ......, �.. ,..... a. �... 1¢IrI ' Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property Page 18 of 211 REPORT: The subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent, between the intersections of Joseph Schoerg Place to the west and Langton Drive to the east. At the time of this report, the property contains the following structures: A two-storey farmhouse with a two-storey rear addition that includes a walk -out basement; • A detached driveshed that has been converted into a separate dwelling unit, as approved by Heritage Permit Application HPA-2016-IV-011 submitted in 2016; and • A detached two -car garage, as approved by the previous most -recent Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-IV-006 submitted in 2021. Figure 2: Front Fagade of Subject Property 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designating By-law 2003-179, and is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. The property is identified as being part of the earliest inland non-native settlement of what would become Waterloo County. The existing farmhouse and driveshed structure is believed to have been constructed c.1830 by John Betzner, a member of one of Waterloo County's founding families. Architecturally the original farmhouse is a representative and early example of the Mennonite Georgian architectural style. The landscape of the property is of historical significance as well, as it includes views to the Grand River (designated a Canadian Heritage River) and still contains many of the features which originally influenced settlement in the area. Identified attributes of significance on the farmhouse include: Page 19 of 211 • All building elevations; • Fieldstone foundation; • Roof and roofline; • Return eaves; • Window and door openings; and • 6 -pane attic windows in gable ends. Identified attributes of significance on the driveshed include: • All building elevations; • Fieldstone foundation; • Roof and roofline; • Window and door openings; • Door hardware on north and west elevations; and • 6/6 windows. Proposed Work Demolition of Existing Deck and Concrete Slab At present there is an existing rear deck that extends from the ground floor of the farmhouse but, due to the sloped topography of the site, is located above -grade. The deck is comprised of Trex composite decking and has a wood and glass guard rail. A concrete -slab patio space is located beneath this deck. Figure 3: Existing Rear Deck and Patio Page 20 of 211 To facilitate the construction of the proposed one -storey rear addition the existing deck and patio will need to be demolished. A small 4.5-8 ton excavator will be used for the removal of these structures in addition to trenching for the concrete strip footing and foundation. Per the requirements of the Grand River Conservation Authority, silt fencing will be installed to the south of the excavation area to eliminate soil runoff during construction. IN TE. SHORING YSRE(X'D 111 FINE III CDNTIRCTOR. YRD IDE P END. SRCP D'vN G9 FOR NDE RE' EF EXIST EX[ T '.- DOD CLVIWNOR _ SNCw . PIERT RFMIN EXIST SJMED :OWMN � ON7R LT RT 'ERIFY� ER PI C F� i6®–R M7 E9 T T �.. CIIAENT )F BEvffl � T E�..-u.... GUT IND REMO''/E EXIST. E PUT 2, 12 FEW PROTRUDES EXTERIOR NALL PRIOR TO DEMOLITION ITPFCTOR TO vERlw FLooR UORT 3 BEAM BEFRING' COXDITION FOR DESIGN OF SHORING N ODD BE4A j CUT ANDF t401 EXIST 3- X11 FLY B -4P9 —DES E%i RICR EIFLL. PRC IDE OF SEEM ,EIIP SHORING FOR IKK WA EXIST6x5'JJC1DCOLLPVN3 \ EXIST CON. PIERSTOBE TCBEREAMP:EDITYP. VN.01 ` REPnCVED r7 R U. N 0.1 Figure 4: Demolition Plan for Rear Deck and Patio Construction of One -Storey Rear Addition and Deck EDGE ]F SLAB CUT EXIST. BLAB TG EE CUT & REIMO, ED The proposed one -storey rear addition is approximately 7.84 metres (25' 9") in width and 5.9 metres (19' 7") in length, which is approximately 1.2 metres (4 feet) greater than the existing concrete slab patio but otherwise in following with its existing footprint. The windows of the addition are proposed to be Pella wood framed and double hung, closely reflecting the appearance of the existing windows on the original farmhouse though grouped in a different manner that allows the new to be distinguishable from the old. James Hardie Shingles is the material proposed to be used for siding. The windows will be painted the same dark grey -brown colour as the existing windows while the siding will be a lighter neutral earth -tone such as Navajo Beige, Monterey Taupe or Khaki Brown. The roof system is proposed to be formed from waterproofing membrane and pressure -treated wood sleepers but will be otherwise covered by the re-established deck. The deck will be constructed from the same Trex composite decking and wood posts and rails with glass panels, maintaining its original appearance. The existing landscaping around the property is to be maintained, with any damage that occurs to the lawn to be remediated with new topsoil and grass seed after construction has completed. Page 21 of 211 Figure 5: Rendering of Proposed Rear Addition Figure 6: Side Elevations of the Proposed Addition Page 22 of 211 As the property slopes, the proposed rear addition will be located below the ground -floor of the original farmhouse. The topography, in addition to the location of the addition at the rear of the existing home, will mean that it will not be visible from the street (Figures 6-7). Further, as the new addition is proposed to extend from an existing addition, the potential for impacts to the original farmhouse itself it extremely limited. Figure 7: East Side View of Rear of Property from the Sidewalk Figure 8: West Side View of Rear of Property from the Sidewalk Page 23 of 211 The new addition will be visible should one approach the gate that leads from the adjacent City -owned property to the subject property (Figure 8). Currently from this vantage point the Grand River can be viewed through the existing deck; while the addition will block this view the applicant is proposing that the vegetation next to the east side of the gate be trimmed back so that the Grand River is visible from a slightly different angle. It should be noted that, while this view is identified in the Statement of Significance, it is not in itself identified as a heritage attribute within Designing By-law 2003-179. Figure 9: View of Rear of Property from City Land Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: The subject property municipally addressed as 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designating By-law 2003-179. The heritage attributes identified by the designating by-law relate primarily to the original farmhouse and the detached drive shed. The view, while identified in the Statement of Significance, is not identified within the heritage attributes list. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing rear deck and patio and construction of a new one -storey rear addition and re-establishment of the deck. Page 24 of 211 • The existing deck and patio are located against the existing rear addition, so there is very limited potential for accidental damage to the fabric of the original farmhouse to occur during their removal. • The proposed rear addition will not be visible from the street due to its location at the rear of the home, the presence of vegetation, and the sloping topography of the land. • The materials proposed to be used are appropriate for and compatible with the heritage character of the subject property; • The proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada in relation to additions. o In particular, the following standards are met: ■ 11. Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place. ■ 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. o In particular, the following guidelines are met: ■ 4.3.1 (13) Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures that the heritage value of the place is maintained. ■ 4.3.1 (14) Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. ■ 4.3.1 (15) Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. The proposed work is not anticipated to adversely impact the reasons for designation of the subject property, nor adversely impact the Joseph Schoerg Crescent streetscape or adjacent properties. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. Page 25 of 211 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — HPA-2024-IV-003 Application Form Attachment B — HPA-2024-IV-003 Architectural Drawings Attachment C — HPA-2024-IV-003 Written Documents Attachment D — Designating By-law Number 2003-179 Page 26 of 211 These documents. are instruments of. service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. -They may not.be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. 3D ISO - Existing 3D ISO - PROPOSED ADDITION (CEDAR SHAKES) Page 27 of 211 111 50mm x 50mm WOOD POSTS C/W BEVELED CORNERS @ 2.3m O.C. PROPYLENE REINFORCEMENT NETTING ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF FILTER FABRIC A. EROSION CONTROL TYPICAL JOINT 55— FACTORY +-- CONNECTED TOP ROPE G*\" 5� GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC OF FLO � ©IR O 0 770 yX NATIVE SOIL NnTF- CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN FILTER FABRIC FENCE UNTIL VEGETATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON ALL EXPOSED SOILS WITHIN CATCHMENT AREA 1 TYPICAL DETAIL NTS A1.0 SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE O.P.S.D. 219.110 1. ALL SILT FENCING TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY AREA GRADING, EXCAVATION OR DEMOLITION. 2. EROSION CONTROL FENCE TO BE PLACED AROUND THE BASE OF ALL STOCKPILES. ALL STOCKPILES TO BE KEPT A MINIMUM OF 2.5m FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES. 3. P-250 FILTER FABRIC UNDERLYING CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO CONSIST OF CLEANED OR REPLACED 300mm THICK, 50mmO STONE, STONE TO BE TAKEN UP WHEN ACCUMULATIONS COVER 50% OF TOP OF STONE (SEE DETAIL). 4. EROSION PROTECTION TO BE PROVIDED AROUND ALL STORM AND SANITARY MANHOLES AND/OR CATCHBASINS. 5. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS SITE DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL ADDITIONAL CONTROL STRUCTURES. 6. EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES TO BE MONITORED REGULARLY BY WITZEL DYCE ENGINEERING AND ANY DAMAGE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENTS TO BE REMOVED WHEN ACCUMULATIONS REACH A MAXIMUM OF ONE THIRD (1/3) THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. 7. ALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DISTURBED GROUND SURFACES HAVE BEEN RE -STABILIZED EITHER BY PAVING OR RESTORATION OF VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER. 8. NO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION SHALL BE PERMITTED UNLESS APPROVED BY WITZEL DYCE ENGINEERING. 9. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING SEDIMENTS FROM THE MUNICIPAL ROADS, SIDEWALKS AND DITCHES AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. 10. MUD MATS TO BE PROVIDED AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES EXIT THE SITE. MUD MATS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6m WIDE, 15.Om LONG (LENGTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON SITE LAYOUT) AND 0.3m DEEP AND SHALL CONSIST OF 150mmO-200mmO RIP -RAP MATERIAL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL VEHICLES LEAVE THE SITE VIA THE MUD MAT AND THAT THAT MAT IS MAINTAINED IN A MANNER TO MAXIMIZE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AT ALL TIMES. 11. WITZEL DYCE ENGINEERING TO MONITOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE ALL EROSION CONTROLS ARE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED TO TOWNSHIP REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH THE ENGINEER'S INSTRUCTIONS TO INSTALL, MODIFY, OR MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL WORKS. These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. M `V N S 2 101-0.08.13 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION WI zelL� Ce _i _� �y tN 7INEE�ING INb. 828 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2 J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com D. A. WITZEL 100149864 A �3,2� ON� PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON. DRAWING SITE PLAN DESIGNER DAW DRAWN CJF DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE 1:300 PROJECT NO. 15894-100 DRAWING NO. A1.0 Page 28 of 211 NOTE: SHORING AS REQ'D BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. PROVIDE P.ENG. SHOP DWGS FOR WIDE REVIEW EXIST. WINDOW TO REMAIN EXIST. BASEMENT 2 EXIST. 6x6 WOOD COLUMNS & EXIST. ASSUMED COLUMN n A2.0 CONC. PIER TO REMAIN CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY/ II EXIST. EXTERIOR WALL SEGMENT OF BEAM TO BE REMOVED II iv TO BE REMOVED 1 r2x EMOVE EXIST. 3 - AM PROTRUDESEXIST. WINDOWS TOBE E EXTERIOR WALLEM VN�D1 TO DEMOLITIONEXIST. CONCEALED VERIFY FLOOR BEAM &COLUMN BEAM BEARING00 EW1 FOR DESIGN OFNG & NEW BEAM NEW SLAB BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN (CEDAR SHAKES D C T/O DECK 11'-21/4" " SLAB ON GRADE REFER TO PLAN T/O BASEMENT FLOOR 0. 0. \777 \ \ SECTION WEST -EAST 1/4" = 1 1-011 ROOF ASSEMBLY TREX COMPOSITE DECKING TAPERED 2x P.T. WOOD SLEEPER EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE TPO ROOF MEMBRANE 1/2" PROTECTION BOARD 1" POLYISO RIGID INSULATION (R-5 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING TJI-230 14" ROOF JOISTS @ 16" O.C. C/W BATT. INSULATION (MIN. R-31) 6 MIL. POLY VAPOUR BARRIER 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD 1/2" CONT. DECO -FOAM @ 5" HEATED SLAB ON WALL JD NCT ON (TYP SLAB / FOUNDATION GRADE REFER TO PLAN �U000 j/j� a�VAVAVAjVAjVAjVAjVAjVAjVAjVAjVA /// I VAA /X//X AAj/AAj/AAj/A / 1/4" = 11-011 WALL SCHEDULE WALL LEGEND VIEW MATERIALS • CEDAR SHAKE CLADDING (COLOUR TBD) • 1x2 HORIZONTAL WOOD FURRING @ EVERY COURSE • VAPOUR PERMEABLE AIR BARRIER EW1 < 1" RIGID INSULATION (MIN. R-5) • 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING • 2x6 S.F.P. NO.1/2 WOOD STUD @ 16" O.C. C/W BATT. INSULATION (MIN. R-22) • 6 MIL. VAPOUR BARRIER • 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD B GUARD RAIL DESIGN BY OTHERS 3 A3.0 A�VATUH T T T T fl � L- y& I� j/A /\A/\/\ /7 74/V�/V�/\ 5" SLAP CN GRADE REFER PLAN iVA/VA/� xx VAVA jam DEMO PLAN T/O DECK 11 ' - 2 1/4" rik T/O WALL PLATE (LOW) 9'- 1 1/2" T/O BASEMENT FLOOR 0' 0„- - WINDOW SCHEDULE WINDOW SIZE FRAME COMMENTS W1 68" x 62" WOOD THERMALLY BROKEN, DOUBLE GLAZED, TINTED DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR SIZE MATERIAL FRAME D1 3'- 0" x 7- 0" I.H.M. I.H.M. IST. DECKING, DECK JOISTS, AMS TO BE REMOVED. TCH DENOTES AREA OF MOLITION EXIST. 6x6 WOOD COLUMNS TO BE REMOVED (TYP. U.N.O.) EXIST. WINDOW TO REMAIN EXIST. CONC. PIERS TO BE REMOVED (TYP. U.N.O.) 1 1 A2.0 2 ROOF ASSEMBLY TREX COMPOSITE DECKING TAPERED 2x P.T. WOOD SLEEPER EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE TPO ROOF MEMBRANE 1/2” PROTECTION BOARD 1" POLYISO RIGID INSULATION (R-5 C.I.) 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING TJI-230 14" ROOF JOISTS @ 16" O.C. C/W BATT. INSULATION (MIN. R-31) 6 MIL. POLY VAPOUR BARRIER 2 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD SECTION NORTH -SOUTH 1/4" = 1 1-011 GUARD RAIL DESIGN BY OTHERS A3.0 JLVL LINTEL, REFER TO PLAN FOR SIZE W1 5" HEATED SLAB ON 1/2" CONT. DECO -FOAM @ EW1 GRADE REFER TO PLAN HEAT WALLAB /N OUONDATO j V 8 A/VA/VA/VA/VA/VA/VA/ �/ A A/ / / VA/VA/VA/VA/VA/VA/VA/VA VA/VA/VA VA/VA/VA � \/VA/� //A AA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�VA�\,; ° �VA�� 1/4" = 11-011 These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dvice Enaineerina Inc. 2 2023.08.23 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION WitzelDyce ENGINEERING INC. 826 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com 3 D. A. WITZEL 10014EI ug 23, 2023 CE Of ON,�QQ PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON DRAWING FLOOR PLAN & DEMOLITION PLAN DESIGNER PROJECT NO. TGEC / DAW 15894-100 DRAWN DRAWING NO. TXC DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE AS NOTED A2.0 Page 29 of 211 T/O MAIN FLOOR 11 ' - 5 1/4" T/O DECK 11 ' - 2 1/4" - - - EXIST. 3 -PLY 2x12 EXIST. VERTICAL BOARD & BATTEN CLADDING TO REMAIN T/0 DECK 11'-21/4"- - - T/O WALL PLATE (LOW) 9' - 1 1/2" - - T/0 BASEMENT FLOOR "'-0" - - - 1 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY IF THE EXIST. WALL SYSTEM HAVE SUITABLE AIR BARRIER / DRAINING SYSTEM FOR NEW ROOF MEMBRANE TO SECURE INTO. IF CONDITION VARIES CONTACT WIDE w BEAM v SECTION DECK/ FLOOR JUNCTION EXIST. ASSUMED AIR BARRIER TO BE PEEL & RE -SEAL OVER TOP OF NEW EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE PROVIDE MIN. 6" OVERLAP EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE TO LAP DECK / RO F ASSEMBLY - & SE-AL--OVER-T--PO-ROOF - - - BECK -I ROOF-ASS€MBI REFER TO SECTION MEMBRANE, AND EXTEND UP TO REFER TO SECTION SEAL OVER EXIST. INSULATION VAPOUR BARRIER TO BE EXTEND UP AND SEAL OVER EXIST. WOOD BEAM. BEAM SIZE PENDING CONTRACTOR VERIFICATION OF CONFIGURATION OF EXTERIOR WALL & EXIST. INTERIOR FRAMING EXIST. BUILDING TO REMAIN. NEW WOOD GUARD C/W GLASS PANEL. 1 1/2" = V-0" PRE -FIN. ALUM. GUTTER C/W DOWNSPOUT EW 36'X84" I.H M \// / /\ NEW DAR SHAKE/NE DO BLE HUNG/ / /DOOR C/W LITE \\// / CLADDING.% /WINDOW, TO MATCH /�AEXIST.(TYP.)�/ PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION (CEDAR SHAKES DOUBLE 2x6 TOP PLATES WOOD LINTEL REFER TO PLAN NEW P.T. WOOD COLW Lt L IL NEW CONC. SLAB ON GRADE TO MATCH EXIB GRADE - - ��i/rte FILL SHIM SPACE W/ EXPANDING SPRAY FOAM INSULATION GYPSUM RETURN SECTION GUARDRAIL DBO 2x TAPERED P.T. WOOD BLOCKING BETWEEN SLEEPERS ------------ EPDM MEMBRANE TO LAP AND SEAL OVER TOP OF METAL FLASHING & LEAD INTO GUTTER Z PRE -FIN. BENT METAL FLASHING SITS OVER TOP OF TPO MEMBRANE PRE -FIN. ALUM. GUTTER C/W DOWNSPOUT ] TPO MEMBRANE TO LAP AND SEAL OVER TOP OF AIR BARRIER MIN. 6" OVER LAP 1.75"x14" LVL PERIMETER ROOF JOIST VAPOUR PERMEABLE AIR BARRIER EW1 BLUE SKIN TRANSITION STRIP LAP AND SEAL AROUND WINDOW OPENING AND SEAL UNDER THROUGH WALL FLASHING W/ MIN. 6" OVER LAP PRE -FIN. ALUM. THROUGH WALL FLASHING C/W DRIP EDGE WOOD WINDOW REFER TO PLAN r1_'LL_ 1 1/2" = V-0" DECK / EXTERIOR WALL JUNCTION 1.75"x14' 6 MIL POLY VAF DOUBLE 6 DECK/ ROOF ASSEMBLY 1/4" = 11-011 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION (CEDAR SHAKES SECTION 1 1/2" = V-0" DECK SOFFIT / EXTERIOR WALL JUNCTION RTICAL BOARD CLADDING TO A GUARDRAIL DBO 2x TAPERED P.T. WOOD SLEEPERS LAP & SEAL EPDM MEMBRANE OVER TOP OF TPO MEMBRANE, CONCEALED UNDER METAL FLASHING. 1.75"x14" LVL PERIMETER ROOF JOIST PRE -FIN. BENT METAL FLASHING C/W DRIP CHANNEL A B C D 1/4" = 11-011 SOUTH ELEVATION (CEDAR SHAKES) 1/4" = 11-011 These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dvice Enaineerina Inc. 2 1 2023.08.23 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION Witze I D vic e ENGINEERING INC. 826 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com Uco)fr,: PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON DRAWING ELEVATIONS & SECTION DETAILS DESIGNER PROJECT NO. TGEC / DAW 15894-100 DRAWN DRAWING NO. TXC DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE A3.0 AS NOTED Page 30 of 211 A B C D ATCH DENOTES DOOR LOCATION OUTLINE DENOTES EDGE I ao OF NEW EXTERIOR SLAB (TYP.) CONC 8 CF` 1- - FOUNDATION PLAN EXIST. DECK JO EXIST. 6x6 WOOD COLU 2 -PLY 2.0E 1.75" x MICROLLAM LVL APPROVED EQUIVALE a- - - - 5" HEATED S.O.G. C/W 2" SM RIGID INSULATION (MIN. R10) W/ (MIN.) 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR W BASE UNEXOWATED CONC 8 WF1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONC 8 1/4" = 1 1-011 PROVIDE 15M x 16" LG. DOWELS @ 16" O.C. VERT. INTO EXIST. FOUNDATION WALL FROM NEW FOUNDATION WALL. ADHERE W/ EPDXY (MIN.) 8" EMBED. (TYP. AT ALL NEW TO EXIST. LOCATIONS) CF 1 PROVIDE (2)15M x 16" LG. DOWELS INTO EXIST. FOOTING FROM NEW FOOTING. ADHERE W/ EPDXY (MIN.) 8" EMBED. (TYP. AT ALL NEW TO EXIST. LOCATIONS) NEW 8"0 SONOTUBE C/W F-2 CONCRETE. (MIN.) 4'-0" BELOW GRADE FOR FROST PROTECTION (TYP. AT 4 LOCATIONS) � CF1 20"0 BELL BOTTOM FOOTING (TYP. AT 4 LOCATIONS) 2 -PLY 2.0E 1.75" x MICROLLAM LVL APPROVED EQUIVALE ROOF FRAMING PLAN DESIGN LOADS SNOW LOADS LL = 60 PSF DL = 15 PSF WALL SCHEDULE WALL THICKNESS REINFORCING COMMENTS CONC 8 8" (2) 15M CONT. TOP FOOTING SCHEDULE FOOTING SIZE REINFORCING CF1 200 WF1 24"x8" (2) 15M CONT. 1/4" = 1 1-011 COLUMN SCHEDULE COLUMN SIZE C1 6x6 SOLID SAWN TIMBER POST C2 2-2x6 BUILT UP POST C3 3-2x6 BUILT UP POST F. DECK JOIST =XIST. 6x6 WOOD COLUMN 2 -PLY 2.0E 1.75" x 14" ACROLLAM LVL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT )TE: SLOPED TJI TO BE MOUNTED TH SIMPON STRONG TIE BA/HB JOIST ANGERS OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 2 -PLY 2.0E 1.75" x 14" ACROLLAM LVL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT LINTEL SCHEDULE SIZE END BEARING 3 -PLY 1 3/4" x 7.25" 2.0E LVL 2J+2K EA. END. 2 -PLY 2x8 1 J+2K EA. END. A. GENERAL 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AND ALL STANDARDS REFERENCED WITHIN, LOCAL REGULATIONS AND BYLAWS, AND THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THE LATEST VERSIONS OF STANDARDS SHALL APPLY. 2. READ THESE DRAWINGS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELATED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND CONSULTANT DRAWINGS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH ALL CONDITIONS WHICH MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS IN RELATION TO THE DRAWINGS AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER TO ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. 4. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. 5. THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE USE WITH THE PARTY WHOM THE ENGINEER HAS ENTERED INTO CONTRACT. THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO ANY PARTY WITH WHOM THE ENGINEER HAS NOT ENTERED INTO CONTRACT. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT TESTING AND INSPECTION COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING COMPACTION TESTING, REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT, CONCRETE TESTING AND STRUCTURAL STEEL. 7. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE GIVEN MINIMUM 24 HOURS NOTICE BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION REVIEWS. SITE VISITS AND REVIEWS BY THE ENGINEER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE ARE INTENDED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL DESIGN CONCEPT. THE REVIEWS SHALL NOT MEAN THAT THE ENGINEER HAS SEEN ALL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES. REVIEW BY THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AND FOR MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADS AND TEMPORARY BRACING TO ENSURE SAFETY AND THE BUILDING IS PLUMB AND IN TRUE ALIGNMENT AT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER O.REG 213/91. ALL BRACING MEMBERS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE FINISHED STRUCTURE AND MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR ERECTION PURPOSES. SHORING AND BRACING SHALL BE DESIGNED, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH P.ENG STAMP FOR OUR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9. NO SUBSTITUTIONS FROM THE SPECIFIED PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS ARE PERMITTED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. TESTING REQUIREMENTS TEST COMMENTS SOIL BEARING CAPACITY BY GEOTECH. SOIL COMPACTION BY GEOTECH. REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT FINAL PLACEMENT CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE TESTS MIN. 2 SETS PER 100 m' CONCRETE SLUMP ALL TESTING TO BE COMPLETED BY A CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT TESTING AND INSPECTION COMPANY. COPIES OF ALL REPORTS ARE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. B. FOUNDATIONS 1. FOUNDATIONS ARE TO BEAR DIRECTLY ON UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED FILL WITH A ASSUMED MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY OF 150 kPa SLS AND 225 kPa ULS. TBC BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. REMOVE ALL TOP SOIL, ORGANIC MATERIAL, LOOSE FILL AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL FROM THE BUILDING AREA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3. PROOF ROLL EXISTING FILL MATERIALS. SOFT AREAS UNCOVERED DURING EXCAVATION SHALL BE SUB -EXCAVATED TO SOUND MATERIAL AND REPLACED WITH CLEAN, FREE DRAINING FILL COMPACTED TO 100% STANDARD PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (SPMDD). 4. COMPACTED FILL BENEATH FOOTINGS AND FLOOR SLABS SHALL BE COMPACTED IN MAXIMUM 150mm (6") LAYERS. 5. PLACE ALL FOOTINGS EXPOSED TO FREEZING WEATHER MINIMUM 1200mm (4'-0") BELOW GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROTECTED. PROTECT SOIL BELOW AND ADJACENT TO ALL FOOTINGS FROM FREEZING DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE EXISTING FOOTINGS ARE NOT DISTURBED OR UNDERMINED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. BACKFILL AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE LEVEL OF BACKFILLING ON ONE SIDE OF THE WALL IS NEVER MORE THAN 500mm (20") HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL ON THE LOWER SIDE OF THE WALL EXCEPT WHERE TEMPORARY SUPPORT FOR THE WALL IS PROVIDED OR THE WALLS ARE DESIGNED FOR SUCH UNEVEN PRESSURES. 8. LOCATE ALL PIERS AND FOOTINGS CONCENTRIC UNDER COLUMNS AND WALLS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL NOT OCCUR IN CONCRETE WALLS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. C. CONCRETE 1. CONCRETE WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF CAN/CSA-A23.1, A23.2 AND A23.3. 2. CONCRETE PROPERTIES: (MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH MEASURED AT 28 DAYS UNLESS NOTED) a. ALL CONCRETE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - 20 MPa b. SEE CHART FOR CONCRETE TYPES CONCRETE PROPERTIESM MEMBER CONNECTION TENSION SPLICE COMPRESSION o E 2 BOTTOM WALL PLATE TO EMBEDMENT a-� FLOOR JOISTS z w BUILT-UP LINTELS 82m (3 1/4") U Q = OUB U w z ~ E E E U Qw O OU D o M Q U 0Y-�< � Q Q a0 J 400 LOCATION 500 N co of (16) Q U FOOTINGS N 20 NA NA 20 80±30 CONCRETE IN AN UNSATURATED F-2 25 0.55 4-7 20 80±30 CONDITION EXPOSED TO FREEZING (30") Q } U 20M 800 800 800 AND THAWING BUT NOT CHLORIDES 900 z 00 LLO w = (32") (32") (32") (EXTERIOR WALLS AND PIERS) (36") Ow 25M 1200 1100 1000 INTERIOR CONCRETE SLABS N 25 0.50 NA 20 80 ±30 NON -STRUCTURALLY C-2 32 0.45 5-8 20 80 ±30 REINFORCED CONCRETE N/A Q = o (56) (52) (48) EXPOSED TO CHLORIDES AND ui U z Q 35M 1650 1500 1400 FREEZING AND THAWING N/A ~O U w = U (66") (60") (56") (SIDEWALKS, EXTERIOR z z � co UNREINFORCED SLABS) 3. CONCRETE DESIGN IS BASED ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (SLUMP, AGGREGATE SIZE, ETC.) TO SUIT INSTALLATION (BY OTHERS) NOT TO AFFECT STRENGTH SPECIFIED. 4. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE TESTED BY A CSA CERTIFIED CONCRETE TESTING LABORATORY. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE COPIES OF TESTING REPORTS TO THE ENGINEER. NOT LESS THAN ONE TEST SHALL BE MADE FOR EACH 100m' OF CONCRETE WITH AT LEAST ONE TEST FOR EACH CLASS OF CONCRETE USED. A MINIMUM OF THREE TESTS IS REQUIRED FOR EACH CLASS. 5. SLUMP OF CONCRETE TO BE 80mm +/- 30mm PRIOR TO SUPER PLASTICIZERS BEING ADDED. 6. ALL CONCRETE FORMS ARE TO BE WET THOROUGHLY PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. WATER CURING OF CONCRETE IS RECOMMENDED. 7. DO NOT ADD WATER TO THE CONCRETE. 8. ALL CONCRETE EXCEPT FOR CONCRETE SLABS 150mm (6") OR LESS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VIBRATED. 9. CONTROL JOINTS IN CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ARE TO BE SPACED AT MAXIMUM 30 TIMES THE SLAB THICKNESS NOT TO EXCEED 4500mm (15'-0) AND A DEPTH OF 1/3 THE THICKNESS OF THE SLAB. CUT 50% OF THE REINFORCING STEEL AT CONTROL JOINT LOCATIONS. 10. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF CAN/CSA-G30.18. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DEFORMED, GRADE 400 MPa. 11. MAINTAIN THE FOLLOWING CONCRETE CLEAR COVER TO REINFORCING: a. 75mm (3") FOR CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH b. 38mm (1 1/2") FOR CONCRETE CAST AGAINST FORMWORK c. 64mm (2 1/2") FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO DE-ICING CHEMICALS 12. ALL REINFORCING STEEL, DOWELS AND ANCHOR BOLTS ARE TO BE CLEAN AND FREE OF RUST, DIRT, FORM RELEASE AGENT, ETC. PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE. 13. LAP REINFORCING STEEL AS PER REINFORCING STEEL CHART BELOW (MIN). LAP ALL HORIZONTAL BARS AT CORNERS WITH BENT DOWELS MEETING THE MINIMUM LAP REQUIREMENTS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. SHOP FABRICATE ALL REINFORCING STEEL TO INCLUDE HOOKS AND BENDS. 14. REINFORCING STEEL, DOWELS AND ANCHOR BOLTS ARE TO BE SECURELY TIED PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. REINFORCING STEEL CHAIRS AND SUPPORTS SHALL BE MADE OF CONCRETE BLOCKS, PLASTIC OR WIRE. 15. DOWELS SHALL MATCH REINFORCING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 16. INSTALLATION OF ALL PROPRIETARY ANCHORS IS TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. SPECIALIZED TRAINING MAYBE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE PRODUCT. CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER TO ARRANGE THE REQUIRED TRAINING. REINFORCING STEEL MINIMUM LAP LENGTHS MEMBER CONNECTION TENSION SPLICE COMPRESSION REINFORCED 82m (3 1/4") 2 BOTTOM WALL PLATE TO EMBEDMENT MASONRY FLOOR JOISTS \SIZE BUILT-UP LINTELS 82m (3 1/4") 300mm x 64mm LU LU of� (12"x3") O.C. E E E E EO Ow �� TOP PLATE N o M o o O w z of 10M 400 400 400 450 500 U = oU 3 (16) (16) (16) (18) (20) -1 =�U IL U) 15M 600 600 600 650 750 °? w 50mm (2") (24") (24") (24") (26") (30") Q } U 20M 800 800 800 900 900 z 00 LLO w = (32") (32") (32") (36") (36") Ow 25M 1200 1100 1000 1370 1370 0 Q (48") (44") (40") (54") (54") = z o 30M 1400 1300 1200 1600 N/A Q = o (56) (52) (48) (64) ui U z Q 35M 1650 1500 1400 1850 N/A ~O U w = U (66") (60") (56") (74") z z � co D.LUMBER 1. WOOD FRAMING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSIONS OF CSA 086. 2. SAWN LUMBER SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF CSA STANDARD 0141 AND BE SPF GRADE NO. 2 OR BETTER. 3. STRUCTURAL COMPOSITE LUMBER SHALL BE: a. LAMINATED STRAND LUMBER (LSL) - TIMBERSTRAND GRADE 1.5SE AS MANUFACTURED BY WEYERHAEUSER OR APPROVED EQUAL b. LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER (LVL) - MICROLAM GRADE 1.9E AS MANUFACTURED BY WEYERHAEUSER OR APPROVED EQUAL c. PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER (PSL) - PARALLAM GRADE 2.0E AS MANUFACTURED BY WEYERHAEUSER OR APPROVED EQUAL 4. NAILS SHALL CONFORM TO STEEL WIRE NAILS AND SPIKES AS DEFINED IN CSA 13111 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 5. PROVIDE SOLID HORIZONTAL BLOCKING AT 1200mm (48") O.C. IN THE FIRST TWO JOIST SPACES ADJACENT TO THE EXTERIOR WALLS. BRIDGING SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL TO PROVIDE LATERAL STABILITY. 6. ALL NAILS AND FASTENERS IN CONTACT WITH PRESSURE TREATED WOOD ARE TO BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL. 7. ALL STUD WALLS TO BE ANCHORED TO THE FOUNDATION WALL OR FLOOR SLAB WITH 1/2" DIAMETER ANCHORS @ 800mm (32") O.C.. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN 400mm (16") OF THE EXTERIOR EDGE OF ALL STUD WALLS. NAILING REQUIREMENTS MEMBER CONNECTION NAIL LENGTH NUMBER OF NAILS STUD TO WALL PLATE 82m (3 1/4") 2 BOTTOM WALL PLATE TO 82m (3 1/4") 400m (16") O.C. FLOOR JOISTS BUILT-UP LINTELS 82m (3 1/4") 300mm x 64mm (12"x3") O.C. KING/JACK POSTS &COLUMNS 82mm (3 1/4") 2 @ 300mm (12") O.C. FLOOR/CEILING JOIST TO 82m (3 1/4") 2 TOP PLATE ROOF RAFTER TO TOP PLATE 82m (3 1/4") 3 LINTEL TO KING POST 82m (3 1/4") 50mm (2") O.C. ROOF RAFTER TO RIDGE BEAM 82m (3 1/4") 3 COLLAR TIE TO ROOF RAFTER 82m (3 1/4") 3 WALL SHEATHING -PERIMETER 50mm (2") 150mm (6") O.C. -INTERIOR 300mm(12") O.C. ROOF SHEATHING -PERIMETER 50mm (2") 150mm(6") O.C. -INTERIOR 300mm(12") O.C. FLOOR SHEATHING -PERIMETER 50mm (2") SCREWS 150mm(6") O.C. INTERIOR 300mm(12") O.C. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED NAME P.ENG. STAMP MINIMUM CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: CONCRETE MIX DESIGN NO REBAR NO ENGINEERED LUMBER YES LAYOUT, BRIDGING, BLOCKING AND BEARING DETAILS SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FABRICATION. SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE REVIEWED AND STAMPED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ISSUING TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dvice Enaineerina Inc. 2 1 2023.08.23 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION WitzelDyce ENGINEERING INC. 826 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com D. A. WITZEL 100149864 A ug 23, 202y, \,NCE OE ON PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON DRAWING FOUNDATION, FRAMING PLAN & GENERAL NOTES DESIGNER PROJECT NO. TGEC / DAW 15894-100 DRAWN DRAWING NO. TXC DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE AS NOTED S1.0 Page 31 of 211 EXIST. CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE EXIST. CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL CUTDOWN EXIST. FOUNDATION WALL 8".DO NOT CUT WALL DOWN AT COLUMN PIERS 5" CONCRETE SLAB ON MIN. 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR 'A' 10M DOWELS x 24" LONG AT 24" O.C. ADHERE WITH EPDXY. MIN. 6" EMBEDMENT INTO EXISTING SLAB 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOR SLAB AT EXIST. FOUNDATION WALL GRID T/O DECK 11 ' - 2 1/4" FIN. FLOOR GRADE 8' (2) 15M CONT. CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL 0 SHEAR KEY z � a 8"x24" FOOTING c/w (2) 15M CONT. 46 1 Detail 1/2" = 1'-0" S1.1 FOUNDATION WALL (EXTERIOR - 8") _j EXIST. CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE EXIST. CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL CUTDOWN EXIST. FOUNDATION WALL 8".DO NOT CUT WALL DOWN AT COLUMN PIERS 5" CONCRETE SLAB ON MIN. 6" COMPACTED GRANULAR 'A' 10M DOWELS x 24" LONG AT 24" O.C. ADHERE WITH EPDXY. MIN. 6" EMBEDMENT INTO EXISTING SLAB 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOR SLAB AT EXIST. FOUNDATION WALL EXIST. DECK JOIST EXIST. LEDGER BOARD SECTION PROVIDE BLOCKING AS REQUIRED 1 2x TAPERED P.T. WOOD SLEEPER 14" TJI-230 REFER TO PLAN SIMPSON STRONG TIE BA/HB JOIST HANGER NEW 2 -PLY 1.75"x14" LVL REFER TO PLAN 1" = 1'-0" DECK FRAMING NEW TO EXIST. These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dvice Enaineerina Inc. 2 1 2023.08.23 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION L ""3 Witze I Dy ENGINEERING INC. 826 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com 3 0. A. WITZEL 100149864 A ug 23, 2023 OF oN�PQ PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON DRAWING SECTION DETAILS DESIGNER PROJECT NO. TGEC / DAW 15894-100 DRAWN DRAWING NO. TXC DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE S1.1 AS NOTED Page 32 of 211 EXIST. DECKING T/O DECK 11 ' - 2 1/4" EXIST. DECK JOIST EXIST. LEDGER BOARD SECTION PROVIDE BLOCKING AS REQUIRED 1 2x TAPERED P.T. WOOD SLEEPER 14" TJI-230 REFER TO PLAN SIMPSON STRONG TIE BA/HB JOIST HANGER NEW 2 -PLY 1.75"x14" LVL REFER TO PLAN 1" = 1'-0" DECK FRAMING NEW TO EXIST. These documents are instruments of service and are the copyright property of Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. They may not be reproduced, altered or reused without the expressed written consent of Witzel Dvice Enaineerina Inc. 2 1 2023.08.23 RE -ISSUED 1 2023.08.11 ISSUED NO. DATE REVISION L ""3 Witze I Dy ENGINEERING INC. 826 King Street North, Unit 20 Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 4G8 www.witzeldyce.com 3 0. A. WITZEL 100149864 A ug 23, 2023 OF oN�PQ PROJECT 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG ADDITION 300 JOSEPH SCHOERG CRES. KITCHENER, ON DRAWING SECTION DETAILS DESIGNER PROJECT NO. TGEC / DAW 15894-100 DRAWN DRAWING NO. TXC DATE AUGUST 2023 SCALE S1.1 AS NOTED Page 32 of 211 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS _. Development & Housing Approvals F 200 King Street West, 61h Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order thal 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 heritacie kitchener.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 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 • Repointing of brick 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 2024 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. 2024 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2024 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 24, 2023 January 9, 2024 December 29, 2023 February 6, 2024 January 26, 2024 March 5, 2024 February 23, 2024 April 2, 2024 March 29, 2024 May 7, 2024 April 26, 2024 June 4, 2024 - No July Meeting June 28, 2024 August 61 2024 July 26, 2024 September 3, 2024 August 23, 2024 October 1, 2024 September 27, 2024 November 5, 2024 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 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 2024 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 2024 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, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • 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.historigpI22gs.ca/en/gages/standards-norm For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritaaea kitchen er.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS _. Development & Housing Approvals F 200 King Street West, 61h Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Page 7 of 10 ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition 2 New Construction 2 Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, N2P 2X9 Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: IR Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: IR Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? IR Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: John Tibbits Address: 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener/Ontario/N2P 2X9 Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Luke Passmore Company: Frey Building Contractors Address: 3475 Broadway Street City/Province/Postal Code: Hawkesville/Ontario/NOB 1X0 Phone: 519-841-5925 Email: luke@freybc.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 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. Please see attached document "Written Description" for a detailed description of the proposed project. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The home owner would like to increase the area of the lower level to accomodate furniture and exercise equipment, for which the current space is too small. 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 attached document "consistency with designating by-law" for 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 see the attached document "Consistency with Parks Canada's Standards" for details. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Spring 2024 Expected completion date: Summer 2024 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 19 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Jessica Vieira, Deeksha Choudhry c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes IR No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes 9 No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number GRCA permit received Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 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/Agen ,,. Date: Luke Passmore 01/25/2024 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, John Tibbits owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Luke Passmore to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: January 24, 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage r/�rroe� F'iF tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS WRITTEN DESCRIPTION 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario: The project description that follows is to accompany Witzel Dyce Engineering drawings issued 2023/08/11 - 6 pages. The proposed project is an expansion of the basement of the existing addition to the original house. Frey Building Contractors (FBC) would remove the existing pressure treated deck framing (including decorative arbor), wooden railing and Trex composite decking from the rear of the existing structure, completely to the south. Also being removed is the current patio comprised of 4" thick concrete slab. The slab and remaining concrete post piers would be removed from the rear of the house only; concrete sidewalks to the east and west of the current addition could remain. During the removals process, existing underground electrical feeds to the pond and hot tub would be re-routed to new exterior wall location and new hot tub location respectively. The demolition of the deck and patio is necessary to properly complete construction of the addition underneath and on its current footprint. After construction of the basement addition is complete, the deck will be reconstructed using identical finishes, with the addition of four additional feet of deck to the south of the property. The decorative arbour would not be reconstructed according to the proposed plan, although this is not a major sticking point and could be reconstructed if needed. For the slab removal and excavation process, a small 4.5-8 Ton excavator would be used to break up existing concrete and trench for a typical 8" x 24" concrete strip footing and 4'x8" foundation wall. For the interior floor slab, a 5" thick concrete slab with in -floor heating would be poured. In addition to re -pouring the east and west side walk concrete, Frey proposes to pour a small 3'x 7' extension to the south-west corner of the new addition to accommodate the relocation of the existing hot tub. New 8" diameter Sonotubes will also be needed to support the new deck posts at the outer south-east and south-west corners of the addition. As per GRCA permit requirements, silt fence will be installed to the south of the excavation to eliminate soil erosion during construction. Once the framing begins, the southernmost section of basement wall will be removed after shoring is placed to support the existing floor structure. A new steel beam will be installed to replace the exterior wall framing, creating a larger open concept recreation room in the lower level. The structural framing around the addition perimeter will consist of 2x6 wood studs at 16" on center, with the ceiling system being comprised of TJI roof joists at 16" on center. The addition will be insulated using a variety of materials including: ➢ 3" Rigid SM for foundation ➢ 2" Rigid SM under heated floor slab ➢ R22 fiberglass batts and 1" rigid SM for walls DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT- GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 43 of 211 r/�rroe� F'iF tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS ➢ R31 or greater fiberglass batts and 1" poly -iso rigid insulation for ceiling Forming the roof system under the new deck, TPO (Thermoplastic polyolefin) and EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer) membranes will be used to keep the new addition watertight. On top of the roof membranes, new pressure treated wood 'sleepers' will be used to support the new Trex composite deck materials in the same colour as the old Trex. Wood posts and rails, including glass railing panels will be re -installed, though in smaller sections than the existing. Additional posts needed will be created using identical stained pine, thereby maintaining existing style elements of the glass/rail/posts. This will conserve the existing deck appearance. For windows, we propose to install Pella wood framed, double hung windows manufactured as closely as possible to the windows in the existing house, using the same colour, brick mould style and grill size/pattern as the existing house windows. The seven windows will all be 68" x 62" and the entry door is proposed to be a 3'x7' insulated hollow metal door with 2 panel bottom pattern and half light like the existing basement entry door with identical colour to the original. The windows are large for two reasons; 1. To allow as much natural light as possible into the space, and 2. To facilitate as much as possible maintaining the view to the river from the public lands to the east of the addition. For the addition siding, we propose to use James Hardie Shingle siding in an earth tone colour such as Navajo Beige, Monterey Taupe or Khaki Brown. The nonlinear shingle pattern will compliment the existing cape cod horizontal wood siding and board and batten vertical wood siding, both in earth tones. A wood shingle siding maintains a similar building material, and by using a complimentary earth tone, the addition will integrate seamlessly with the existing building. The shingle colour is not critical to the client, and they are open to feedback in this regard to facilitate a successful application. Surrounding the new addition, FBC proposes to maintain the existing gardens and landscaping, except a small 21ft2 area where the new hot tub location will be constructed into the south-western garden bed. Damage to the existing lawn during construction will be repaired and made good with new topsoil and grass seed to return the lawn to its original condition. Additional/new landscaping is not proposed as part of this project. Summary of proposed materials: ➢ Footings, foundation & slabs - 20-32MPa concrete c/w typical 15M reinforcing - wet set/cast in place. ➢ Wall framing - SPF lumber, 2x6 walls, 2x8 lintels, LVL lintels - fastened using nails, anchor bolts and screws. DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT- GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 44 of 211 r/�rroe� F'iF; tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS ➢ Ceiling/roof framing - 14" Trus Joist I -joist (TJ I) and LVL perimeter joists -fastened using nails and screws. ➢ Deck framing - Pressure treated 2x8, covered with Trex composite decking to match existing - fastened using screws. ➢ Railing - painted pressure treated (replace existing) - fastened using screws. ➢ Roofing - TPO (Thermoplastic polyolefin) and EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer) membranes under deck framing (not visible upon completion) - glued down. ➢ Windows - Pella wood constructed double hung windows with grill pattern to match existing - installed using screws. ➢ Door - Insulated metal door, 2 -square pattern with half light, same as existing (change swing direction) - installed using screws. ➢ Siding - wood shingle siding in subtle earth tone to compliment existing - propose Monterey Taupe, but more than happy to accept any suggestion for alternate - installed using nails. ➢ Siding trim - 3" square barnboard around windows and door to match existing addition detail, painted to match shake siding - fastened using nails. DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT- GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 45 of 211 r/�rroe� F'iF tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGNATING BYLAW 300 Joseph Schoerg Cresent, 11(itchener, Ontario: The proposed addition to the Betzner Farmhouse is symmetrical in its design, which maintains the Mennonite Georgian style of building. By imitating or copying the existing style of window and door currently being used, we further believe that the proposed addition tries to appreciate those elements which are architectural features of significance. Further, the proposed addition would not conflict with the roof or roofline of the current structure since no new roof or roofline features are proposed. The existing deck forms the roof of the new structure, in essence. As proposed, the proposed new addition has little affect on current building elevations as viewed from the street. Due to the existing vegetation, grading and deck structure, the new addition is barely visible from many vantage points. Because of the subtleness of the proposed changes, we further believe that the proposed work is consistent with the value expressed in the bylaw. Another significant feature of the Betzner Farmhouse is the view of the landscape toward the river. From the sidewalk and many other vantage points on the property the proposed addition will not impact the view of the riverscape. There is one viewpoint that will be impacted; the view from the gate located on City property directly East of the Farmhouse. However, we propose that the location of corner windows would mitigate this impact. Also consider that the existing view is somewhat already blocked by the existing deck, and additional structure constructed under it would not increase this impeded view to a significant degree. Also, we proposed that trimming the brush between the gate and the first large tree which would 'shift' the vantage point from which to view the current landscape and restore the view. In this way, we feel the natural environment/landscape portion of the heritage bylaw is maintained and impacted only to an extremely minor degree. DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 46 of 211 r/�rroe� F'iF; tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS CONSISTENCY WITH PARKS CANADA'S STANDARD 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario: By considering the existing view of the surrounding landscape, and incorporating design elements that attempt to preserve it, the proposed addition maintains the spirit of the Parks Canada Standard. To the extent that the proposal falls short of fully maintaining the existing view of the landscape from City property, the proposed alternate work of clearing overgrowth provides to reinstate the view across the property from a slightly different vantage point. In my opinion, the primary treatment for this property is 'preservation'. Preserving the view of the landscape and preserving the architectural value and elements of the farmhouse are of primary importance. By attempting to maintain the view and not disturb the original building while incorporating elements of the old into the new, the proposal maintains the spirit of the standard. Maintain Use: The use of the property is its heritage value. Since the work does not propose to change any of the existing elements of the Farmhouse, the work does not significantly impact the'look' of the house, and the view of the property can be maintained, the work is consistent with the Standard. Needs of future users: Future owners of the property will benefit from the additional lower area. Future viewers of the property can still enjoy the landscape and significant architectural features of the original house. Primary Treatment: (Preservation): The project would fall under "preservation" in our opinion. By not altering the original farmhouse and maintaining the view, those elements are preserved. The Standards: 1. Conserve heritage value: The proposed work does not remove, replace, or substantially alter character -defining elements. 2. Conserve changes: The proposed work maintains the general existing footprint of the building, and general building elevations are not changed. The deck remains. 3. Conserve heritage value: The work does not propose to change any of the existing heritage elements of the house and alters only slightly the view of the heritage landscape. Building elevations are not significant changed since the deck is existing, and the proposed work is to occur mostly within the existing footprint. 4. Do not combine historic features: To our understanding, we do not propose to add unnatural historic elements. It is our belief that enclosing the area below the deck is a subtle DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 47 of 211 r/�rroe� F'iF; tEY BUILCING CONTRACTORS change, does not significantly affect the building elevations and can use design elements consistent with existing features. 5. Minimal to no change in use: We believe the construction does not alter the use of this historic place. The existing heritage elements and landscape view can still be appreciated. 6. Protect and stabilize: We don't believe this standard applies to the proposed work. The property is occupied and will continue to be so in the future. The landscape will not be affected, and any lawn repair will be minimal. We don't believe there are any archaeological resources that need protecting. 7. Evaluate existing elements: The character -defining elements which could be interpreted as being impacted is "exterior building elevations". However, since the addition is being proposed under the existing deck structure, we feel that the overall elevation of the building is not impacted to any significant degree. It is our opinion that no other elements of the property require intervention. 3. Maintain character -defining elements: No existing elements are significantly deteriorated. Property maintenance is undertaken by the owner. 9. Compatible interventions: No interventions on existing elements are being proposed. 10. Repair ratherthan replace elements: We are not proposing to repair any existing elements. 11. Conserve value and elements with new additions: The addition is proposed to look distinct from the existing addition and original house by using a different format of wood siding and colour, but also compliment the existing by using common material, similar windows and window trims. Reconstructing the deck with existing posts and colours should lend to retaining the look of the structure. Because the addition is designed under the existing deck, we feel it blends nicely with the existing structure and will appear subtle and subordinate to the rest of the structure and property. 12. Reversibility: it is possible that the basement addition could be removed in the future. The deck framing could be replaced and maintain the look of the existing property. 13. Repair rather than replace: We don't believe this standard applies to the proposed construction. 14. Replace missing features: We don't believe this standard applies to the proposed construction. DESIGN BUILD -CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT a GENERAL CONTRACTING 3435 Broadway St., Hawkesville, ON, NOB 1X0 - 519-669-4641 - www.freybc.com Page 48 of 211 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY tTj -q m z z -0 o— z-0 t_4 CD a w n) rA C) a) w CD CD CL W 0 CD CA 3 cn C) 3 0 C) CD ID (D cn 0 M '0 0 0 FD I w - 0 0 0 --I (D cn -- 0 "a CD 0 0 U) CD cn cn CD 0 CL 0 V3w 1+ m 0 Ir j CD c -n 0 lu ttWy < 0 (D O oN U)in CD 005�Cl) 0 tJ 0 ITI 9 00 -d 0 (D �)j cn CD 0 CD 0 (D C) cncnL cn c,) L = 0 CD 27 (D 0 CD =CD 0 - CD — CD (D C, 5- CL EY CD S. =) c :3 (n (D E CD W cn C) CD CD El 11 -n 0 0 0 _q o o 0 > z EL- u ;u U) CD M (D 3 CD CD = M CD To �j CD 0 (D >1 CD o 0 :� -1 (D tZ CD CD CL o o (a Z' El (D c r+ 00 cr GO 0 (D 3 0 cD :3 a) 0 9 T z x m (D 0 co (D CD CD — =3 * CL W (D U) M (D 0 0 P 0 in (D CD uj X, = ;-;- " (D CD cn CL CD -0 3 3 0 CD CD CD cn 00 El 110 0 CD CD 0 0 s CD 0 ZD O f r -0 CD FOR OFFICE USE ONLY `-t cn 0 It CD 0 0 (D 0" (n CD w CL (a (D C: (D r (D ) acro b 0 0 0 (D p =3 CD CD (D CD 't n -n 11 -, E CD 0 a > 0 (D C) ET 11 > U) 0 03 CL :3 :3 (D -0 CL 0 (n 0 CD 10 a (D M (D C) (D CL 0 C) 0 0 — =3 CD cn(D El (1) cn co (a 0 0 0 (D > ,:� ::r CD CL (D I It (D D) CD 0. 5- CL 0 0 c =) �`)) � 3 C: lr:x (D (D (D 0 0 20 Cl) m = u) 0) G) > CD CL CD =3 (D CL CL " -1 -1 0 CD C =r 0 0 CO CD CL -0 0 C CD 0 CD (D cn — CD :3 CD 0 0 0) (D 0 U) CD v :3 CD C: r-4. % 0 —h CD , =3 0 L2. CD C7 CD 0 (n =3 0 0 c 0 C0 +1 =3 v=3 U) 0CD Q- " (D -h - CD CD co 0- - - 0 -, `<9, cn 0) 0 CD U) 0 :3 CDO cn ID (D 0 C— 0 0w CL 0 -1, CD < MM cr --I CDOW�!-W3 0 =3 CD =:b 0 C) :3 0 CD :3 --1 Qom cn CD 0M 0 0 " CD C) CD C: =3 0 M =r (n CD CD CD 3 CD cnCD i, CD =r CD CD =r (n 0 0 �< cn :3 CL < c c 3 0- -. CD CL CD CD 3 cn 0 :3 (n CD CD M M CL cn 0 CD 0 =3 CD 0- CL Cr x m m0 C:)- = I *Qt c 3 0 cr 0 W (D 0 "0 — :3 CL :3 :3 0 CD 0 _0 0- 0 —CD :3 0 CD CMO 0 CO < CD ;:;: (n M CD w 9: (0 CD 0 -0 = 0 G) W CD < CD :3 CD Cl :3 :3 cn 0 :3 0 a- m 0 0w cn (n =r CD 3 -4, + 0 CD 0 =7 X — - 0 cn , - = 0 (D E� c CD M Cr CD CD 0 C: cn G) Sv * @ 0 w - =r =3 cn (D CD _. 0_ 0 cn :3 0 0 0 ;0 CD Q}l CD 0 0 -.+, -, CD 0 CD cn CD (D 0 (n 0 0 CD CL -0 '0 (D CD CD D = -0 a- c 0 CD 3 (D w — CD 0- M 20 C)- 0-(Q 0 (n =3 En * U) w 0 Ep co cn CD 3 `4 c) -+.---o = Q) CD = T — :3 :3 3CD ' 0 CL 3 = = cn -o CD CD - _=r CD CD - CD 0 x 3 o cD 0 0 E CD CD < 0- ;u r -CL =L --I I-+. 0 5" -<, m 00 (0 CD (n 0 0 W 0 =r 0 c a- =3 Cf) U) CD I cr '< 0 0 0 c w 2) 0 CD O CL 0 0- 3<_ cn =3 cn O CD 0 0- su l< (n* 0 "I cn 00 U) :;,, cu -a (n a: CD m 0 0 c 0 , -10 = (1) N' 3 3 3 N — — :3 =r cC/) COD 3 = =r CD 0 CD -0 cD 0 cD m m- CD -i cn 0 CD M 0 CD :3 (n =3 (D Cn oo =-CD N :F Cjj , W 0 = w C CD 0 (n CLCl) N) C;) 0 ZT < --1 0 (D 0 CD -+-a (n CD U) CD =r a) CD 0 cn 0 CLQ CD 0 -.h 0 CD CD CL L cy a) 0 CD N) (D Cc Sv 0 0 0 3 3 cD 3 (D m CD :3 0 0 =T CD CD M. Cn CD cr Q CL =1 CD c0 (D 0 co co 0- 0 CD :3 c Cn CD C) cn ,(a 0) (nM 0-0 0CD —0 cD CD =r m < cn CD 0 = m =. cr co cn M CD Cn 0 M C 0- X00 CD 0 -- 0-3 (D C D CD — CD = -I- CL C: ::r CD 0 00 CD K a =r CCD (D 5. X CD CE j�l CD C- Fn * n. M-11 " 0 . 3 ::r CD :3 CC -PL 0�':< - cn C<D I. 0 CD m 0 (D 0 0 CL Page 50 of 211 CA) w CO -,l, z -0 0 C-)::� CL ;;: 5- w (n CD ZEYO --M 0 =r CD cn 0 O-+ 1-#. :2 = 0 -,. 0 E " — (n O CD 0 w -* =3 cn -�O 0 -- C-) E 0- 0 CD .. K (0 CD CD 0 =r CO 0 CL 0 0 D CD CL :3 0 =r =r M 0 CD > m a , :3 CD CD 0 0 cn 0 -0 z z C::2� 0 0 0 z (D M CD CD CD (D CD CD (n 0- 0 w 50 =03 0--0 CCD(n U) :3 (D " a -.. * (D CD :3 0 C: m , 0 CL a6) CD CD CD CDCD (D:3 C D ( 0 E:CD2) —0C/)" = ;:� CD C(D M -r CD -r Wim'-" C/) 0 0 0 -h 0 l< 0 CD > 77, CL CD (n (n CD -L =r -I =. " 1� CD M M co 0 -.4, = M C/) °0v 0 — = 0 :2 m 0 * , =) X 5' C) C/) in-' Q) 0 2) CD CD -0 -+. 2) CD a) =r (C C CD CD :3 :3 C/)- m 0 :3 CD CL CD M M 0 CL CL M cn CD (n :3 (n 0 —(a > CD =30-00.5'W 0 CD --h (D -n 7- > 0 > C) 0) CD U) 0 -4* :3 0 --h CD cn 0-0 w 0 0 cn 0- CD (D :3 cn 0 :3 = 0 :3 cn 0 0 (n 0 " r-+. ;0 --+, --h 0 ET - 4. =r , CD _0 C: 0 0 CD 14. (n :3 CL 0 0 CD (D 0 m CD :7 :zi cl) CD :3 -h 5,0 0- M =r CD ; r\ -t (/) -h :3 0 =r =r CD -0 M =r cn 0- U) (0 CD CD CD CD (n o m CD Cn '"0 4< CD z 0 14- 0 CCD cL 0 0 C.0 (n CD 0 :3 0 , CD �< * C) CD CL 0) C _0 P -t 03 0 0 M. 0 0- CD tr 0 �3 =$ --h CD cn 0 0. CD -0 (n CD :3 �< M cn -0 N M 0 :3 c CD 0- 0 (C) -a 0- 0- ;q: C) CO 0 -0 CD CD < CD 0 :3 :3 0 :3 0 CD 0 -0 CL -h (0 0 0 —0 0 0 CD 0 CD -0 -h CD COD CL --h CD -h — =r M c < 0 w CD 0 0 CD 0 M 0 E� 3 o 0 0 =r --0 0 -, m M 0 m w --h CD U) 0 CD (D CD CD 0 :3 CD CD 0 cn =3 ;:� t- a- 0- w CL " o CL CD (D -h 71 F =r 0 :3 C: F5. C: :T C Z,< 0 k< "3 (D tll 0 cn CD CD CD CD 0 w 5 =3 0 CD 0 CD (0 0 o P 3 0 b m = a-6, M 0 CD a 0 M-0 CL 0 m 0 :3 cn 0 cr :3 CL 0 0 -0 CD C m 0 PQ " NJ " 0 m CD cr :.b CD :3 C:) CD C) W =r ;3- 0 CL :3 0 Z 0 CD C) Z� :;� F 3 _0 0 -0 CL -a (D CD 0 0 0 " k< R CD 0 _0 0 CD Co -a 0-0-0 3 a-0 CD m 1� w 0 w cm CD CD CD :3 0 cn CD =r :3 "0 w - 00 :3 cn CD ::r =r :3 CD 0- CD (a .p:, CD --I — CD -0 0 M cn cn 0)- CD Qpm (n 0 -1 =r )-0 0 (0 (D -- :3 CL CD W < :3 "a M CD 3 :03 c M CD (n 0 0 w 1� cD E 0 =r cn cr m =r cn (n CD 0 (D CD Cr 0 CL M 0- 0- 0 =r ::r CL -0 0 :3 CD < (D :3 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0- C: O. :3 CD CL 0 0 CL 0 0 0 svv =r cn CD M CD :3 - " M C) m CD (a CD :3 CL CD 0 m u cn (a cn CL .I- CD o 0 CD l< CD CD :3 Z CD 2) CD r 0 M :3 0 (a 0 _0 0- cn 0 — M. < Cn CD 0 C: cc L =; 9 3 = m M -n 0 0 0 CL :3 CD 0 0- CL cn ::r (a c: 0 0 0 0 =r C: in- 0 :3 '.t- ;rN l< " CD CD CL CD M 0 CD (D CD cn :3 CD CD ;:w m 0 cn CD 0 C)C-0 :3 C.0 70 0 -+, 0 CO CL cn 0 c cn -n 0 CD CD cr CD (a w =r 0 0 0 I -q. C- C: cn a) M CD F -,< :3 CD =3 -I > I m C 0 -a CD CD 0-0 =3 c =r CD 0 =r Q. :3 0 CD :3 CD CL CD M m CD (n W 0�.,< CD _0 0 CL :3 < CL :3 CD = 0" CD Cn CD CD < CL m @ ;* m m cn CD =3 0 0 CD 0--0 CD N) 0 0_ CD M 0 = (n -1 0 SU :3 =3 (a 0 0 :3 cr cn m 0 C) 0 CD -0 < 0- , m CD ::r CD M C)- M cn =r o 0 :3 . I 0 =r 00 0 0 cn 0 cn 1� 0 0 w m - . (a 0 (D 0- (D -I - . ::r CD cn :0 CD =T --+, M --4 cn CD CL 0 0 CT* X 7- -0 � b = M CO CD CD =3 0 CD 0 =r (n CD CD E: %J c) 0 -4 0 T CD (D 0 :3 0 0 CD 0 CD 3 c: Cl- m CD =r CD :3 CD — cn z m < 0 — CD -'(0 m 0 CDCD (n I CD 9 Page 51 of 21�1 107 T D C/) m v n O c n 3 cr (D (D C) l< O -h n (D (D IN o � Page 52 of 21'1 C/) 0 m m Page 53 of 21 Staff Report I K Tc�i irrarR Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: February 15, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-089 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 60 Victoria Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council direct the Clerk to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The subject property is currently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, and as such is part of the Municipal Heritage Register Review Program. In response to the May 23, 2023 letter that was sent to all owners of listed properties, the Region of Waterloo had contacted Heritage Planning Staff to indicate their support of the designation and provide a Heritage Impact Assessment related to 60 Victoria Street South. • The key finding of this report is that the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North 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. The property is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting 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. • 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 54 of 211 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the northwestern corner of the Victoria Street South and Duke Street West intersection. It is a complex of buildings, including an original 1913 three- storey brick factory constructed in the Vernacular Industrial architectural style with three contemporary additions. The structures are situated on a lot 0.85 acres in size within City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value of the property is the original 1913 portion of the building. r I I '0➢'" I ,.... 'b yeT'4 , � iir'r �f .n W. �� ^ �,.„�I PJB 0 Iw oP11I sU14NII°Alfll ” J3,I � I I � \00000 +.IM.D.YC,(XIydgl��gliERC,&k r T Y Y q, I - Pr. 04 40 h�� I _ y f .r ! CF ^W^I Yy Y�'J ti' I. dr I'I ' Yr �o P J 5 M1 r TTP P,I T)d� I � ?Ift2� II r yi'q w!��'!• Lill II 5 01 f � , I Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property An assessment of 60 Victoria Street North has been completed and concludes that the property meets the criteria for designation. This work was undertaken as part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. The Region of Waterloo responded to this letter in January of 2024, and during correspondence with City Staff it was confirmed that the Region would be in support of designation of the subject property (Attachment A). A Heritage Impact Assessment, completed in 2012 by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd., was also provided to City Staff at this time. The HIA had been undertaken as part of the Region's concept development for a Multimodal Hub which included 60 Victoria Street North and included the evaluation of the property against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, which has now been updated by Ontario Regulation 569/22. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate, the property owners will be contacted a second time through a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) Letter. An ad for the NOID will also be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served and the ad posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which owners may object to the designation. Page 55 of 211 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 appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. Figure 2: Front Facade of 60 Victoria Street North (Original 1913 Portion) 60 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies six of the nine criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is met or not met is provided in the table below. Page 56 of 211 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it Yes is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it No displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value Yes because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it Yes yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value No because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Yes Design /Physical Value The original 1913 portion of the building municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North is a representative example of the vernacular industrial architectural style and is characteristic of early twentieth-century industrial complexes in Berlin/Kitchener. Its construct consists of load bearing brick exterior walls with steel frame interior bearing columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete slabs. Sloping steel beam and purlin framing with joist infill forms the roof. Typical of the vernacular industrial style is the buildings load bearing brick and riveted shear plate column construction, three-storey height, rhythmic large -arched window openings providing ample natural light into the factory production spaces, and modest design with a decorated main entrance. Three additions construction in 1942, 1962, and 1968 are present on the eastern side of the factory (Figure 3). Page 57 of 211 Figure 3: Layout of original building and additions Front Fagade The front facade of the 1913 factory is three storeys in height and symmetrical in appearance. The first floor contains two window openings to either side of the main entrance decorated with a column and architrave porch. Multi -paned sidelights and a transom surrounded the main door. The first floor is divided from the subsequent two storeys by a large painted sign that spans the expanse of the front facade and reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited". The second and third storey each contain three window openings and windows as well. Well and the window and window openings present today are not original, the initial large and arched forms can still be identified by the split -face architectural concrete blocks that were used as infill. The brick voussoirs of the original openings are also still present. Interior Attributes The following information has been obtained from the 2012 HIA that was submitted in support of the designation of this property. Interior attributes including remaining industrial equipment have been identified as contributing to the design value of the property. These elements include: • Riveted shear plate column construction; • Goods lift (circa 1913); • Remaining door hardware; and • Original boiler. Page 58 of 211 The evaluation undertaken by City Staff did not include an interior review. Should an evaluation of the present-day condition of these elements be completed, they may be added to the heritage attributes list. Historical /Associative Value The historical and associative value of the subject property lies in its connection to the felt manufacturing industry and several important members of the community, as well as the ties it displays to regionally significant themes such as transportation, the manufacturing industry, and urban development. Rumple Felt Co. Limited, then known as the Berlin Felt & Boot Company, was originally established by George Rumple on the adjacent property municipally addressed as 50 Victoria Street North in 1875. By 1909, the Rumple Felt Company employed over 300 workers, greatly contributing to the economic development and value of the downtown area. The industrial growth experienced by what was then Berlin at the start of the 20th century resulted in rapid population growth, with the number of residents increasing from 15,000 people in 1911 to over 19,000 in 1913. In addition to his establishment of a successful company that created jobs within the area and aided in local economic growth, George Rumple served his community as an active participant in the political scene. He was a prominent member of the Parks Board, Water Commission, and town council for five years. In 1897 he acted as Town Reeve and in 1898 Town Mayor. The existing 1913 factory at 60 Victoria Street North was built by Walter Rumple, who succeed his father George as manager of the company in 1916. Rumple Felt Co. Limited remained under the management of the Rumple family for over a century through a series of successors; George Rumple and Walter Rumple (1875-1916 and 1916 -1944 respectively) were followed by John W. Rumple (1944-1966), and David Rumple (1966- 2007). The company ceased production in 2007. 60 Victoria Street North, like many of the industrial factories of the time, was intentional constructed in proximity to the main rail corridor. The presence of the Grand Trunk (operational c. 1856) within the city allowed for transportation of raw materials into the industrial area and exportation of manufactured goods out to the rest of the country. The rise and evolution of large department stores, such as Eaton's or Sears, was a direct cause of the large-scale transport of goods manufactured in major centres such by train. As a significant built heritage resource, the Rumple Felt building contributes to the understanding of the twentieth-century industrial cultural and urban and economic development of what was then Berlin. Contextual Value 60 Victoria Street North supports the character of the surrounding area, being located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Warehouse District CHL is located in the west end of downtown Kitchener and encompasses a number of remaining factories along King Street and Victoria Street including: Kaufman Lofts (formerly the Kaufman Rubber Company Factory), Breithaupt Block (formerly the Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd. Building), 283 Duke Street (formerly the Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd. Building), the Glovebox (formerly the Huck Glove Factory), and the Lang Tannery, (formerly the Lang Page 59 of 211 Tanning Co. Building). These buildings were the sites for the manufacturing, storage, and exportation of raw materials and other products across Canada, and were one of the prominent reasons for Kitchener developing into an urban industrial centre. The contextual value of the building also relates to its physical, historical, and functional link to its surroundings, specifically the railway tracks and train station. Consistent with the siting of the historic industrial buildings in the district, the Rumpel Felt Building was organized along the rail line and constructed immediately adjacent to the property line with a main entrance fronting directly onto the public right-of-way on Victoria Street North. The establishment and proximity of this building to the convergence of the rail line, along with the other aforementioned industrial buildings within the Warehouse District, were important to the City's development as a urban industrial centre. In addition the building can also be classified as a historic industrial landmark and a touchstone to the City's industrial heritage, made easily recognizable by the building's location on a corner property, main entrance fronting immediately onto a main street, and sheer massing. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 60 Victoria Street North resides in the following heritage attributes: • Exterior attributes related to the vernacular industrial architectural style of the building, including: o The massing of the original 1913 portion of the building; o North, south, and west facades of the original 1913 portion of the building; o Red brick walls; o Wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); o Entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; o Multi -paned windows with metal mullions and pivoting panels; o Painted sign above the first storey of the front facade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited"; o Painted sign below the roof line of the rear facade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited Felts for Every Purpose" • Elements that relate to the building's contribution to the remaining industrial landscape known as the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape; including: o The north -south orientation of the building; o The massing of the building fronting onto Victoria Street North; o The proximity to the rail line. 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. Page 60 of 211 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— Property owners were invited to consult via a letter dated May 23, 2023. Heritage Planning Staff were contacted by the Region of Waterloo in response to this letter in January, 2024 and met with staff from the Region in February 2024 to discuss pursuing designation of the building. The Region's support was indicated during this time, and is confirmed via the letter in Attachment A. 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: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Letter of Support — Region of Waterloo Attachment B — Heritage Impact Assessment, the Landplan Collaborative Ltd., 2012 Page 61 of 211 �1ii XI/�. Region of Waterloo February 9, 2024 Laurie Wells Manager, Project Management Region of Waterloo Attention: Jessie Vieira Dear Jessica: Support for Designation of the original 1913 Factory at 60 Victoria Ave, Kitchener The Region of Waterloo would like to support heritage designation of the 1913 original factory portion of 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener (Rumpel Felt Building). The Region is also soliciting feedback from the Kitchener Heritage Committee on whether the entire building should be designated or just the original 1913 section. Heritage Considerations The existing Rumpel Felt building consists of an original three storey structure that was built in 1913 and 3 additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968. The original 1913 factory has the following heritage elements: • Original 1913 facade • Goods lift • Riveted shear plate column construction • Door hardware • Original boiler • Wooden pipes • Entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch Page 62 of 211 • The massing of the building itself, for its larger contribution to public spatial and historical experience • Contribution that this property makes to the understanding of the 2ot" century industrial culture in Berlin/Kitchener • Physical , visual and historical links of the property to its surroundings • Property is considered a local landmark. A Heritage Impact Assessment, completed by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. and John MacDonald Architect Inc. has identified that the property meets the criteria for the heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. It goes on further to state that designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act should be initiated once the exact nature of an adaptive re -use is determined and upon completion of a conservation plan that dictates the alterations and restoration plans for the property. It continues to read that the newer additions compromise the heritage character of the 1913 structure. Future Development The building is situated on the same property as the future Kitchener Central Transit Hub Project, which is planned to be a landmark development and train station connecting the Region to the Toronto -Waterloo Region Renovation Corridor. The transit hub will be an integrated facility that will be a focal point for higher order transit services in Waterloo Region, connecting passengers seamlessly through the co -location of ION (LRT), GO Transit (Rail and bus service), VIA rail service, intercity bus, passenger vehicles, GRT, cycling and pedestrian walkways. The project will be broken out into three phases. Phase 1: Partnership between Metrolinx and the Region of Waterloo to deliver the following items: • Development of the railway corridor by Metrolinx and the Region to relocate the Metrolinx station to a platform located at the corner of Victoria and King St.; • The addition of a pedestrian bridge connecting the multi -use trail directly to the station; • Construction of a six bay bus loop at the base of the station; • Onsite and offsite parking; • Extension of the multi -use trail to Duke St.; • Construction of two tunnels connecting the north side of the railway corridor to the south. Phase 2: Includes the design and construction of a transportation hub facility that will be a podium of innovation to the area and include indoor ticket sales and waiting areas. Phase 3: Further partnership with a developer to bring mixed use development to the area along the corridor. Existing Conditions R ••Z�'iiRiii�[�1ii1Ta'i[�'�'1<:�'tLc��[i GTiii�a Page 63 of 211 The structure is presently unoccupied and exhibits several issues that necessitate repair or correction, including but not limited to the following: • Designated Substance Reports identify that the building has airborne asbestos, biological contaminates, flaking lead paint, silica, mercury, & mould growth. The recommendation is that anyone entering the building must wear PPE including a respirator and follow O. Reg. 278/05 Type 3 operations in conjunction with EACC Level 3 operations and IICC standards to remediate building surfaces impacted by damaged asbestos, mould growth, loose, flaking and peeling paint containing lead and biological contaminants. • Consultant has identified that excessive moisture infiltration has compromised the structural integrity and intended function of the roof. • There are multiple glass panels that vandals continue to break, allowing birds and other rodents entry into the building. • Despite the installation of fencing, signage, and heightened security presence, the building still experiences break-ins and vandalism. • Ongoing cleanup of needles and drug paraphernalia is constant. • Higher than anticipated operational costs for a vacant facility. • Demolition of the newer addition would benefit the Kitchener Central Project by providing clearer lines of sight and turning radius for buses between Duke and Victoria, creating a space for snow storage, and will reduce costs required for a retaining wall to accommodate the elevation change to integrate the loop. We are seeking support and expertise recommendations from the Kitchener Heritage Committee to preserve the original 1913 section at 60 Victoria Avenue, Kitchener, for adaptive re -use. Additionally, we require recommendations for the potential demolition of the remaining addition(s) to facilitate the progress of the Kitchener Central Transit Hub project. These suggestions align with the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment conducted by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Sincerely, WY, Laurie Wells R ••Z�'iiL�iiiM1ii1Ta'i[�'�'1<:�'tLc��[�i GTiM Page 64 of 211 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners 319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON NIH 3W4 (519) 824-8664 fax (519) 824-6776 landplan(a),thelandplan.com www.thelandplan.com with John MacDonald Architect Inc. April 5, 2012 revised & printed November 22, 2012 Page 65 of 211 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) .... 1 2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................ 1 2.1 Present owner contact information ......................................... 1 2.2 Site history............................................................ 1 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes..................................................... 15 2.4 Environs and the cultural heritage landscape - contextual analysis ................ 21 2.5 The proposed development and potential heritage impacts ...................... 29 2.6 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource .................. 33 2.7 Summary of conservation principles ....................................... 33 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained .............................. 34 2.9 Recommendations..................................................... 34 2.10 Qualifications of the authors completing the Heritage Impact Statement .... Appendix 8 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 38 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION .......................................... 38 REFERENCES..................................................................... 41 Appendix 1 - City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division, 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, December 8, 2011 Appendix 2 - Chains of Title Appendix 3 - Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N. and 50 & 60 Victoria N.), City of Kitchener Appendix 4 - Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Appendix 5 - Kaufman Lofts Appendix 6 - Breithaupt Centre Appendix 7 - 283 Duke Street Cover photo taken from Pharmacy Building on King Street, courtesy of the Region of Waterloo Appendix 8 - Qualifications of the authors Report photographs taken by the authors, unless otherwise noted Paap RR of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) This Heritage Study is in response to a request from the Region of Waterloo to prepare aHeritage Inventory, ContextAnalysis and Concept Development for the site being developed as the Multimodal Hub, and this HIA is in response to the City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division, 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference ', December 8, 2011. The subject property is a 1.58 ha (3.91 acre) acre parcel of land located on the north side of Victoria Street North between Duke Street and King Street West. (Figure 1) http://matas.region.waterloo.om.callocator.htm Figure 1 - subject properties 2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Present owner contact information Multimodal Hub Project Coordinator — Kevin Eby Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 2.2 Site history The combined properties of 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West have housed a number of buildings and land uses over the past 115 years including felt, boot, rubber goods and machine manufacturing, brewing; and more recently, a service station, automobile repair shops, retail sales, HVAC and plumbing goods sales, Emergency Services office, and the Brewers Retail store. See Appendix 1 Paap R7 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 2 location map 520 and 510 King Street West At the junction of Victoria Street North and King Street West, and bordered on the west by the railway, these properties were the home of Huether's Lion Brewery (1856-1953). The name Huether is pronounced `Heater'. The original business was started by innkeeper/brewer Wilhebn Rebscher at the corner ofKing and Princess Streets in Waterloo. In 1856 Adam Huether and son Christopher from Baden, Germany, rented the premises and continued the business as the Lion Brewery. The 1861 census states that the Lion produced 728 barrels of beer valued at $3,646, and employed three nen at $17 a month each. Nine years later Christopher was able to purchase the property from the Rebscher estate, and build a hotel that is still operating as the Kent (now Huethers Hotel). Following family practice, Christopher's son C.N. joined the firm in the 1890s. At this time reference is occasionally made to it as the Waterloo Brewing Company. C.N., with a new partner, then created the C.N. Huether Co. in 1894. Employing 15 nen this operation was sold to the Kuntz's for maltstorage after Christopher's death. C.N. moved down the street to Berlin (Kitchener). When C.N. 's Berlin Lion Brewery opened at the corner ofKing and Victoria Streets it brewed lager exclusively and featured, in deference to the Boer War, the Ladysmith label. This brew was soon dropped in favour of the popular Pilsener and Wuerzburger lagers. The newly named Berlin Lion Brewery Ltd. was enlarged. in 1906 by the addition of an icehouse. Employing 25 hands, it could now produce 32, 000 barrels annually. A Berlin Waterloo Industrial Review for 1908 boasted that: "Absolute purity, freedom from all deleterious ingredients are conditions that exist in the superior lager beer manufactured by the Berlin Lion Brewery ". Temperance, as to be expected, hurt business, and while it remained open, the name was changed to The Huether Brewery Ltd. in 1919. A year later it was closed and leased to a coconut processing concern. The company was reorganized and opened in 1924 to produce strong beer for export, and Paap RR of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener near beer for the local market. The company, however, was found to be in violation of temperance restrictions, and ordered to pay Ontario luxury tax arrears. The brewery was saved from failure in 1927 when two Windsor area businessmen, Arthur Diesbourg and William Renaud acquired it. With careful management Huether Brewing Co. Ltd. finally showed a profit of $17, 000 in 1934. Two years later they introduced Blue Top Beer. This brand proved to be -so popular that the company's name was changed to match their leading brand. In 1948 disaster struck when a foxed batch of beer reached the market. While this was not the end, the new brands, New Yorker Lager and Premium Ale, did not completely reverse the company's fortunes, and the name was changed to the Ranger Brewing Co. Ltd. in 1952. Rather than face an increasingly competitive and centralized brewing market, the firm was sold to Canadian Breweries in 1953. Operated as Dow Brewery Ltd. until 1961, the site was demolished in 1964 to make way for a Brewers Retail Store. The Berlin Lion Brewery building was located at 520 King Street West from c. 1898 to 1964. Figure 3 Toronto Public Library 1906 The Beer Store now occupies this site (Figure 8). 510 King Street West is now vacant, recently having been the site of an A -frame drive-in restaurant, converted to a grocery store. The fire insurance map from 1904 (Figure 5) shows the buildings at both 510-520 King Street West and 16 Victoria Street North. 2 Canadian Brewerianist, 1984, pp. 9,10 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 4 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 4 Dow truck unloading 1955, Roy Purkis, photographer Waterloo Historical Society 1904 Figure 5 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Paap 7n of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 5 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener mr, V IT. Ak, I , 11111 A,/ 4 A 4 r hy/1 NO j, 1, /000 111"'Ok X NKI f F"I 3 A ,oew I . .. .. .. I. // 6 /00A e/1 # ,5 Af, 0/000011 q,,�o, V; �'j If"M 441 Figure 6 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library The brewery at 510 - 520 King Street West is labelled as "The Huether Brewery Limited" on the 1925 fire insurance map. The brewery had been greatly expanded since 1904. Jackson -Cochrane & Co., continued to occupy 16 Victoria Street North. An electric railway line (Grand River Railway Co.) traversed the properties. (Figure 6) On the 1947 fire insurance map the brewery's name is again changed to "Blue Top Brewery" and has been expanded yet again. Jackson -Cochrane & Co. are still at the 16 Victoria Street North location and the electric railway line remains. (Figure 6) Well-known industrial personalities have been associated with 510 - 520 King Street West including C.N. Huether, brewer and founder of C.N. Huether Co. in 1894, and Waterloo City Councilor in 1898. Paap 71 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 6 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 7 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 8 The Beer Store, 2012 16 Victoria Street North This triangular shaped lot bordered by the railway and Waterloo Street, with minimal frontage on Victoria, was part of the home of Jackson -Cochrane Company Limited. In 1953, Jackson -Cochrane changed their name to Beisinger Industries Limited (Appendix 2). Paap 79 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 7 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener This maker of fine machinery is now almost forgotten, but at one time they made a full line of woodworking machinery. They were in business from at least 1895 and until at least 1947, occupying the premises at 16 Victoria Street North. A 1952 advertisement in a Montreal publication illustrates one of the pieces of equipment manufactured. (Figure 11) inYomaailcus, C3'tcic jointers, 4t.nrrd c,'ruuicet's, :Sett Fccd oio mA, surf,�cc. PLIll .rs i , Jackson, Cochrane Co. Kitchener, Canada �M�giikTA}Gxw t T14 "i 'WoodworkingMachinery �. (o, dm,,. V4 '1 YP'kdng °diad,. 4.riR�&, s iatidrr�s, C,�leee d I:rn'xPs, �nleia sy,argms�s:ns, Hondntf, !',Lr'Ichtco Berlin Machine iGKS0N, COCHRANE. Wood oL Figure 9 1895 advertisement, Vintage Machinery 4 Figure 10 1929 ad, Vintage Machinery s Figure 11 iw)z aavertisement, vintage macninery Figure 12 1914 table saw illustration, Vintage Machinery' rigure 13 16 Victoria - 2012 Figure 12 illustrates a table saw as found in Waterloo Outlook in 1914. 16 Victoria Street North was most recently the home of auto repair shops in a modern block building, now mostly vacant. 3 Vintage Machinery, ry, www.vintagelnachinery.org, accessed January 31, 2012 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Ibid Paap T1 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 7�jll � iw)z aavertisement, vintage macninery Figure 12 1914 table saw illustration, Vintage Machinery' rigure 13 16 Victoria - 2012 Figure 12 illustrates a table saw as found in Waterloo Outlook in 1914. 16 Victoria Street North was most recently the home of auto repair shops in a modern block building, now mostly vacant. 3 Vintage Machinery, ry, www.vintagelnachinery.org, accessed January 31, 2012 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Ibid Paap T1 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 8 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 50 Victoria Street North The Berlin Felt Boot Company occupied 50 Victoria Street North from 1867. The 1925 fire insurance map labels the building the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company' and in the 1940s, the Blue Top Brewing Company' was the occupant. 1904 through 1947 maps (Figures 15, 16, 17) show different buildings on this property. A fire in February 1904 destroyed the first Berlin Felt Boot Company building 9. It was re -built in 1905. The current building, circa 1940s was most recently occupied by Noble Trade, a plumbing, heating, HVAC industrial products company division of Rona. F F'Af ,aw4 V �4 ,< fi4a °gni � Ik ;,o'�a�9 ��pp �yrpr Iz i `Y `#,4, �^" rm*r"w) v.,.F� �d� m 41102 42 ��yY,,�'�d °'V,Nr"w~~�hi'b`� 9�Nn�'w, Tian 'BURLIN V94T SOOT COMPA V'S VACTORV. Figure 14 50 Victoria Street North, 1901, Region of Waterloo C2011-30 RFP Addendum #1, Appendix B ' In 1875 George Rumpel bought the Berlin Felt Boot Company from Jacob Y. Shantz and the old tobacco factory at the corner of Waterloo and Victoria Streets to manufacture leather boots and felt lumberman ankle -high boots. In 1909 the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. was formed from The Elmira Felt Co., The Kimmel Felt Co. and The Berlin Felt Boot Co. with August John Kimmel as Vice -President and General Manager. Kimmel also became associated with the larger rubber interests of Canada which later became merged in what became known as the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited. Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario htto://generations.re�4ionofwaterloo.ca, ARCHEION Ontario's Archival Information Network; www.archeion.ca/rumoel-�4eor�4e-1950-1916; and Uttley, William Velores. A History of Kitchener, Ontario, The Chronicle Press, Waterloo, Ontario, 1937. accessed February 2, 2012. ' The re -named Huether Berlin Brewery, 510 & 520 King Street West. Blue Top purchased the property in 1939 (see Appendix 2) 9 Decatur Herald, February 19, 1904 Paap 74 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 15 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 16 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library The 1947 fire Insurance map (Figure 17) shows what is likely an addition at the rear of the 1905 building and a different occupant and use, The Blue Top Brewery versus Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. Limited. This addition is likely the building that remains today, the 1905 building having been removed some time after 1955 (Figures 18 and 27). Paap 75 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 10 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 17 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library The Berlin Felt Company were occupants of 50 Victoria Street North from 1875. They exhibited boots at the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1878.0 Figure 18 50 Victoria Street North, 2012 A number of well-known individuals were associated with the businesses at 50 Victoria Street North including: • George Rumpel (1850-1916), founder of the Berlin Felt Company in 1875 (see Appendix 4); • August John Kimmel (1865-1930), Vice -President and General Manager of the Canadian Consolidated Felt Company (see Appendix 4); and • Charles Erwin Greb and his son Erwin C. Greb, shareholders and senior executives of the Berlin Felt Boot Company in 1910. Erwin founded the Greb Shoe Company in 1912 (see Appendix 4). 10 Catalogue of the British Colonies, Royal Commission for the Paris Exhibition 1878, Google Books Paap 7R of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 11 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 60 Victoria Street North The 1904 fire insurance map shows two houses on the property now occupied by the Rumpel Felt Company building (Figure 19). The street bordering the north side was called Edward Street. The name was changed to Duke Street c. 1958 when the downtown end of the original Duke Street was extended west to connect with Edward Street." Figure 19 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library A three storey (9,000 square foot - 150'x 60') felt factory building was erected beside the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. buildings is at the corner of Victoria and Duke Streets, (60 Victoria Street North) in 1912-1913 by Walter Rumpel, George Rumpel's son and successor. Walter was succeeded by his son John W. Rumpel, who was succeeded by his son David Rumpel from 1966-2007. In 2007 the company closed production of felt but continued as awholesaler from the factory until the property was purchased by The Region. The 1925 fire insurance map (Figure 20) shows the original factory building with boiler room and outbuildings on Duke Street. 11 Flash from the Past column, Guelph Mercury, ifear((i),�4ueliahmercury.com 12 Region of Waterloo C2011-30 RFP Addendum N, Appendix B Paap 77 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 12 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 20 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 21 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Paap 78 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 13 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The 1947 fire insurance map shows the 1913 building with the 1942 addition to the north and encompassing the former outbuildings. (Figure 21) Figure 22 Rumpel Felt factory construction dates, after MTE October 7, 2011 The various phases of building addition are illustrated in Figure 22. The building is on the City's Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The Rumpel family dynasty was associated with the Rumpel Felt factory at 60 Victoria Street North from 1912 to 2007: • George Rumpel (1850-1916), founder of the Berlin Felt Company in 1875 (see Appendix 4); • Walter Rumpel (1884-19??), George Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1916-1944; • John W. Rumpel, Walter Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1944-1966; • David Rumpel, John Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1966-2007. Figure 23 60 Victoria, west facade - 2012 Figure 24 60 Victoria, Victoria Street facade - 2012 Paap 7P of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 14 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Aerial photographs from 1930, 1945 and 1955 show some of the evolution of the Multimodal Hub site and environs (Figures 25, 26 and 27). Figure 25 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo htto://www.fib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/tahotos/ao 30 55.html, accessed February 6, 2012 Figure 26 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo htto://www.liib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/ohotos/ao 30 55.html„ accessed February 6, 2012 Paap Rn of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 15 Figure 27 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo htto://www.fib.tiwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/tahotos/ao 30 55.html, accessed February 6, 2012 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes Existing Built Form The current built form on the subject properties reflects the evolution of the overall properties and street patterns within and around it as independent and unrelated development. The existing structures are not organized to form coherent spaces between or among them that inform an historic fabric over the entire site that is the subject of this HIA. Several of the structures have a relation to the rail corridor and Victoria Street (not the subject of this HIA, but immediately adjacent to it) and inform the character of these spaces in concert with adjacent built form. With the potential exception of the Rumpel Felt Building, the buildings on the site represent vernacular building practices only. Their dates of construction and built form have no relation to higher traditions of architectural expression or the industrial vernacular architecture that preceded them on these properties. John MacDonald Architect conducted apreliminary review of the existing built form on January 20" 2012. Only the Rumpel Felt Building (60 Victoria Street North) was entered, and the review did not include the building's roof areas. Generally, the buildings appear to be in fair condition. Paap 81 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 520 King Street West building Present retail outlet for the Brewer's Retail, The Beer Store (Figure 8). building materials/comments Single storey construction of load bearing brick masonry with flat commercial roof, of circa 1964 with an addition in the early 1970s. The building is set back from King Street, with a depressed side loading dock area with overhead door. Angle parking with one aisle is set between the building and the street. Majority of the building is clad in a recent renovation to Beer Store Corporate branded design, using paint coatings to the exterior brickwork. character -defining architectural elements The building is now typical of late 20"' century stand-alone pad retail architecture, whereby the building elements are organized as corporate branding. The important elements of this architecture are its over scaled use of colour and front entry billboard massing to communicate to passing motorists. The building has no unique architectural character, nor high quality of design and construction. The building neither creates nor informs yard or exterior space as aheritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. The portion of building above grade to the rail corridor is insufficient to define meaningful space associated with this corridor. Therefore, neither is it a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. 510 King Street West building The site is presently vacant. 16 Victoria Street North building Presently partly vacant, former use auto repair garage and associated sales. Portion of building used for Regional EMS Station (Figure 13). building materials/comments Single storey construction of load bearing grey split face concrete block masonry walls, steel roof structure, intermediate bearing walls, with flat commercial roof, of late 1980s. The building is set back from both its street lines, with glazed overhead garage bay doors. The site contains a pylon sign typical of retail strip plazas, with backlit signage addressing Victoria Street motorists. character -defining architectural elements The building has no atypical attributes or architectural elements to distinguish it from typical utilitarian commercial strip construction of the latter half of the 20"' century. It is undistinguished and without architectural merit. The building neither creates nor informs yard or exterior space as aheritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. Therefore, it is neither a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. Paap 89 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 17 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 50 Victoria Street North building Single storey building set back from the street and built into the adjacent rail corridor (Figure 18). Its rear wall functions as a retaining wall for much of its height. The flat roof steps down to the rear (rail corridor side), allowing for a continuous line of clerestory window. building materials/comments Front and sides of the building are clad in aluminum siding, with an asphalt shingle mansard frieze area to the upper quarter of the building. Rear above -grade portions consist of exposed portions of the original building wall material, terra cotta units commonly known as "speed the". The building incorporates a tapered red clay brick masonry chimney of approximately 15 metres (50') in height. character -defining architectural elements The building has no atypical attributes or architectural elements to distinguish it from typical commercial strip construction of the mid 20"' century. It is undistinguished in this regard. The remnant red brick chimney (circa 1940s?) is not distinguished by particular or unique architectural features. It is presently isolated from its historic context with respect to former structures and uses of 50 Victoria Street North. Its appearance on the skyline is minor, given the height of the Rumpel Felt Building adjacent and other structures surrounding the subject properties. The present building forms neither a clear accessory building to a larger ensemble, nor creates nor informs yard or exterior space as a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. The portion of building above grade to the rail corridor is insufficient to define meaningful space associated with this corridor. The building is set back from the street, in contradistinction to the other more major structures forming the district and industrial fabric. Therefore, it is neither a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. 60 Victoria Street North building The existing Rumpel Felt building consists of an original three storey massing oriented north -south (1913), and 3 additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968 respectively (Figure 22). The building is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Committee Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The original structure consists of load bearing brick exterior walls with steel frame interior bearing columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete floor slabs. The roof framing consists of sloping steel beam and purlin framing with joist infill. The exterior walls have regular and large arched openings (subsequently infilled with split -face architectural concrete block and window replacement). The Boiler house section of the building appears to be contiguous with the original structure and also consists of three storeys of similar construction. This portion of the massing contained further manufacturing space above the boiler room. The first addition (1942) appears to have employed similar structural techniques, although concrete slabs are panel -formed rather than board -formed. The west face of this addition has been completely removed in subsequent additions, although at ground floor level the former foundation wall can be perceived at floor level. The south wall of this addition is still present as an interior wall at lower storeys. of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 18 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The 1962 and 1968 additions complete the present building massing, and are constructed with a steel column and frame system to the exterior perimeter, rather than a load-bearing wall. The exterior walls of these portions are therefore able to express the non -load bearing character of the walls as distinct architectural features on the facade, in the form of high level continuous strip window with fibreglass translucent panes at each floor. The windows appear to have been painted at some point in the building's history (there is clear presence of green paint on a number of windows in the building). The exterior walls are constructed of multi-wythe terra cotta masonry units, commonly referred to as "speedtile". The exterior exposed surfaces of the wythes is a smooth finish. The combination of this masonry and the horizontal strip windows gives the additions a distinct character as perceived from movement along the spatial corridor of Victoria Street North (Figure 27). building materials/comments Equipment and manufacturing machinery has been removed, with the exception of the process salt and boiler salt storage and delivery system (Figure 28). character -defining architectural elements The building's surrounding context contains no distinct yard or space formed by the building or its grading in relation to other buildings on the subject property, although it does form such spaces: • in relation to the experience of the rail corridor, in concert with the massing of 283 Duke Street West; and • in relation to the experience of Victoria Street, which historically consisted of a spatial corridor defined by the multi-storey facades of the factories of Berlin / Kitchener's industrial and manufacturing economy. This perceptible landscape of built form tight to the street has been largely lost through community neglect and our culture's 20"' century pre -occupation with object buildings rather than the quality of "shared public experience". Although a reasonable example of vernacular industrial construction of its time, the building does not especially distinguish itself as unique in architectural style or method of construction. Figure 27 horizontal strip windows Figure 28 exterior salt system Alterations to the original 1913 facades that remain (the south, north, and west facades) have not compromised the potential for regaining the original vernacular architecture of these facades through careful adaptive re -use. Heritage attributes / character -defining elements include: • original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side); (Figures 29-31) Paap 84 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 19 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • riveted shear plate column construction; (Figure 32) • goods lift (circa 1913); (Figure 35) • door hardware; (Figure 33) • original boiler; (Figure 36) • wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); • entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; (Figure 34) • the massing of the building itself, for its larger contribution to public spatial and historical experience (see discussion below under 2.4). Fig. 29 Victoria Street N. facade Fig. 30 Victoria St. & west facade Fig. 31 rail side & chimney Fig. 32 riveted shear plate column Fig. 33 door hardware at stairwell Figure 34 entry porch Paap 85 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 20 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 35 goods lift Figure 36 original boiler Figure 38 1913 interior Figure 37 interior (east) 1913 wall Figure 39 1962 interior Figure 40 1968 interior Figure 41 1942 stairwell Paap RR of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 21 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 2.4 Environs and the cultural heritage landscape - contextual analysis The cultural heritage landscape - General The subject lands are situated within, and surrounded by, a landscape of industrial endeavour, built form, and history that was historically centred around the rail transportation infrastructure associated with the main rail corridor that led from the community of Berlin / Kitchener to the larger world. It contains historic factory sites, worker housing, and the homes of prominent industrialists of the day. The main rail corridor linked the local economy and community with its markets. The importance of this landscape to the history and heritage of the Berlin / Kitchener community cannot be overstated. It is one of the fundamental touchstones for the community we care for and operate within today. In recent years many of the industrial uses have been replaced by commercial and office establishments (especially along Victoria Street). Many of these have been through demolition of the original buildings and new construction, with some through adaptive re -use of the historic structures. Boundaries for this landscape have not been determined, but they may generally be perceived as lining the east -west major rail corridor for at least a civic block on each side, from approximately Strange Street in the west to perhaps Highway 85 in the east (Figure 42). At its centre, this landscape thickens toward Downtown Kitchener to encompass Victoria Street and its surrounding blocks (Figure 43). Spur rail lines leaving the main east -west rail corridor also contribute to the size and extent of this district. Figure 42 Industrial area cultural landscape Development of other economic and transportation infrastructure in the latter half of the 20"' century has meant that this early civic landscape has been largely supplanted, in terms of community identity and centrality, by other urban, transportation (mostly truck and private vehicle -based) and built form. Recent efforts to re -purpose the existing structures and lands within this district of Kitchener (previously The Warehouse District and now deemed by the City of Kitchener as The Innovation District) suggest a desire in planning and leadership circles to return the landscape to a central role in the life of the community. These initiatives include, for example: • redevelopment of aspects of the Lang Tannery heritage landscape to house an economy of 21" century knowledge workers and associated technology firms (Google, Desire2Learn, the Communitech Hub, for example); • similar redevelopment of 51 Breithaupt (Breithaupt Centre loft offices presently under reconstruction); • the ongoing impetus for development of a university campus along the rail corridor (the recent School of Pharmacy, Medical School, and further such development to come); and • the creation of the multi -modal transportation hub itself, on the subject lands, that is the subject of this HIA. Paap 87 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 22 Figure 43 Immediate environs - Multimodal Site The significance of such a heritage district, formed in the past by a larger density of such structures along the main rail line and the streets of Berlin /Kitchener's major industrial district, is a subject worthy of study and conclusion. It lies beyond the purview of any one landowner or project proponent, and this HIA. This heritage has been recommended by Kitchener Heritage staff as worthy of study. It is our understanding that to date no action has been taken by the community to complete such study. Determination of whether this cultural landscape qualifies as significant within the meaning of prevailing legislation, and therefore requiring conservation, may have impact upon both the need for conservation of the original Rumpel Felt Building, and redevelopment or conservation of its additions. It may guide the design of new development for the proposed multimodal hub facility in relation to such a landscape. This determination, however, is beyond the scope of this HIA. Character -defining Elements of the cultural heritage landscape The physical character of this district has historically been defined by multi-storey structures designed for industrial use, of three to five storeys in height, with a principal structure that may contain several additions to its massing. These structures were built tight to their street -fronting property lines and adjacent rail lines, generally of masonry or frame with masonry infill. The massing of such structures can be attributed to the following historic development forces (as can their subsequent demise, as these forces underwent significant change in the latter half of the 20"' century). • Limited availability of rail connections and rail -fronting lands, making sites adjacent such corridors valuable enough to stimulate multi-storey, rather than sprawling single storey, development. This is in direct contrast to more recent truck -based industry, just -in -time delivery and development for knowledge-based economies. The former relies upon an extensive and publicly developed road infrastructure for movement and warehousing, while the latter requires little or no infrastructure for input and output of its high value—to-volume/weight ratio goods (discounting IT and Paap 88 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 23 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener communication infrastructure). • Reliance on public transportation and walking as a primary means of travel for the labour force historically needed for such industries, further stimulating development in compact multi-storey forms, and supporting land -values in the centre of communities. Publicly funded and maintained road systems combined with rising standards of living for workers have largely decimated these development forces, except in the largest of urban centres. • Use of steam and then electricity as a primary source of process power that could be utilized on multiple floors. Use of emerging lift technologies that could move raw material and processed goods among floors. • Vernacular industrial building technology and design approaches using load-bearing walls and/or structural frames combined with heavy -timber floors and then newer concrete floor structures. These structural strategies provided the ability to withstand industrial loads on multiple levels, rather than simply the ground floor. • A general subscription to community form and built infrastructure as privately developed, rather than publicly subsidized, making industrial development on the outskirts of the community less attractive. Such development required electrical and utility servicing, public transport for workers and goods, and access to the rail -based transportation hub that was already available in the community core. Extension of such requirements were historically not likely to be publicly funded. The rise of the private vehicle as a primary means of worker transport, together with publicly developed road -based transport systems and the dispersion of utilities throughout the landscape, have changed this force significantly. • A willingness among community leadership to see industrial production as wealth -generating, and its by-products of noise, noxious smells, air pollution and health impacts, as benign or at least necessarily tolerable. The historic industrial landscape surrounding the Subject Lands contains at its periphery significant examples of residential development for both workers and industrialists alike. The rise of community planning and its drive to separate industry from housing on the basis ofhealth and impact concerns meant the conscious development of"industrial parks", suburbs, and post-war urban form that worked directly against the land -value forces driving the massing of built form in the historic industrial district. Typical Historic Physical Character of Development within the Landscape In addition to the issue of general building massing described above, the physical character of this district is also formed by a hierarchy of architectural development to each site, whereby the principal building for each property stands tightly against the public way against which it fronts, often addressing a corner with higher massing consistent with the importance of such intersections. The principal entrance to the establishment addresses the fronting street or corner, usually with architectural design and detail emphasizing such entrance. Insurance mapping and other evidence suggests that behind this solid block of massing was usually a casually developed accretion of outbuildings, storage sheds, boiler houses, additions, and individual single storey structures, organized by informal yard and interior spaces within the block or on adjacent blocks. Development and adaptive re -use of property within the district has tended to discount the importance of such elements for the cultural landscape or development possibility, and there are few surviving examples of such hierarchy. In addition to the relatively ornate entrance features, the architectural character of the buildings generally involves the rhythmic expression of structural bays and large fenestration to provide natural light into the factory production spaces. This expression of frame is presented in a more modern style in the Kaufman Building at 140 King Street West, but is prevalent in most of the structures, with a tendency to larger width openings in buildings of later construction (for instance, the Lang Tannery fenestration is relatively tall and narrow, with several windows in each structural bay, while later structures in the district may have larger width openings relying upon lintels of greater span). Paap 8P of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 24 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Within the subj ect property, the Rumpel Felt Building is the only remaining structure that has potential heritage significance. The massing of the Rumpel Felt Building in relation to both Victoria Street and the rail corridor reinforces the historic spatial experience of the Innovation District (formerly the Warehouse District) where multi-storey industrial buildings are constructed immediately adjacent to the property line. The building's massing thus contributes to the creation of space contributing to a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces, namely the character of the former industrial district organized along the rail lines and its adjacent spurs, and public perception of this district within the urban spaces of Victoria and King Streets. There are a number of buildings adjacent to the Multimodal Hub site that are of heritage significance, including the following. Some of these fall outside the City's Warehouse District. Kaufman Lofts (former Kaufman Rubber Company Factory) at 410 King Street West. (see Appendix 5). Figure 44 Kaufman Lofts from 510 King St. W. Figure 45 Kaufman Lofts from Waterloo Street This six storey former shoe factory has been converted to residential condominium units. The building was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Kitchener in 199613. In August 2005 a heritage permit application was made to convert the industrial building to a condominium14. The reasons for designation and a summary of its heritage attributes are noted in appendix 5. The red and black brick, steel -frame building was designed by architect Albert Kahn and was constructed in stages between 1908 and 1925. The Kaufman building flanks both Victoria Street North (directly opposite 510 King Street West and 16 Victoria StreetNorth) and King Street West with a minimal to no setback. " Designation By-law No.96-34, April 2, 1996 14 Heritage Permit Application Report, Kaufman Lofts, August 5, 2005, Quadrangle Architects of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 25 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Breithaupt Centre (former Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd. building) at 51 Breithaupt Street (see Appendix 6) This four storey former factory is being converted to office space. The building is not designated, but is listed as a Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The Centre consists of a series of buildings built between 1903 and 1969 with numerous additions. The original building and early additions were built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with later additions being more modern in appearance. It was the subject of a Heritage Impact Assessment in 201015 and a Heritage Conservation Plan in February 201116. Site Plan approval is in place and the building is in the process of being renovated and partially restored. Breithaupt Centre flanks Breithaupt Street, King Street West, Waterloo Street and the railway, with minimal to no setback. A summary of the building's heritage attributes and its significance is noted in Appendix 6. Figure 46 51 Breithaupt Street Merchants Rubber Co. Works - c. 1937 r � i rrjw newx14.,ccts (UrsPe"N CaaaaVOVS iVOAKS Important figures associated with this property include Jacob Kaufman, Talmon Henry Rieder, and George Schlee, all Waterloo Region Hall of Fame members. Figure 47 51 Breithaupt Street south elevation, 2010 " Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, September 7, 2010, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 16 Heritage Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, February, 2011, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Paap P1 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 26 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 48 51 Breithaupt Street south facade, January 2012 Figure 49 Breithaupt Centre, Breithaupt Street facade, January 2012 Paap P9 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 27 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 283 Duke Street (former Hibner Furniture building) (see Appendix 7) MANUFACTURERS S B E R L I N WE CO VLR OV HIGH GRADE THE WHOLE FURNITURE, O N TA R 10 D0 M I N I0N Figure 50 poster, City of Kitchener files rigure D i warerioo ilisroricai Society of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener N.q Figure 52 283 Duke Street south facade, January 2012 This three storey factory was built in 1889 by Daniel Hibner who founded the Hibner Furniture Co in 1887. From 1920 to 1933, the factory was owned and operated by Malcolm & Hill, manufacturers of fine quality furniture. Mayor Daniel Hibner above - Figure 53 right - Figure 54 Malcolm & Hill advertisement, Montreal Gazette, April 25, 1930 Figure 55 Deilcraft Furniture (Electrohome) 196218 Figure 56 283 Duke Street, Duke Street facade 17 Doors Closed, an exhibition highlighting items from the archives of former manufacturing companies in Waterloo Region http://doorsclosedwaterloo.wordpress.carn/electrohome/, accessed February 6, 2012 Paap P4 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 29 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The property was sold by the mortgage holders in 1936 to Dominion Electrohome Limited who operated from this site until 1979. The Boehmer Paperboard Sales Corporation has occupied the building since 1986 along with numerous other smaller business tenants. The building is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, but is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Committee Inventory of Heritage Buildings. Appendix 7 provides more detailed information as to the building's architecture, history and significance. Important figures associated with this property include Daniel Hibner (1855-1935), who was mayor of Kitchener in 1884 - 1885 " and Carl Pollock (1903-1978) who assumed the helm of Electrohome from his father Arthur in 1926 19 2.5 The proposed development (Transit Hub Concept) and potential heritage impacts The Region has proposed a change in land use through Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for the site to accommodate the future development of a multi -modal Regional Transit Hub. The Transit Hub will be an integrated facility that accommodates and provides a seamless flow between a full range of transportation modes, including intra -regional commuter transit (GO Rail and VIA), light rail transit, local buses (GRT), inter -city buses (GO and Greyhound), taxis, bicycles, cars, car share, and pedestrians. Site development is contemplated to be mixed-use in nature, and may combine commercial (retail, office, hotel), residential, community, institutional and public uses with the future Transit Hub. Depending on the development program selected, the site could accommodate up to approximately 93,000 square metres (1,000,000 square feet) of total floor space. The density of the development could have a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.0:1. There are currently no height restrictions on the site. A reduced parking requirement for the development is being requested. A specific development proposal and site plan has yet to be prepared. The Region will be seeking a development partner to implement the Transit Hub and associated mixed-use development. At that time, a more detailed and refined development proposal and site plan will be prepared based on the optimal design of the transportation facilities and relevant market conditions. Two additional development projects related to the Transit Hub are underway and are undergoing separate development review: the King Street Underpass; and the new train platform along the rail line for intra -regional rapid transit (GO and VIA), which will cause the closure of Waterloo Street between Victoria Street and the rail line. Potential impacts emanate from: • proposed redevelopment of 16 Victoria Street North, 520 & 510 King Street West, and 50 Victoria Street North; • proposed development/redevelopment of 60 Victoria Street North (Rumpel Felt building); • the proposed closure of Waterloo Street; • the proposed underpass on King Street; and • proposed rail platforms. These are addressed in this HIA. For the latter two of these projects, potential impacts only are noted in this report. It is our understanding that mitigating measures will be addressed as part of the 18 Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario htto://generations.re�4ionofwaterloo.ca/, accessed February 7, 2012 19 See Appendix 7 Paap P.5 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 30 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener development review being completed for those specific projects. Potential Impacts - General In general, the streetscapes of Victoria Street North and King Street West, regardless of the relative height and density, could be negatively affected unless podium massing to Victoria Street North is designed to complement the massing of the existing heritage fabric (both Rumpel Felt and Kaufman Lofts) and continue historic traditions of building to the street lines and to the corners. New upper storey massing concentrating development height (whether shorter or taller) at the corner of Victoria and King needs to specifically address the long view to this point of the site from the long approaches from the east and west along Victoria. Potential Impacts - Rumpel Felt Building The legibility of the rail corridor space, as formed by Rumpel Felt and 283 Duke on each side of any new rail platforms is important. It has the ability (together with interpretive and new design elements) to communicate aspects of the community's industrial history to the public. A change in the existing grade just north of the present 60 Victoria Street Rumpel Felt Building could change the historic relationship of the building to the rail corridor. Should insufficient space west of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building be retained, there would be an impact to the heritage character of the building. A negative impact would also result from the lack of, or insufficient setbacks of new development that would allow the west facade to continue to participate in the public experience of Victoria Street. Additional storeys on the 1913 Rumpel Felt building and/or the later additions to the building have the potential for negative impact, reducing the opportunity for the original building height and cornice to play the principal role in defining the space of the street. Proposed Rail Platforms Any platform and development of the rail corridor that blocks public access at grade from the north at this location should receive careful design treatment to mitigate the effect of the change. Potential Impacts - Closure of Waterloo Street From the north, the closure of Waterloo Street has potential for negative effect on the heritage of the Breithaupt Block. Should pedestrian and cycle access not be maintained, there would be a negative impact. Also from the north, the closure of Waterloo Street, combined with the proposed development, will block the public view of Kaufman Lofts. The current view is relatively recent (Figure 57), buildings on either side of Waterloo Street and on the south side of Victoria Street North having been removed; thus, creating it. This is not considered a heritage impact. of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 31 Figure 57 current view of Kaufman Lofts from Waterloo Street at the railway Potential Impacts - Proposed King Street West Underpass at the Railway Figures 58 - 61 are current views of Kaufman Lofts heritage resource on King Street West. These views will be significantly altered by the construction of an underpass at the railway. (Figure 62) Fig. 58 approaching railway tracks on King Fig. 59 approaching Victoria on King of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 32 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Fig. 60 towards Kaufivan from Wellington on King Fig. 61 from Moore on King Street West Figure 62 illustrates the proposed King Street underpass, light rail transit route, and railway platforms in the vicinity of the Multimodal Hub site. King Street West will be lowered to pass the railway tracks, coming back to grade near Victoria Street North. Views of Kaufman Lofts and the new Pharmacy Building will be changed from the current situation (Figure 59 versus Figure 65). As with the closure of Waterloo Street, this is not considered a heritage impact for the reasons stated therein. As well, views of Kaufman Lofts' architectural qualities are perhaps best appreciated when passing on King Street. Potential Impacts - Railway Platforms The railway platforms have the potential for negative impacts on 51 Breithaupt Street and 283 Duke Street by blocking access for restoration work, repairs and maintenance to the railway side of these heritage buildings. r k 1 f//l r f � "y ��"�'"""� �M� ,,••• Oul.rki'Y�'9N..M9VUE6,MI narn*e�y r �V � � NN��I til s ♦ LRT r . Iry r°'' ., ..... .. i ..... ..... .. t ian F Lia _ � t .d 'E17WAUPT ST" 51 Breithaupt ^",,rrm;��" ��"+�'W� .. ivw 4 rrra`eru a•u�rr.wui,�4re�:.uu-x"uiz,ii m,<i �N+" PNkwu I,. uw&�fl/ �eut j'l .:,....; 28 �� 3 Duke �- nNkafM(. CR 4 mufwFYtuYr�vFYsfaLI(JA W ' L 1 � S ,w,Fwl,l sI fn RA L'F TFR G 1"vYTai k-�N, iPl,gysp i � k 1 f//l r f � "y ��"�'"""� �M� ,,••• Oul.rki'Y�'9N..M9VUE6,MI narn*e�y r �V � � NN��I til r f, �,,,,�,� ♦ LRT Hull/ i rn t ian F Lia _ � Figure 62 after: Figure 4-12a, Transit, Transit Project Assessment King Street Grade Separation Proposed Design Alts, CN Guelph SID, Option 5, Region of Waterloo 07/18/11 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2 , 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 33 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 2.6 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource Incorporate policies, regulations and/or provisions in the proposed land use designation (OPA) and zoning by-law to provide for implementation of the recommendations found in paragraph 2.9 Recommendations. 2.7 Summary of conservation principles Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition, provides "General Standards" for all projects. Conserve the heritage value ofan historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. With respect to this "standard", the "historic place" associated with the properties is the 1913 Rumpel Felt building. Its character -defining elements are outlined in paragraph 2.3. These should be conserved and the facades restored. 2. Conserve changes to an historic place which, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. • There are no changes over time associated with the building that have become character -defining elements; rather, changes overtime have compromised the heritage character of the 1913 structure. These are reversible (see point 1. above). 3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. • Intervention will likely be required to adaptively re -use the building. Until an adaptive re -use is determined, the nature of the interventions is unknown. It is unlikely that any intervention that would compromise the character -defining elements would be required. 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. • There is no need or known desire to add elements or combine features from this property. S. Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character -defining elements. • See point 3. above. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. • The building is being maintained by the owner until it can be developed for an adaptive re -use. There are no known archaeological resources on site " 7. Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. See point 3. above. zo Pers. Comm. Kari Feldmann, P.Eng., Sr. Project Manager, Environmental, Corporate Properties Region of Waterloo Paap Pc) of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2,'-, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 34 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 8. Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or miss ingparts ofcharacter-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. • See point 6. above. 9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. • See point 6. above. Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation (see point 6. above) 10. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair; and where sufficientphysical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing ofsound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. 11. Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Additional Standards Relating to Restoration (see point 6. above) 13. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements from the restoration period. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficientphysical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. 14. Replace missingfeatures from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence. 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained Demolition of 16 and 50 Victoria Street North and 520 King Street West are proposed. No loss of heritage resources is expected from these demolitions. Alterations to the remaining heritage resource, 60 Victoria Street North) will likely be required for an adaptive re -use. 2.9 Recommendations Mitigating measures with sensitivity to the historic development and heritage fabric of the Warehouse District and environs are required. Recommendations related to new built form on 510-520 King Street West, 16 and 50 Victoria Street North and the right-of-way of Waterloo Street are: • build to the street line and to the corners at intersections; • break the Victoria Street North massing into distinct buildings with frontage commensurate with existing and historic patterns; • set upper storeys back so the space of the streetscape is primarily formed by a height of massing complementary to surrounding buildings with heritage attributes; • avoid stepping or complex forms of massing at street level that retreat from the street edge, and from building to the street line; of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 35 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • design new built form to communicate to the public streetscape a sense of today and the future, so that heritage, present context, and future are an integrally -woven whole with distinct and visible threads; • avoid imitative architecture caricaturing the surrounding heritage, including for additional massing located at, or on existing heritage - the existing heritage will benefit by way of contrast; • provide ahigh quality of design in new development to avoid establishing a context of mediocrity - such an atmosphere would impact the heritage as the remaining heritage resources within the district have been constructed with a sense of civic pride and some investment in quality; • ensure that new development speaks to the public realm about present culture and future aspirations; • ensure, through shadow studies to City of Kitchener Urban Design Guidelines criteria, that the adjacent heritage resources (especially 51 Breithaupt and 283 Duke) are not negatively affected; • design railway platforms and barriers in a manner that avoids blocking access for restoration work, repairs and maintenance to the railway side of 51 Breithaupt Street and 283 Duke Street; • commemorate the industrial heritage of the Multimodal Hub site by creating an interpretive display in a prominent location, perhaps at the intersection of King and Victoria, to explain its history and the people involved. The history of the Hub site, from the earliest days of the breweries, woodworking machinery plant, and felt making industry should be told through historic photographs, text, maps, etc. in a prominent public display. Consider also interpreting the surrounding industrial cultural landscape in the display once study on this has been accomplished. Recommendations specifically related to the Rumpel Felt building are: • retain the Rumpel Felt building (at least the 1913 portion) for adaptive re -use; • retain the space (separation between buildings) immediately west of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building, to allow its west facade to continue to participate in the streetscape (especially as experienced moving east along Victoria Street North from King Street West); • offset to the west the massing of upper storeys (above 5"' floor or so) from the 1913 Rumpel Felt building and its adjacent spatial zone to cast less shadow onto the facade, and provide new massing without overwhelming the scale of the 1913 building; • build tight to the intersection of Duke Street and Victoria Street North, either with additional floors and re -use of the Rumpel Felt additions or with new construction. • if there is a significant grade change contemplated at the rear of 60 Victoria Street North, it would affect the grade relationship at the base of the north facade of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building - development should not incorporate a grade change that would negatively affect the existing Rumpel Felt building / rail corridor relationship; • where the 1913 portion of the Rumpel Felt building is retained, but receives further storeys, these should be restricted to one or two additional storeys, and be set back enough from the original Victoria Street edge, so that the original building height and cornice plays the principal role in defining the space of the street; • where the present additions to the building are retained, or retained and added to, or replaced, development should continue to build to the street and intersection lines - initial building mass should be restricted to 3 - 5 storeys, with additional height beyond that set back sufficiently from Victoria Street so that the 1913 building is not overwhelmed; • in any adaptive re -use of the Rumpel Felt building, the heritage attributes / character -defining elements, including the original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side) should be preserved and restored; • keep in good order, character -defining elements that are important to the 1913 facades and those interior elements that can be utilized in an adaptive re -use scenario; • retain original boiler in non -working, but presentable condition; • salvage building materials such as brick to be used in repairs; • match brick and mortar in repair / restoration work; • retain visibility of interior structural elements where possible; of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 36 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • use contemporary materials in new construction that are complementary to the historic architecture; • list the Rumpel Felt building on the Municipal Heritage Register; • complete and implement a Conservation Plan for the 1913 portion of the building to ensure heritage attributes are brought to an acceptable minimum standard in the short-term and that guidelines are in place to ensure any alterations follow good conservation principles and practice; • designate the property post development under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Recommendations regarding the conservation of the adjacent heritage resources and the environs are illustrated on Figures 63 and 64. Prawrrding new budding amassing that respects the rscafe of the uaal carfidrr and ds historic fabric. Buirldmg tight is the'mtetsm of IDuake "»Street and Victo fm Streett. North Mew 2 Breakung the w+l6ct nz Street Noah massing into dmsdnct bbcks with frontage crornmensuuuate 4+u,ewv h � with, eaasung and IhuWtarrc patterns and amding complex facmrrrs of amassing at street lewef. BuBding to the street me and to the awneis at intexsectuanrs has: no n ajorr iimpact Dn public views to rhie Kaufmancrarneu massing,. Figure 63 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Recommendations (plan after: GSP, March 2012) of 211 Revised November 2.2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 37 Figure 64 View 2 - west facade, Rumpel Felt building from Victoria Street North after: GSP, March 2012 Figure 65 View 1 - King Street, looking south to Kaufman Lofts after: GSP, March 2012 Further, it is recommended that: • a Heritage Conservation Plan be prepared for the Rumpel Felt building at the appropriate time in of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 38 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener the planning process "; and • a study be considered to determine whether the cultural heritage landscape within which the Multimodal Hub site is situated qualifies as significant within the meaning ofprevailing legislation; therefore, requiring conservation, as this may guide the design of new development for the proposed facility in relation to such a landscape. 2.10 Qualifications of the authors completing the Heritage Impact Assessment See Appendix 8. 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS The significance and heritage attributes of 60 Victoria Street North are: • original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side); • riveted shear plate column construction; • goods lift (circa 1913); • door hardware; • original boiler; • wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); • entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; • the massing of the building for its contribution to public spatial and historical experience. • the association of the felt making industry and important members of that business to the community of Berlin / Kitchener; • the contribution that this property makes to the understanding of the 20"' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener; • the physical, visual and historical links of the property to its surroundings; • the property could be considered a local landmark. Conservation measures recommended are embodied in an adaptive re -use of the Rumpel Felt building; through the preservation of the facades and the conservation of its heritage character attributes. Measures to ensure that new built form is designed to communicate to the public streetscape a sense of today and the future, so that heritage, present context, and future are an integrally -woven whole with distinct and visible threads. Imitative architecture caricaturing the surrounding heritage is to be avoided. New development should provide a high quality of design, to avoid establishing a context of mediocrity. 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act criteria for designation vis -6 -vis 60 Victoria Street North A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: The property has design value or physical value because it, L is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, The 1913 portion of the property is a representative example of a style, type, materials and 21 A Heritage Conservation Plan addresses how the cultural heritage resources and attributes located at 60 Victoria Street North, identified and described in this Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. It identifies the conservation principles; provides an assessment of current heritage attributes conditions and deficiencies; and recommends conservation measures and interventions in the short-, medium- and long-term to ensure preservation of the property's cultural heritage significance. of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 39 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener construction method, typical of many such early 20"' century industrial complexes in the City of Kitchener. It is not rare, unique, or early. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, The craftsmanship is typical of industrial buildings of the era and place. The building does not display a high degree of artistic merit. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structural system does not exhibit a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, L has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, The felt manufacturing industry and numerous important members of that business and others in the community of Berlin / Kitchener have been associated with the property. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, The history of this property contributes to the understanding of the 20"' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas ofan architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The designer is not known. 3. The property has contextual value because it, L is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, The property is within the industrial landscape that originally bordered both sides of the Canadian National Railway line (now Goderich & Exeter Railway). Although industrial uses are being supplanted by other land uses, the building, in concert with others such as 283 Duke Street and 51 Breithaupt Street, helps to define and anchor the character of the area. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, The property is physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Because of its location and its presence, the property could be considered a local landmark 4. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? The property meets criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The 1913 portion has design or physical value because it is a representative example of a style, type, materials and construction methods typical of many such early 20"' century industrial complexes in the City of Kitchener. The 1913 portion with additions has historical or associative value because the felt making industry and numerous important members of that business and the community of Berlin / Kitchener have been associated with the property. The history of this property contributes much to the understanding of the 20"' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act criteria are satisfied; thus, the property warrants designation under the Act. of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 40 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener The 1913 component of the property warrants conservation per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) for the reasons stated above. The PPS defines "significant'. For built heritage resources to be significant or have cultural heritage value or interest, they must be "valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people."" In the PPS, "conserved" means "the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained " In our opinion, an adaptive re -use for 60 Victoria Street North has the potential to conserve the heritage values, attributes and integrity of the property, subject to the preparation and implementation of a Heritage Conservation Plan. Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act may be initiated once the exact nature of an adaptive re -use is determined, and upon the completion of a Conservation Plan that dictates the alterations and restoration plans for the property. The building is an excellent candidate for adaptive reuse, for reasons in addition to its heritage significance being part of the larger industrial landscape. It is a useable and adaptable space that can be incorporated into future development. This Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment is respectfully submitted: THE LANDPLAN COLLABORATIVE LTD. Owen R. Scott, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP with JOHN MacDONALD ARCHITECT inc. zz provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, InfoSheet 45, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006 23 ihid of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 41 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener REFERENCES 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division December 8, 2011 ARCHEION, Ontario's Archival Information Network, www.archeion.ca/rumoel-�-yeor�-ye-1950-1916, accessed February 2, 2012 Canadian Brewerianist, 1984, pp. 9,10 Catalogue of the British Colonies, Royal Commission for the Paris Exhibition 1878, Google Books City of Kitchener Designation By-law No.96-34, April 2, 1996 Decatur Herald, February 19, 1904 Doors Closed, an exhibition highlighting items from the archives of former manufacturing companies in Waterloo Region, http://doorsclosedwaterloo.wordoress.com/electrohome/, accessed February 6, 2012 GSP Group, Draft Region of Waterloo Multi -anodal TransitHub, Planning Justification Report, March 2012 Guelph Mercury, Flash from the Past column, November 4, 2011 Jaffray, James P., compiler and publisher. Kitchener: the industrial city: the birthplace of the great Niagara power movement, 1928 Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room (Fire Insurance Maps) Montreal Gazette, April 25, 1930 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0. 18, Regulation 9/06 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, InfoSheet 95, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006 Quadrangle Architects, Heritage Permit Application Report, Kaufman Lofts, August 5, 2005 Region of Waterloo, Consultant Services C2011-30, Heritage Study for Multiamodal Hub, issued November 21, 2011 Region of Waterloo, C2011-30 RFP Addendum 91, issued December 8, 2011 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, September 7, 2010 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Heritage Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, February, 2011 Transit Project Assessment, King Street Grade Separation Proposed Design Alts, CN Guelph SID, Region of Waterloo 07/18/11 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/ hop tos/ai) 30®55.htm1, accessed February 6, 2012 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 42 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Uttley, William Velores. A History of Kitchener, Ontario, The Chronicle Press, Waterloo, Ontario, 1937 Waterloo Historical Society web page, http://www.whs.ca/ accessed February 2, 2012 Waterloo Outlook 1914, published by the Daily Telegraph in conjunction with the Waterloo County Council, August 1914 Waterloo Region Museum web page, www.waterlooregionmuseum.com/historical-place-names/ accessed February 2, 2012 Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario, http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca, accessed February 2, 2012 and February 7, 2012 Vintage Machinery web site, www.vintagemachineryrg, accessed January 31, 2012 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference City of Kitclhenier Community SiDrvicas DiDpairlmont- Planning Division 510, 520 KING STR66T W6ST; 50, 60 VICTORIA STRP-,r=T NORTH Official Plain Amendment & Zone Change, Applications Heritage, Impact Assessmenit-'T rrn of Riaferen ce 1,0 lintroduclion The City of Kitchener iequiie6 the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessirnew (Ii as part of cil')"rnplele apt ")lin;"-Orioni for Official IPlan anid 71artirrgi By-law Arrier"Wirnents foie 5110, 520 King Street We-st arii:l 50, 60 VlctoiiiStrea,-i North. A Heritage limpact Assessirnanit is a study to detarftine it any culturaf heritage resources are irnpacted Iby a specific proposad devGlopmant or site altaration. 1'h4q study, n@sults in a. ropoirt which idenbfiGs and evdluaws known ClUltUt-ali horitage resources; outlines the subjo zct apipfication or proposal and iits potentiall iinipacis on those cuftural heritage, resources end attributes,; and rmmakesm, recommendiations toward rn&igafive ineaStires that Would avoid or Irniiniirnmlize negative limpacts. The HIAA shall cornply 4th these Ten-rrs of IReference whi&h Ihave Ibeen prepared based Oil the propos,41 presented gut the pyre- subinission cons,d1ation rneeting of September 20, 2011. The suibject appfications intend to prepare the subject lands fuer iedevelopineint as a mixed use projec=t incorpoijaling variou5 transportation facilities. 2.O Subipet Pronortv & Culturn I Heritano Resoureps Existjing and potential CiLlfturdl hetitaga resources ;a,r Illuocated either on or adjacgint the suili piropnrtias. The property Irmnuunlidpofly addressed 60 Victoria Street Norlh (forni 11urriple Fraft Company building) and forining part of the subject properties, is liste�d on the Heritage KitGhener Committee lllnventor,y of I leriitage Buikiings. The property municipafly addressedl 410 King Street Wesl (former Kaufman Footwear builidinig'[ i Its .salted adjacent the subject prupeirtieand lib desiginated under Part IV of the 01 litano, Heritag e Arcot. The 1)roporty municipally a, dkhessedi 51 Breithaupt Straet (Breilhauj,)t Block) is localed adjac:PinT the subjec..:r propprTies, and it; 11stpri as a. Property of GUIlUra]i Hpiritage, Vallip of interest on the Giity' Iliunfefipal Heritage I he propprty rnunicipaUiy addressed 283 Duke Street West (former ID. Ribrier IMu,urrniitu,rrp Company Ibuulilld4i ) iis Ilocaited adjacgint the subject properties and is listed on, the Heritago K1choinor Coniiinittoo Invontory of Horkage BuEdinqls, The SUbject properties are located withini an arena. coimirnonlly Iknown as the Warehouse Distinct ,which Ihas been, idlentified as acandidate ClUtural I leriitagie Landscape of Regiondl sl�gnifiicance. Mult-Modal HubOPN2C — H A Tprmon of 2,2011 1076,126 4 Paap 1 nP of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference 3.0 Poli cy,Conlexl Section 2 of file, Planrlif)gi Act Irldliotates dlHI GOLVACH Shaill ["lave reigard to Inrmatters of Proviiiicial lirliterest such cis the oonsetvation of fcature�s of sIginifi,cant architocturall, cuftural, hisIorjr�al, are hapolog tical or sc..Jentitic intpriest- In RcIdition, Section 3 of the Planning Act iequires, that decllsiions of CouncEl shafll be consIsteirlit with the IProvilrlid4ll Policy Static i nit. Policy 2.6.1 of the Prov�ncial IPollicy Stateirnent requires that significant built heritage resourcos and significant culturall hGritage landscapes shall be conserved, Tho ProViniciall PoUicy Statement defines, a built hedtage resource as one, or imore sigrrificant buildings, structures, r"nionuir-lents, instaflations or reini associated with architectli cuftur4l, sociiall, political, c4coriornic or imiilitary history and idgntifiGd as boi,iiig liiirrlportant to a cointnui-rity. Suich resources may be designated under the Onitaria Heritage Act or fisted by locall jurisdictions. Cultural heriu�z-ge landscapes are defined as a geographic ark,. -,%a of Ihprltage significaricip, whii(.-,hi has been rniadifipd by hurrian actiwvAiies and is vatuied �by a comrriunity.Siqrdficatyr is cipfriad as res,ci that are valluf?,d for iVle illrnmportant contrib,uifion they Irrua o to our understanding of the history of a pllace, aiii overA, or a people and notes that whille sonip, slgirlificant resmircps, may allready he iidentifiiedl and iniventoried Iby officiall souices, the sigifficance of atheis cavi onlly be detennined after ovaluation. Policy 2.6.3 of thit- Provincial Polliu:y Staten -le -nit states that develop in -lent crud site alteration inay by ppirmiapd on adjac-ent Ila,i,iids to protpctod heritage proppirty whore the proposed dev6lopment and site alteration, Ihlsus been evaluated and iit has been dernion,strated that the heritage attribiutes, of the protected heritage property will be corn spirvicd- Ihip definition of dpvs-4opment iin thip Provinciall IPolilcy Statement inc.:ft.jidps a charligle itti land i re(JUiring approvall under Ille Plat iiriir°ig -, 1. Ac Regic.mal arid inunicipa.] poficles and guidelines a1so addricss the consprvation Of ClLdlftlrall hiiii res,ources. These poficies, establist"i the requJriarrieril for, t,lip subrr'lission of studies, as, part of cornipllete, appficalions, iiinclludiiriiqi Heritage Iii Ikozessments and Gonservation Plarls. The Heritage, Iii Assassnient Imurust conisiider thio proposed Officiall Ran Airnandment and onie, Change Applications in Irellationi to srlll applicable Provinicial, IRegionaf ail'lid k4unicipall policies, guidefines, and prir&ples, iin6ludlng- the, Pwvinciall Policy State rne lAl fhiIRegliioniall Offiicilall Policies Rlan or Rpgion,.fl Offi&41 Ran; 1hp. Gity's Of-fici.-d Plena; and, recogitized conservation principles (see Section 4.9 01 the Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference). 4.0 Heritacie limpact Assessmont Requiremonts The 5ubject Heritage Ilinpact AssessirTient f�141ll piciVide and addres6 the fol1owlilil1�11 inifforniiationi anid reqUil-49rniants: 4.11 Present owner contact iintorrnnation for properties niunicipally addressed 510, 520 Kiing Str4@Gt West anid 50, 6,0 Victoria Street INlorth. nil RI- Hub OPAjZG— HI Terms of Re-feriance FINAIL—Dec,8,201 I 1076,126 Paap 11 n of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference 4.2 A,.,.,Jte hislory of thP,.subjPcI properties to iincllurrde a listing of owners frorni the I and Regishy Office anid a hisslary of site use(s) as-sociated withi any iiadentified cultural haritage rosourcess. 4.3 A, written description of any cultjui4l heritage, resources on t1iubject properties. Thiig ;shall) i,ndude a description of buiHng e4pirhent s, biailding materials, airchule,(:,Iurall and inleriOr finishes, as weH as any naturall Ihlerinap e ei'ernenls, The description MH identify specific attributes, which are of curlurcd heritage v-44.P(:.N, or interest, and in6klde an chrono]ogiic,ll history of any 5ignifficant afterations, addhions or deirnofiflons to idlentifted culturEd her itage, re-sourcot. 4.4 A writtendes,cription of the heritage, slqnu4cance and attributes associated voithl the adjacent protected heritages 1propaenty Ilocanted at 4110 King Street W est. 4.5 A. written description of the heritage signifficance, and attribLites of any CUItUr-vd heritage Ilanrda c-tapp, assnciatpd with thr, gubjecl.t proppirtips, arnnf in psrticulllar the features on and adjacera tfie subject property, which contribute to the significance of any iidentifii4ad culturall heiritago landscape. 4.6 Docurnentafioni of the, subject properlies to ironicude Gurrent photograph�s and a site pllan drawn at an apprepriata scale lo, understand the context of the site, buiildings, llandscape and surrounding strpetscm),P. \Afhere CUIMI'M heritage resources have Ibeeln identified, docurnentaflon shall also include detailed photographs of the ciuhurA heritngip rpsoiurceg and related attiritnus (e-- pof ali Ibu.uilldliing elevationb, CUrrellit floor,- pllans, Nstoricdl phiotos, dremingsor other available and rekwaini archivall rnateria[�,. 4.7 An outline of the proposed project concept (proposed OP desIgnafion and) Zoni,nq), and hiow the prcposed project concept lmay inipact culturall Iharitappe resources and auributes, on the subject pmpertles; on the adjacent protemed heritage property located at 410 King Street West; and cn, any identified CL,rlurM hipritagp, landsc.:ape asst.wistp(I with thp gt.fhji.-N-A prnpPrIit-,s,. The Herilage linpact Assessment must considor 1potential nagative impacts as identified in the Ministry of (Ajlture's Ontario Heritage Toah Kiil (Her'rtage Res,ources, Jinni the Land Use Ranning Process, — lnfoShieet 45). Negative iiinpacts rnay lirncllude but are not Iiirnitad to chain es in la,nd ruse (which codd rasuit in incoirnpatlble develllopniipnitallteratiions,); direct or lIndllirect obstruction of vews Vistas, Me. 4.8 Wheie the ,paten hall for intipaut on a cjdftwal heritaqe and spec'ffru attributes is idonliflod, the HIA shall considor, ovaluate and rocoirnmand appropriiate conservation, and/or avoidance remeasure s to mitigate impact. Such meaS,IJrF-1S may iinckide bILA are not limited to: pres,eirvation in-sftu of a GUItUll"M hipritagp resource; ad.aplive rO-LISP, of a Cdturalll heritage resource; aftprnative development approaches: isclating development and site alterat�on from signifficant b,uiillt heritage resources and significant cufturall Ihieritage landscapes; estabfishing appropriate height, density and PSRs; preraring design gLridpliines addressing appropriate rnair'iq setbacks, settirig, location ar°id arientaticri, of buildings, building stopbacks, and angurlar plane--, and conilpadNe infill and Multi-Moda] Hub CRA2ZO—HA Terma of flelerence FITIAL— Der, Vin, col 1 1076,126 6 Paap 111 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference additions, Implernentalion rneas,ll roukl inlcll s,ppcW policy provisions, in thio aililendinent to the Officied IPllan, spechd regWations iln the arniendfinenit to the Zoning IB,y-law, and the loirmUlation of deslgn guid9knes for O.Y.arnple. 4.9 I'lecornimended rnitigative imeasures niust be evaWated on the basis of P,;tabliship(l princlplps, siandarch.; a,nd qllllidplinps for Ihpritnge conservatin.. n- A suirnitnary of thigse coriservation, prindlplles, standards arid r quiddll al ['°iow they are being used 11111USt be identified in the HIA. Appropriate conservatlan prniciples may he found in plublications sitich as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guiddhines for the Gons,ervatic)n of I listoric IPllauces in Canada; Eight: Gdding Principles lin the Conservation of BUilding H' er4age IPropertiies, Ontario WinJury of Cl and, the, Ontario IMinistry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Il it(alll avallable online). Examples, of conservaflon principles include but are not liniftod to: irpspoet for historic rnati--rkfl, respect for origin.all fabric, rpvprsliiHlity, leg�lb!Ulty, rnailnlerianw,. .10 R,Pc.omrnPnda1ions, on m— nsewva.tion options and mitigative mplasurps slhaH be as bydfic as, pobsible, tr5inq vnittein desciriptbirs and iflustratans where approp6ate- 4.11 The qualificatoms and background of the person(s) coimplletinq the I teiritage Impact Asspssnipnt shell be iindl.ucll d in the report. 'I'he auth0s) miust dgirnonstralp a Ilpvell of profasslwall anderstandirigi and co,rnpetanco iiilt the haritage conservation f4ld of study. The report wii] lallso include a roference for any literature cited, and Iliist of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 5.0 Summary Stateme nit and Consorvation Recommendations A surrin'tary stalteirnent l requited aurndl should provide a full description of. • lhe cultil heritage signffic.;ancp of the subject properties and area of interest e.g. associated cuhural heritage landscape). • The idantilfcation, of any drrnpac.t the proposed project concept (OP Amend mens and ZonJflig By-law Amendment) wiH have on the cuhuraI significance and heritage attributes, of the subject properdes, / area of inleirpost. • Air explanation of vv[ul raonservation options, midgative ineasures or aheirnativo devol'opl-nent approachos arca recoirnmonidled, and Whether they are, reflected and incorporated in the proposp(J project concppr. • If appficable, c6,rification as t'D Willy 3011-ne G0r1`St11WW0l1 OpflWIS, inifigative inaasures or alternativQ project concopts, are not appropriate. &0 rJandatorV Recommendation The consultant rnIUM iproviia e a reconninen dlation as to whether any of the subject prope-rtAps are worthy of hentagip dpsilginalion in accordance with fihe herflage designation cifteilia peer Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act., Shoddl the Multi Modal Hub CP&IZC HA Terms on Ref roux FINAL Der S,2011 1076126 Paap 119 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference consultant not support Iherit.a.ge, d1psignation then, iIt must Ihae 6P-arly stated as to wl"iy Ifie, subjeca properties do not I dw criteria a,,,, stated iri IRegualluitiion 906. The fofloWing cpttrestiion inI be answered lira, the finaI recommendation of the roport: 1. Do any of the properties I the criteria foot heritage designation unider Onitario IR,equilation 9/06 of the Ontario Iferitage A,Gt? Why or why not? 2. It a,ny of the sLibject properties do not rnizat the criteria for heritage designation thien lit must be 61early stated as to Wfly fhiey do not. 3, Regarrflpss of the faEluirp to mp-4;,t criteria for he-ritage designation, do, a,ny thc:o pioperties wairant con servatiOni aS Iger the definition lin the Provincial Policy Statement? by or why niot and whizat method of conservation is recomniended? Ffteen (1 5) Iharad copies, of the Hedtage Impact Assessment and oneelectroinic pdf farrr)at burned on CID shaflI be proidadlto Herit�ge IP'llanining staff. Both the Fiwd and electrunic copies shaH be irnarke-d wid"i a "DRAFT" walerrriark background. The Haritage Impact Assessiment WHI Ilan roviowed by CiIty staff to determine, whether all reqUirenients Ihiave, beeini imet and to, review the preferred option(s. IFoIIIII ,awing the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies arid ore epectronic copy at the final HPIritage II Assessment ("DRAFT"' waterniark remaved) 'wiIlll be required. The coplIes, of the fhiall Hlpritagp Impart Asses,smPn1wifl hP ronsidprpd by the r1irector of Ranning- Nate that Heritage IIIIII[D'ad Asses5irnentb I be circulated to the Ciity5 Heritage Kitchenpr Con; iimittpp for Information wid &SCILJSsion. Heritage Impact Assessiments imay Ibe subject to a peer reviiew to be conducted �b,y a quaEfied heritage, consultant at the, expense of the GiIty of: Kitchener. Pie applicant M111 be notified of Staff's, ror"nirnents and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted I letitage Impact Assessment witbecame part of the fu ,I-tfilen procPssing of a IPkannling appEcation under throe direction of the Rla,lining IDiiviIsiIon. P'ie recorrimendalions vvith4ii the final approved versiion Of the HeriItage Impact As-sessment inay Ido incorporated into clevalopm4@nt rellated Ie, gall agreernents betweer, the Oity anid the proponent at the discretion of the mi ILI I pallty. Multi -Modal Hub OPATC - HA Tera is of Rderem- FINAL - Dee 8, 2011 1076,126 8 Paap 111 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title ...I......... l 7 .... ......... ..... .. ........ .. .. .......... .,. ....... ._..,....,,....,..,.g._.p�....._Y..r-.,.L.,,„./p T) �., /1....7.. Jdt,�'” "i f,.�7'-v�F I ;! �I.�^�1(VP;. ,:7 d '�4k�. ..�.. 0% I I �.: ,.. ....� .... eV FN i 0395 031�0 i ..._a. ...."�i 7�. IP rt 'fI(i 7l u F t0 ,+7 ffi rliYr'9 ---C t K" r AM / I 'JJ':' ....._ Property Index Map lot numbers in red CAVEMAN �VAOOIVAL ji,'1,V1.U1AY 065 14. 10 11 1 12 1131 ... 134@2, .. w 15 037 59,1 D268 VIC7'ORIA S7"REE�,' Blocks 22318 & 22319, City of Kitchener Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations 520 KING STREET WEST current active PIN 22318-0161 LOT 1, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener date instrument from - to instrument no. 27 July 1896 deed Estate of Margaretha Backer to Frank Frank 12740 25 Sept 1906 deed Frank Frank to Christopher M. Huether 20664 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant I Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. no recitals re: change of name 3 Dec 1964 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 LOT 2, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 24 Dec 1885 deed Estate of Edward Fitzgerald to Edward G. Fitzgerald 6548 19 Aug 1899 deed Edward G. Fitzgerald to Christopher M. Huether 14441 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant 1 Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 no recitals re: change of name 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 LOT 3, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener Paap 114 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 24 Dec 1885 deed Estate of Edward Fitzgerald to Edward G. Fitzgerald 6548 19 Aug 1899 deed Edward G. Fitzgerald to Christopher M. Huether 14441 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 243979 18 Dec 1963 no recitals re: change of name Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 510 KING STREET WEST current active PIN 22318-0162 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nornoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 30 April 1987 grant 1 Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 30 June 2000 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Shin Kwon Kim 1462919 29 Oct 2010 transfer Shin Kwon Kim to Frank Volpini WR576985 24 Dec 2011 transfer Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR591277 LOT 4, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 6 Nov 1899 deed John A. Mackie in trust to Christopher M. Huether 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 no recitals re: change of name 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Limited 290048 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nornoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 Paap 11 .5 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed no. 30 April 1987 grant Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 11 March 1996 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1286090 LOT 5, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 6 Nov 1899 deed John A. Mackie in trust to Christopher M. Huether 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 289682 8 Nov 1972 no recitals re: change of name Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 27 July 1965 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to City of Kitchener 296767 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nomoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 30 April 1987 grant Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 11 March 1996 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1286090 16 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0366 LOT 6, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 31 May 1890 deed Henry F. S. Jackson to Robert Lee Jackson & John Cochrane 9067 1 Feb 1930 deed Estate of John Cochrane and Robert Jackson to Jackson -Cochrane Ltd. 64137 1953 name change from Jackson -Cochrane to Beisinger Industries 289682 8 Nov 1972 deed Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 481575 17 Oct 1988 deed Court J. Beisinger et al. to Eugene O'Neill 965980 17 Nov 1988 deed Eugene O'Neill to Bernadette O'Neill 970101 27 Jan 1989 deed Bernadette O'Neill to O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. 978793 1 Nov 1989 deed O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. to 742873 Ontario Inc. in trust 1015462 10 March 2006 deed 742873 Ontario Inc. to 1484967 Ontario Inc. 1582244 30 May 2008 deed 1484967 Ontario Inc. to Frank Volpini WR385573 23 Dec 2010 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589136 LOT 7, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 31 May 1890 deed Henry F. S. Jackson to Robert Lee Jackson & John Cochrane 9067 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 1 Feb 1930 deed Estate of John Cochrane and Robert Jackson to Jackson -Cochrane Ltd. 64137 1953 18845 name change from Jackson -Cochrane to Beisinger Industries 289682 8 Nov 1972 deed Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 481575 17 Oct 1988 deed Court J. Beisinger et al. to Eugene O'Neill 965980 17 Nov 1988 deed Eugene O'Neill to Bernadette O'Neill 970101 27 Jan 1989 deed Bernadette O'Neill to O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. 978793 1 Nov 1989 deed O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. to 742873 Ontario Inc. in trust 1015462 10 March 2006 deed 742873 Ontario Inc. to 1484967 Ontario Inc. 1582244 30 May 2008 deed 1484967 Ontario Inc. to Frank Volpini WR385573 23 Dec 2010 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589136 50 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0396 LOT 8, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 11 July 1882 deed Berlin Pioneer Tobacco Mfg. Co. to George Rumpel 5149 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant 1 Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 Paap 117 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. LOT 9, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 11 July 1882 deed Berlin Pioneer Tobacco Mfg. Co. to George Rumpel 5149 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 quit claim change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 80925 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 10, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 10 Mar 1896 deed The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 11, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 Paap 118 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 31 Dec 1894 deed George Rumpel to William Oelschlager 10748 13 Sept 1895 deed William Oelschlager to George Rumpel 12354 10 Mar 1896 deed The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 15 March 1989 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 12, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 10 Mar 1896 deed The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0399 LOT 13, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 23 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk R. R. Company 17409 1 Nov 1913 deed George Rumpel to Minna Rumpel et al. 31185 22 Dec 1915 deed Minna Rumpel to George Rumpel 34850 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 14, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 23 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk R. R. Company 17409 27 Nov 1913 grant Walter Rumpel to Corporation of City of Berlin 31245 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed 1 Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 15, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 27 Nov 1913 grant Walter Rumpel to Corporation of City of Berlin 31245 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 Paap 19n of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener Historical Significance Berlin (now Kitchener) is the birthplace of felt manufacturing in Canada. George Rumpel was known as the father of the industry (2) and is referred to as the "Felt King of Canada" in several publications. The Berlin Felt Boot Company was established on this site in 1867 by Mr J. Feick who later merged with Mr. Jacob Y. Shantz (1). In 1875 the company was bought by Mr. George Rumpel (shown left) whom had moved to Canada seven years earlier at the age of 18 (1). By 1886 the Berlin Felt Boot Co. employed over 75 workers making felt boots to wear under rubber or leather boots, as well as leather boots (1). George Rumpel was active in civic affairs. He served six years on council, was elected reeve in 1897 and elected mayor in 1898. During his term as mayor he led the controversial decision to purchase the public water works system (2). He also served on the Parks Board and Water Commission. In local histories, the Rumpel name is found alongside the other community business and civic leaders of the time: such as Kaufman, Lang, Krug and Breithaupt. In 1903 George and his sons travelled to Germany to learn about felt manufacturing and applied it to their business (2). Paap 191 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) City of Kitchener mr3a ,p� 66 a h. T r ":' � r rc 1W ''r�, ¢ �r �.''� 6✓Ai � p� �)< � � w✓ " j9M,7". � �µk�uW.. p �4z ti."✓ w."wwW.✓wy rP""Td,"fr ,tsQrvq�.y y,'bld "M" �1 ° �; J" FG w*y Ju 'J '.. ung" 01wp >wilull^,"uyu srvuy^w;«m ✓i v ✓ M r wu ;: �`, !W2"r4 ,�Uud ✓. ✓., Xr 6" ap `^ p lY ugh M 4 dIA��'� �� f„ �k v >J m �" P✓� 1, p�u 4r p rt � Y✓�"�"�✓��" -"���' t� o �, w«�W 1-v -rk,*` ' � 6, � " ��,"h ; V w �,>�' ,, w,�f � yqr: n try �' �,Y""d � .✓ ✓ rN r ii d ¢ r d✓,q � � 6 IIXPo WN + ✓ z� t � r � ,- ��' �s�m 4 4�be�b �`� n � r� � � ., h,���" �,� n��, 'a� �,_«°o. ,, � ✓�1 p t �rygV�, a .G�„� �.r � �� rU ”' .,a�@� � ✓ti"�.,� ,Mr y✓ria a. irk a w d.. �I $ 0 0� V �rY�w e r� roww `'ti yr ,�, ...Nw�'✓r�+� ""`,"q {: "`+'+ a.%'�ii� �'Il, ��yp� r "''�'. 1!I4 q� d. a�e*'`,a'' i r+; d,,,,"�,,. w"4'!'r" r„"w''' �. �}yW✓;pry ��,1�ra�'�,� " � �p a;`i � "� ,. b yj &W�o'ar,?( �;.� u� u k � w✓' a )✓' yy V E "tp f p� 1 gp w^'" 6 u r" p ,`N'?✓ ��7"r".�;a�"'r " rr� flit it �l is �—. :. . ., '''�'I'Oi�. "�l`"Y.'"��i�"wri"•��r'�r;r .-,,,.J,dw;we.�:';��wv,�.;luw'3,�2��"'a'�ti.if„'��4'�"1`w.a�..�r"Wo""�" `sem" Twentieth century number of "Busy Berlin" publication (1901) The Berlin site was destroyed by fire and rebuilt in the same location around the year 1905 (1). By 1909 the company had expanded to Baden and had over 300 employees (2). —_ ._ Y 10" n t� Fire Insurance Map (Aug 1894, with 1904 updates) Paap 199 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener John Kimmel was associated with the Berlin Felt Boot Co. for 15 years. In 1900 he left to organize the Elmira Felt Company. In 1907 Mr. Kimmel built the Kimmel Felt Company in Berlin. In 1909 the Berlin Felt Boot Co, the Kimmel Felt Co. and the Elmira Felt Co. were all bought by the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co (1). George Rumpel was named the president of the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. and John Kimmel was made vice president and general manager (6). "Busy Berlin" Map by M. S. Boehm & Co. Ltd. (1912) —Berlin Felt Co. is no. 60, Kimmel Felt Co. is no. 19. In 1912, George Rumpel left the role of president of the Consolidated Felt Co. and formed the Rumpel Felt Co. A 3 storey (9,000 square foot (150 x 60 ft (2)) building was erected beside the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. buildings at the corner of Edward (now Duke) St. and Victoria St. (3). Rumple Felt Co. exported felt to Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and South America (1). A later 3 storey addition was added at some point pre 1925 that measured 40 x 50 ft(2). George Rumpel had two sons. Oscar Rumpel, studied business and worked with the business until 1913 at which time he bought the old shirt factory at Courtland and Queen (now the Bread & Roses Co op) and produced felt slippers (2). W. G. studied mechanical engineering and worked with the business until taking it over in 1920 following George's death (2). The company was passed to the third generation John W. Rumpel in 1944 following W. G.'s death (1). In 1968, another 3 storey (15,000 square foot) addition was added to the Rumpel Felt Co. site to accommodate the growing synthetic felt division (4). Felt production at the 60,000 square foot facility ceased in 2008 when the property was sold by Rumpel Felt Co. president David Rumpel (5). Planning Context Heritage Protection - The Rumpel Felt Co. building is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. Any development application is therefore subject to the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan. The property is also being considered for the next round of evaluations for the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). Listing on the MHR would provide an interim level of protection from demolition. The property is also adjacent to the Kaufman Lofts, an Ontario Heritage Act designed structure. Paap 19'1 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) - The Rumple Felt Co. building is located in the Warehouse District of the City of Kitchener downtown. The downtown districts have been used by the City to promote and guide redevelopment in the core area. Maigpof the Downtown IDIYs�ari as IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �::a F Di5t,rwN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII + � ����:r;�.,�� MM MoreCraw>rrkc According to the Downtown Strategic Plan (vol. 3), the Warehouse District is being redeveloped using the following strategies: - Establish a new university campus - Use existing historic buildings to create opportunities - Identify, preserve and enhance features that define and associate the Warehouse District with Kitchener's unique industrial heritage and the moniker "Busy Berlin". - Create a new "Industrial Artifacts Museum" and provide space for the display of industrial artifacts - Build upon what already exists: large stock of historic warehouse industrial buildings, major site redevelopment opportunity - Improve access to transit, trails and parks - Recruit complementary uses to support the core functions and anchors - Develop the district at a density that complements the existing density of historic warehouse industrial buildings (buildings close to property lines, three to six stories in height) Paap 194 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener The City of Kitchener has also established a community improvement area that encompasses the downtown core area and is expanded to include the industrial buildings on the north side of the railway tracks. The warehouse district was identified as a candidate CHL of regional significance in a report commissioned by the Region in 2006 entitled Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo region: A Framework for Inventory, Assessment and Policy Development. From a heritage perspective, there has been no further work undertaken on the warehouse area in terms of inventorying and conserving the area as a CHL. A Built Form Review was undertaken in 2005 by the Economic Development Department as part of Kitchener's city wide Urban Growth Plan which identified properties with adaptive re use, intensification and redevelopment potential. Several adaptive reuse projects have rejuvenated key industrial buildings, but it is unclear if there is a larger plan for the remaining industrial Location of existing historic industrial buildings Sources (1) Glover, Robert A. (unpublished) New Factory Smoke. Kitchener Public Library. (2) Middleton, Jesse Edgar and Fred Landon (c.1927). The Province of Ontario: A History 1615 1927. 5 volumes. Toronto, Ontario: Dominion Publishing Co. (3) Stanton, Raymond O Rumpel Felt Pioneered New Canada Industry. KW Record. (4) KW Record (1968). Factory Addition. (5) Hammond, Michael (January 13, 2009) Rumpel Felt building finds a buyer at $3.2M. Waterloo Region Record. (6) Waterloo County Hall of Fame. Paap 195 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties George Rumpel (1850-1916) The Rumpel Felt Company was established in 1912 by George Rumpel. A German immigrant, George Rumpel came to Canada in 1868 and lived in Hamilton as a shoemaker for five years. In 1875 he founded the Berlin Felt Boot Company with 3 employees which manufactured leather boots and felt lumberman ankle -high boots. In 1903 George and his two sons Walter and Oscar returned to Germany to study advanced felt making. With the implementation of this applied knowledge, the company grew rapidly. When he sold the company to the Consolidated Felt Company in 1909, the company employed 300 workers. George Rumpel continued as president until 1912 when he started the successful Rumpel Felt Company. George Rumpel was a prominent member of Berlin society by serving as member of the Park Board, the Water Commission, and Town Council for five years. He was Reeve in 1897 and mayor in 1898. The family also owned an asbestos mine in northern Quebec ,The Berlin Asbestos Mine, which was managed by George's son Oscar Rumpel. Walter Rumpel, George Rumpel's son and successor managed the Rumpel Felt Company from 1916-1944. Walter established a felt factory at the corner of Victoria and Duke Streets in Kitchener, Ontario where it has operated ever since. From 1944-1966 Walter was succeeded by his son John W. Rumpel, who was succeeded by his son David Rumpel from 1966-2007. In 2007 the company closed production of felt but continue as a wholesaler from the factory. ARCHEION Ontario's Archival Information Network, www.archeion.ca/rumpel-corLye-1950-1916 Berlin was the birthplace of felt manufacturing in Canada and the father of the industry was George Rumpel, a native of Germany. He came to Canada in 1868 when eighteen years of age and lived in Hamilton as a shoemaker for five years. He moved to Berlin in 1871 and in 1875 established the Berlin Felt Boot Company, with three employees. He then also manufactured leather boots. Rumpel went to Germany to study felt making and after he returned and applied the knowledge he had gained his business grew rapidly. When he sold it to the Consolidated Felt Company in 1909 there were 300 employees. He continued as president but in 1912 started the very successful Rumpel Felt Company. Rumpel was a member of the Park Board, the Water Commission and the Town Council, which he served for five years. He was reeve in 1897 and mayor in 1898. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame http://water]oore gionmuseum com/region-hall-of fame/inductees This summer residence was called "Wee Forest Hill" & was built in about 1885 by George Rumpel ofBerlin Ontario [now Kitchener]. He had named it after their home in Berlin ` Forest Hill ". The Rumpel's for years, packed up the kids, servants, and went by train to spend the summer on Penetang Bay. The Rumpels, Breithaupts, Langs, MacKellars, Seagrams, andPieries [spelling looks wrong] were all industrialists from Berlin who established connections with Penetang. Breithaupt was in the leather business and used the Penetang cedar bark in tanning his leathers for the shoe industries of Berlin. Rumpel's & MacKellar's were in the shoe business and the felt manufacturing for boots, athletic equipment, horses, etc. The Penetang Becks were somehow connected to the Becks Paap 19R of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties of Waterloo Co and Sir Adam Beck of Baden & Hydro fame. He was a great pal of George Rumpel. These movers & shakers from Berlin were a strong German force in early Penetang. The "Wee Forest Hill " & the big white [now yellow] house on Fox St on the other side of Broad St, [called "Cedar Knoll'] were both owned after 1916 by the sons of George Rumpel - Walter Rumpel & Oscar Rumpel respectively. In 1929, Oscar Rumpel sold his "Cedar Knoll" to Thomas Seagram of Seagram Distillers, Waterloo, and the deal included Walter Rumpel selling "Wee Forest Hill" to the Pieries of Kitchener who were great friends of Seagrams. A daughter, Marg Pierie, then married the Meyers of New Zealand's Meyers Rum. So --- those 2 houses on Fox St atBroad St were owned for several years by people entrenched in two of the world's best known liquor companies. Not bad for lil of Penetangl The property and the 2 cottages have been in the Wolfson Family for over 30 years. Fond Memories continue to be made. Georgian Bay Cottage History htti)://www.cotta�e.zoomshare.com/2.shtm] Thursday, 22 Feb. 2007 August John Kimmel (1865-1930) A. J. Kimmel was a noted industrialist in Berlin, Ontario who greatly aided in the development of the city. He was associated with the Berlin Felt Boot Company for fifteen years and in 1900 organized the Elmira Felt Company. In 1907 he built the Kimmel Felt Company at Berlin. When the Canadian Consolidated Felt Company was formed in 1909, consolidating the Elmira company, the Kimmel company and the Berlin Felt Boot Company, he became vice-president and general manager of the new organization. He also became associated with the large rubber interests in Canada which later merged to become the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company Limited. Kimmel became a director of many industrial organizations in Berlin and throughout Ontario and Quebec. With T.H. Rieder he founded the Dominion Rubber Company which became a very successful national organization. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame, htti)://water]ooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of fame/inductees As typical of the kind of men that have vastly aided in the upbuilding ofBerlin stands A. J. Kimmel. Born in Berlin 47 years ago no man is better known in our city and no man has figured less in printed matter, -for he is a man who shuns publicity of a personal nature. To write his biography for the past 25 years would be to tell of many of the biggest things clone in commercial interests in our city. He was with the Berlin Felt Boot Co., Berlin for fifteen years, first as Shipping Clerk and later as Sales Manager. In 1900 he organized the Elmira Felt Co., Elmira, which Company was remarkably successful. In 1907, together with Mr. D. Lorne McGibbon and T. H Rieder, he purchased the entire share capital of The Ebnira Felt Co. and the following year built The Kimmel Felt Co. Works at Berlin. In 1909 the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. was formed with a capital of two million dollars, taking in the factories of The Ebnira Co., The Kimmel Co. and The BerlinFeltBootCo. with Mr. Kimmelas Vice -President and General Manager. In the meantime he had also become associated with the larger rubber interests of Canada which later became merged in what is now known as the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited. He is President and Manager, The Kimmel Felt Co., Berlin; President and Manager The Elmira Felt Co., Elmira; Director Berlin Felt Boot Co., Berlin; Vice -President and General Manager The Canadian Consolidated Felt Co.; Director Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co., Ltd., Montreal; Director Merchants Rubber Co., Berlin; Director Maple LeafRubber Co., Port Dalhousie; Director Berlin Rubber Co., Berlin; also Director in Berlin Py rofugant Flooring Co. ; Berlin Bedding Co. ; Merchants Printing Co. ; Grosch Felt Shoe Co. Paap 197 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties At the time this book is being prepared for press (1911), he with Mr. T. K Rieder is engaged in an effort to install in Berlin a $250, 000 Rubber Tire Factory, which will add materially to the industrial growth of our city. Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario htt)://�-yenerations.re�-yionofwaterloo ca The KODIAK® name traces its ancestry to the sweltering summer heat of 1910, when Charles Erwin Greb and his son Erwin C. Greb were installed as shareholders and senior executives of the Berlin Felt Boot Company. That fledgling enterprise would soon be renamed, by its new owners, as the GREB SHOE COMPANY. From its earliest days, GREB SHOES was motivated by a commitment to designing and making quality footwear for ordinary working people. GREB's customers relied on that footwear to fit right and last a good long time and it did. When GREB introduced the world's first truly waterproof boot, the KODIAK® name was born. Today, KODIAK® continues to be associated with authentic, durable safety footwear trusted by workers everywhere. Kodiak Boots web page, http://www.kodiakboots.com/ Greb Industries Limited was a shoe and boot manufacturing company based in Kitchener, Ontario. Charles E. Greb, who had moved to Berlin (now Kitchener) from Zurich, Ontario, in 1909, became the secretary -treasurer of the Berlin Shoe Manufacturing Company when it was incorporated in 1910. His son Erwin Greb joined the company as book-keeper. In 1912, Charles and Erwin acquired the company, and in 1916 it received a new charter of incorporation under the name Greb Shoe Company Limited, with Charles as president and Erwin as secretary -treasurer. In 1918, Erwin bought the controlling interest in the company from his father, who remained involved with the business in an advisory capacity. The Greb Shoe Company, which had plants on Queen Street and at the corner of Mansion and Chestnut Streets in Kitchener, was again reorganized and received a new charter in 1930. In 1938, it acquired Valentine and Martin Limited, a Waterloo manufacturer of work boots, shoes, and dress shoes, which continued to operate as a separate business until it was merged with the Greb Shoe Company in 1951. Operations by that time were consolidated at a plant on Breithaupt Street in Kitchener. When Erwin Greb died in 1954, his son Harry D. Greb took over as company president. Erwin's other sons were also involved in the company as directors; Arthur was in senior management and Charles was a plant manager and eventually became executive vice-president (1969-1976). In 1959, the company purchased the Canada West Shoe Manufacturing Company of Winnipeg, including its popular Kodiak brand boots. The expansion into Western Canada began a period of tremendous growth for the company. Manufacturing facilities were expanded, and the company made several other acquisitions, including Bauer Canadian Skate; Tebbutt Shoe and Leather Company of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec; and Collins Safety Shoes of Peterborough. A skate and boot plant was eventually opened in Bangor, Maine. The most significant factor in the company's growth through the 1960s was the popularity of Hush Puppies brand of casual shoes, which Greb began manufacturing under license from Wolverine World Wide of Rockford, Michigan, in the early 1960s. The mascot for this line of footwear, a basset hound named Velvet, was a popular symbol for the brand. In 1966, Greb Industries Limited became apublicly-traded company, and by the early 1970s it had grown to become Canada's largest footwear manufacturer, employing 1200 people in Kitchener and another 1100 in Winnipeg, Trois-Rivieres, and Bangor. In 1974, the company was purchased by Warrington Products Limited of Mississauga. Paap 198 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Greb Industries Limited continued to manufacture footwear under the new owners, with several changes in operations, including the closure of several plants and a move for the head office from its Ardelt Avenue location in Kitchener to Mississauga. In 1987, Warrington sold the Greb division, which consisted mainly of Hush Puppies and Kodiak shoes and boots, to Taurus Footwear of Montreal. Production of Hush Puppies ended in 1989 when the licence was surrendered to Wolverine. The Bauer skate division, operating as Canstar Sports, had been relocated to Cambridge and sold to Nike. The last Greb plant in Kitchener, a Kodiak boot plant on Hayward Avenue, closed in 1991. In 1992, the Royal Bank took control of Taurus Footwear and formed Greb International to market the Kodiak brand domestically and internationally. In 2000 this company became Kodiak Group Holdings Inc., and in 2005, it purchased Terra Footwear in Newfoundland and has factories in Markdale, Ontario; Harbour Grace, Newfoundland; and in Asia Briggs, T. and Greb, C. E., The Greb Story, Kitchener: Grebco Holdings Ltd., 2008 Harry Douglas Greb (1916-1998) Harry Douglas Greb was born in Kitchener. For more than thirty years, he guided Greb Industries Limited, the family business founded by his father Erwin Greb in 1912. Greb began his career as a bookkeeper with the company in 1932. His father retired in 1940, and Harry took over active management of the company. He became President of the company in 1954, upon the death of his father. When he sold the company in 1975, it was the largest independent shoe company in Canada. Greb is credited as the first manufacturer in the Region to give his employees two weeks holiday with pay. He acquired plants in across Canada and in the USA. He developed the Kodiak Boot, was Canadian licensee for Hush Puppies, supplied footwear to the Ontario Provincial Police, farmers in Western Canada, and thousands of pairs of boots for the Canadian and British military. He was Director of Equitable Life Insurance Company for twenty-six years. He was a lifetime and active member of St. Peter's Lutheran Church, Kitchener. A man of great energy, Greb served ten years as Chairman of the Board of Waterloo Lutheran University. He was honoured with an LLD degree in 1971. He served as President of the Shoe Manufacturers of Canada, President of the Shoe Information Bureau, and President of the Shoe and Leather Council of Canada. Greb was a member of the Waterloo County Shrine Club, Mocha Temple for fifty-five years; Grand River and Scottish Rite Masonic Lodges for sixty-two years; Kitchener Rotary Club for fifty-five years; and ExOfficer of Sea Cadet Corps RCSCC Warspite - Kitchener. Greb married Dorothy Spain of Galt in 1938. They have one son, Douglas, a daughter Barbara, and nine grandchildren. Greb was an active sailor all his life and skippered five different vessels. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame http://water]ooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of fame/inductees Paap 19c) of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Charles E. Greb (1929-2009) Charles E. Greb was born in Kitchener. He started his business career with Greb Shoes Limited, a family company that grew into Canada's largest shoe manufacturing company by the time it was sold in 1976. Greb later became CEO of Musitron Communications which under his presidency became part of Grebco Holdings Ltd. He was also director and chairman of Skyjack Inc. of Guelph; director and chairman of Virtek Vision International Inc. of Waterloo; and managing partner of Woodside Fund, a California Venture Capital Partnership. Greb was a life member and former chairman of the National Council of YMCAs of Canada; a director for 50 years and President of the YMCA of Kitchener -Waterloo; an Honorary Life Member of the K -W Hospital Foundation; president of Kitchener Chamber of Commerce; a founding director and secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener & Waterloo; chairman of the Ontario Summer Games; a founding member and president of K -W Oktoberfest; vice-chairman of CAA Ontario; chairman of CAA Mid -Western Ontario; president of Junior Achievement of the Waterloo Region; chairman of Junior Achievement of Canada; founding chairman Rotary Community Resource Village; a member of the Board of Governors of St. Paul's College, University of Waterloo, and member of the Board of Regents of Luther College, University of Regina; chairman of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Board of Management; chairman of Kitchener Economic Development Board. He received many awards including Kitchener Citizen of the Year; Province of Ontario Bicentennial Medal; Ontario Volunteer Service gold award; Canada 125th Anniversary medal for contributions to Canada; Companion of the Fellowship of Honour YMCA Canada; Lou Buckley Award - K -W YMCA; and Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International for work with youth. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame http://water]ooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of fame/inductees of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 5 Kaufman Lofts Construction Date(s) 1908/01/01 to 1925/01/01 Statement of Significance Description of Historic Place The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited is located at 410 King Street West, between Victoria and Francis Streets, in the City of Kitchener. The five -storey red and black brick, steel -frame building was designed by architect Albert Kahn and was constructed in stages between 1908 and 1925. The property was designated, for its historic and architectural value, by the City of Kitchener, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By-law 96-34). Heritage Value The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited was influential on Kitchener's industrial development. The Kaufman Rubber Company had a major impact on the local economy and has been the workplace of thousands of Kitchener's citizens over the years, often for successive generations. It has been a physical landmark in Kitchener for close to a century, dominating the intersection of King Street and Wilmot Street (now Victoria) and serving as a "gateway" to the downtown, as one approaches from Waterloo. The Kaufman's are one of Kitchener's most prominent families, well regarded for their business acumen, innovation, public service and philanthropy. The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited is an excellent example of early industrial modernist architecture and represents the work of one of the 20th century's greatest architects, Albert Kahn (1869-1942). Built over a period of 17 years, the building is representative of the evolving construction methods of the era and of the changes in industrial production, including the organization of work, greater attention to the welfare of the workforce and the dramatic growth of industries at the turn of the century. The Kaufman Footwear building is an example of the "Kahn System" of building which included reinforced concrete bars that provided support for uninterrupted floor space, along with increased fireproofing and natural lighting. Kahn's facades were typically organized in a grid -like 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. Together, the four building phases maintain a unity of style and scale. The massing of the 1908-1925 complex provides apowerful focus within Kitchener's downtown. It is uniquely significant architecturally and is representative of the history of industrial architecture in Canada. Sources: City of Kitchener By-law 96-34; Historic Buildings Inventory, Patti Shea, August 1989. Character -Defining Elements Character defining elements that contribute to the heritage value of the Kaufman Rubber Company Limited include its: - exposed concrete frame, window openings, cornice and dentil 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 dentil 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 - window openings, cornice and dentil mouldings, roof and roofline of the 1925 building phase Paap 111 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 5 Kaufman Lofts 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 Canada's Historic Places web site http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/home-accucil.aspx, accessed February 6, 2012 Paap 1'19 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 6 Breithaupt Centre Cultural Heritage Resources and Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Interest The buildings at 51 Breithaupt were built in a series of stages with architectural details that vary with the age of the buildings (Figure 1). The original building near the corner of Breithaupt Street and Waterloo Street is circa 1903 with additions, new buildings, and major renovations being made in 1908, 1909, 1912,1918,1929-30,1955,1966,1969,1999, 2000 and 2001. The significant cultural heritage resources consist of the 1903 through 1918 buildings. With respect to cultural heritage value and interest, the property at 51 Breithaupt Street is representative of the founding and progression of the industrial age in the City of Kitchener, with the earliest building dating from 1903 and the latest addition of 2001. The Merchants Rubber Company and its successors occupied the buildings from 1903 to 1981, employing many local residents over its 78 year history. Prominent Kitchener citizens Jacob Kaufman, Talmon Henry Rieder, and George Schlee, all Waterloo Region Hall of Fame members, have been associated with the property. - Breithaupt Street Figure 1 Heritage Attributes Building No. 1 (Building G)- 1908 • buff ("white") brick • concrete pilasters • brick lintels & concrete sills • 6/6 double hung windows • concrete post, concrete beam construction Building No. 2 (Building F) - 1909 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters • concrete lintels & sills Buildings with Heritage Attributes at 51 Breithaupt Street of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 6 Breithaupt Centre • 6/6 double hung windows (front) • steel framed multi -pane industrial windows (rear) • stair/elevator tower at rear • steel framed, brick bearing wall construction designed to carry heavy loads Buildings No. 3 & 4 (Buildings D & E) - 1903 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters, frieze & east facade arches • concrete lintels & sills • 6/6 double hung windows • wood post & beam construction - steel post & beam, brick bearing wall construction • vertical steel tank at rear Building No. 6 (Building C) - 1918 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters & cornice with central tower • concrete lintels & sills • 6/6 double hung windows with 3 light transom • date stone (1918) • wood post & beam construction, brick bearing wall, designed to carry heavy loads Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, ON, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., February 2011 Paap 1'14 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street from Citv of Kitchener files - information compiled 1984 - 1985: NAMF - n. lHihner ADDRESS: 283 Duke St. W. PROPERTY DATA PLAN; 376 L pt 213-214, 215-220, 34 Sts & Lns ASSESSMENT ROLL; 010-004-075 ZONING: LI SITE ARZAi 1.76 Ac. FRONTAGE: 164.80 DATE OF CONSTRUCT109- 1296 CURRENT OWNER 19851 So,ehmer Paperboard Sales Corp., P.O. Box 345, 460 Belmcnt St. W,-, Kitchener PREVIOUS OWNERS: 1) The D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd (1889-.1920) 2) Malcolm & Hill Ltd. (19,2o-193,3) 3) Dominion Electronome Ltd. (1936-1979) THREATS TO BUILDING*. none Xnown RECOMMENDATIOUS: Immediate design, tion on account of the building's age and histiorical significance ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION - BUILDING MATERIALS: off-white brick FOUNDATION: STOREYSt 3 WINDOWS-, do able rectangular 6 -over -6, 2 separated per bay BAY WIDTH FACADE. 10 (facing Duke St,) SIDE 20 (facing Breithaupt) ROOF: flat and slightly sloping ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONSi ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE - COMMENTS; - rhythm achieved through repeating windows - only0slight brick detailing under eaves - shallow buttressing - entrance marked 'by, simple protruding block o� building Paap 115 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street TITLB SEAFOi Inst.t Date Grantor to Grmtea Wtat is S s, S 65H4 1.4389, Ekrs & Wid, rel G, ravidson to Mkiiel 0,8 Ac. Icks 217-220 Jitner ;, Tda t,,4. )rw-AitA1e At c, 8585 1e9,3' Daniel, S. Hi et ux 4 Ida Tittle: $7500. lots 217-220 max to Cane.Oa Per=. L. & S. rb - Jlk%i 91932 18112 ldl M. rbmlittle to Salm 1'. D-,011ttle - Lots 2,0-220 Jul & S 10703 la94 Sblm L. Xulittle et ax to oriel Hilxwr - lots 217-220 mtq�,, 10711W1 1894 DmniaL iibncr, wid., to Oin. Parm. I $8000. - lots 217-2210 ,.I,V ing or) ML4�s 11 (Y? 12 1 Ow -del ',Abryw orld. to SIcm L. fbolittl* $40)0. Le.%q !?'I(XX). to be paid - lots 217--220 , I lftgc. !,308,6 1897 Dmniel 'Hilmar' of. ux to CImi. Porm� 7,A>wi — �8000. - LAs 217-220 (b— m,tT'. 13113 1,997 'Dwdel Hibner mat LLx to JL(x)L Ogawa,%�ari MM - IoLs 217-220 3 1,,A1bI4 ISNY) 5; --hlap et, u% to Dqniel kh,rer $315. - rt. lots 213-214 3 & S 146T3 1900 aitloig Kerb itz eL ux to Daniel 4-W.Aier $100. - PL lot 215 �t & 5492 lani N-tth,,.my rAs4,m1X1 et I= t, Daniel 'Hilmar $1300., - lot 216 3 S ISM I002 Lu<14ig Ke.6.aiLz eL ux Lo UWdet 444; ez; .wIOM - lut 215 Ora 15763 l,'X12 1)nnial 4iM= at UX to M.C. CAX-1rtX)1tZr-r, $200'0. - loto 215-2,16 P,,S, Lawatemchlager Clement, Exrs of Gleason V. Warbaltzer 1 U43 5 1,1303 Omnjel Hihner at ux to "Pie Perm. $15000. - lots 217-22() R)rtga,ge CtXP. - machinery, plant, etc. M,� 17743 1'' D. et ux to Me Per,,Ta» VOW. - pL lots 213-214 iCrt,gagp (bop, - lots 215-216-ard m, ch. 3 au 22596 1907 D. Bibner et = to Ince D. Hibner $53540. - pt lots 213-214 Rzjr4ture Co. - lots 215-220 MINy'. 267108 190, The. 1), Hitxv.r P,'`im. (b. to The $MM - pt lots 213-214 lots 215-221) & Madi etc Mtge 2,8541? 1912 'Me D, Hi1xier nim. Co. Ud. & F) . HA bn er O"X)D. - r*. I Ot S 2:1.3- ra to 11.1h,e mmifhrtureTs Life Ins. (b. - lots 215-220 & Madh, Mtge 34222 191.5 'Me D. Mlxier Ri=. C. TkA. to T'w pxemiaes + t�I. (A) - j* fkerq,,Aaant; Fha* nF (5�marh Intl 21-3-214,1ta 21.5-220 i & ell 41703 IWO 'rhe D, AIX= Fum Go. Ltd. to %1coaxi & 1.00 - pt IoLs 2'1,3-214 Mill LUL - lots 215-220 + plant, + Mach. mtgo: 59426 1927 AilLrilm, & FUI IA,.d, Lo, 71e 1161wi, Life $25000. -- pt lots 213-21.4 11,1S. 1;')- - its 215-220 +plant+mach 695516 J 9-33 CA, oftrwy "1. ClarXsm, Trastixa of ,61colm - ok,4e + a25CXJ - pt, lts 6 iL'Ll Ud. to 11. R:)te1*A'rC; & W, 2!13-214 - lots 215-220 - plant, etc. ".JMP� 721 19316 �Uiufacturem Life Ins. 0:-o. to Dmirdm - pt lots 213-214, - INwz Sni". Ele'tr(juxme lvv.ljs. TAA. 215-220, plant&:mcbet(.1- Mvj' 721,12 1936 Ib mi ni m. Eipce.rrhme Ind. LLJ. f�Q $24300. - Pt Intq 213-'rLA Phnufarturers t,as.tr Ns. ('o, lots 215-220, pjeujt TA-1ch, ctc. mg a 89423 1946 Diminim Electrt*vmw IrA. ltd. to Ax=edl tymds - pt bats 213-214 Paap 1IR of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 I 471363 19,72 Electrohome 11d. to The Canada Trust 0D. 617644 1977 Rtge 651163 1979 Grant 651.134 1.979 , 7 Amch 741.765 1983 I �5, C-4 E1ectrdhcn)*, Ltdto 'Me Rqyal Rank of 4.',lanada 7*w.-),nier Paperbcard Sales Corp. to E,D-Y.-Lrea ':w Ud. Flectrrobome Ltd. to ayaftner Paperbodrd sales Cbrp. R,V g--[Aul ib na Alterations Ltd. vs Boehnar Paperlx)ard Sales Corp. 86elvw-r Pox cdrp . rRRTX—"r. Pt lots 213-214 lots 215-220, Deel oE Trust & Mortgage - t=xls - pit lots 213-214 - loLs 215-220 $1..00 - pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $25,000,000. - Pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $330,000. - pt lots 213- 214 - lots 215-2'20 $2X0 - pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $5,035,. - pt lots 213-21.4 - lots 21.5,-220 HISMRICAL INPOMTI w - DanielliiUvar E1,1>1ndr,41 bis first Eactory in M. He later became a mar r (picture rUttley, 1937: 217) - picture of the DHiimernFarnitrwm Cb. in "Berlin. A L'blebration, of Cit Wig, - L -i, 18942, and arMiticxi to the D. Hibrvar furniture actoras, grantad an exempti+:X1 frw taxes Ecir 10 yekirs - in 1896, the new D. Hil,'ror &.ar.,tory aknut to be rebuilt (it had burned dc%ei) a exempt&d from, for ai,4ht years, provided that Yr>t leiss than 50 hwuls, were eW,1ryyqJ wT3 a $'Y,)00 k�uls 4as gr,,intei to the D. Hitmer factr,)ry destr,Wed by fife - it is pcGaible tivit the factory vias establish&l before 1,889 as in ALygust 1889, the first factory is dascrUwad "a cowawdious thrw—storeZ amt hasanyant, IONIC)O fim?t, Aite �rick ff"llses..floored 1,4) as it is Aritla new abs iq>rolyei machinery" - the se=id fwtarj seems tO Tar me bek--n ca,%structftl in a very similar form to die first - Electrobor"m Ltd� Oois IrArided in 1907' by krt' ur Cb11Ax.,k - pi(xuaered in honiliess j1xxvzographs. nxdio ark! tele%rtsion in 'armada - =%nufactarwl elagwilt *jod cabinetry for these items - also :mm viuFacturrA, ha)ndreds of oastom motor designs - in 1936, wast Electrohwe qporaticxw were loaatel inDuke St. lxdlding - Ebehraiar �mqoies only a Small, pirt, Of tf�x- hillrling, with app L Paperboard Sales, c'X 1 roximate y 30 basinesses occupyinj the !rest of t1w, buildirX,,; North Waterl.aX) RegistrY Offi,M nnglis-h W" I,A*Jhlin Kitdhenar;. An Illustrated Hi Berlin: A CelebratjLci�` '1912 IaX. Utt�ley, A Hist of Kjr 1,437; 213,217 RESEARCHER: Diruie Koliiritsdi, Mlryolm 1,1aIri ie OM OF' RESFARCH: Aug/!94, Ebb -Mall r/85 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 198�3: 2381F 2.3'9, Paap 1'17 of 211 Revised November '12, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street r m te Grantor to Grantee 1715q6 1958 Lbminion Electrohome Ind, Ltd, to The Waterloo T'rust rX savings CO. 307091 1965 Er.)rairiion Electrohane IndLtd. to Inv,. T , �1. Vkjtarloo Trust & savings Co. I 471363 19,72 Electrohome 11d. to The Canada Trust 0D. 617644 1977 Rtge 651163 1979 Grant 651.134 1.979 , 7 Amch 741.765 1983 I �5, C-4 E1ectrdhcn)*, Ltdto 'Me Rqyal Rank of 4.',lanada 7*w.-),nier Paperbcard Sales Corp. to E,D-Y.-Lrea ':w Ud. Flectrrobome Ltd. to ayaftner Paperbodrd sales Cbrp. R,V g--[Aul ib na Alterations Ltd. vs Boehnar Paperlx)ard Sales Corp. 86elvw-r Pox cdrp . rRRTX—"r. Pt lots 213-214 lots 215-220, Deel oE Trust & Mortgage - t=xls - pit lots 213-214 - loLs 215-220 $1..00 - pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $25,000,000. - Pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $330,000. - pt lots 213- 214 - lots 215-2'20 $2X0 - pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 $5,035,. - pt lots 213-21.4 - lots 21.5,-220 HISMRICAL INPOMTI w - DanielliiUvar E1,1>1ndr,41 bis first Eactory in M. He later became a mar r (picture rUttley, 1937: 217) - picture of the DHiimernFarnitrwm Cb. in "Berlin. A L'blebration, of Cit Wig, - L -i, 18942, and arMiticxi to the D. Hibrvar furniture actoras, grantad an exempti+:X1 frw taxes Ecir 10 yekirs - in 1896, the new D. Hil,'ror &.ar.,tory aknut to be rebuilt (it had burned dc%ei) a exempt&d from, for ai,4ht years, provided that Yr>t leiss than 50 hwuls, were eW,1ryyqJ wT3 a $'Y,)00 k�uls 4as gr,,intei to the D. Hitmer factr,)ry destr,Wed by fife - it is pcGaible tivit the factory vias establish&l before 1,889 as in ALygust 1889, the first factory is dascrUwad "a cowawdious thrw—storeZ amt hasanyant, IONIC)O fim?t, Aite �rick ff"llses..floored 1,4) as it is Aritla new abs iq>rolyei machinery" - the se=id fwtarj seems tO Tar me bek--n ca,%structftl in a very similar form to die first - Electrobor"m Ltd� Oois IrArided in 1907' by krt' ur Cb11Ax.,k - pi(xuaered in honiliess j1xxvzographs. nxdio ark! tele%rtsion in 'armada - =%nufactarwl elagwilt *jod cabinetry for these items - also :mm viuFacturrA, ha)ndreds of oastom motor designs - in 1936, wast Electrohwe qporaticxw were loaatel inDuke St. lxdlding - Ebehraiar �mqoies only a Small, pirt, Of tf�x- hillrling, with app L Paperboard Sales, c'X 1 roximate y 30 basinesses occupyinj the !rest of t1w, buildirX,,; North Waterl.aX) RegistrY Offi,M nnglis-h W" I,A*Jhlin Kitdhenar;. An Illustrated Hi Berlin: A CelebratjLci�` '1912 IaX. Utt�ley, A Hist of Kjr 1,437; 213,217 RESEARCHER: Diruie Koliiritsdi, Mlryolm 1,1aIri ie OM OF' RESFARCH: Aug/!94, Ebb -Mall r/85 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 198�3: 2381F 2.3'9, Paap 1'17 of 211 Revised November '12, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street From Roll Back The Years, by Edward Moogk, National Library of Canada, 1975: The PollockManufacturing Company ofBerlin, Ontario (the city patriotically changing its name to Kitchener in 1916) was manufacturing talking machines labeled Phonola' before June 1914 when they began importingFonotopia, Odeon andJumbo records. Records would later beproduced under thePhonola label. In 1915 they began constructing speakers "based on the principle of the pipe organ... The series of chambers employed were in varied sizes determined by scientific calculation. The new Phonola model ... [was] called the Organola.... In the Fall of] 919, the General Phonograph Corporation ofNew York... purchased Pollock's phonograph factory in Kitchener. Arthur B. Pollock was to remain manager of the factory...In August, 1925, the Phonola Company of Canada, Elmira, began to manufacture the Grimes receiving sets for the Canadian Trade. "' The following is an excerpt from Radios of Canada by Lloyd Swackhammer: Grimes Radio Corporation Limited/ Grimes Batteryless Manufacturing Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. The first radios were the Inverse Duplex line (or brand?). Manufacture began on the top floor at the Victoria Street address in Kitchener in June of 1925. In September 1925, they began manufacturing cabinets and installing the chassis, which was still being made on Victoria Street, into the cabinets in Ebnira. At this time they changed the name to the Phonola Company of Canada. In the Fall of 1928 they moved to Breithaupt Street in Kitchener. The name was again changed, this time to Dominion Electrohome Company Limited and is presently Electrohome Industries Limited. Dominion Electrohome later moved to the old Malcolm and Hill Furniture factory on Duke Street in Kitchener, a company dating back to the early days of radios, when they made cabinets for the Atwater Kent Company in Canada. "Electrohome"was the brand name that appeared in the 1946-47 model year on their own tube radios. It had been used for some time on their home appliances. Electrohome was a company that made radios for many other companies, as well as for their own dealers. This brought many brand names into being in the radio industry. The "Viking" was made for Eatons, "Serenader " for Simpsons, "Dictator" for the Hudson Bay Company, 'Arcadia " for McLeod in the West, "Munro" in the Maritimes, and many more. There were also brands of radios made for distributors and retailers whose names have unfortunately been lost in the passage of time.' Carl Arthur Pollock, OC (1903 August 16, 1978) was a Canadian businessman. Born in Kitchener, Ontario, graduated from the University of Toronto in electrical engineering. A scholarship from the Massey Foundation financed two years at Oxford University, England. At university he showed exceptional talent in track and rowing. He taught for a short time at the University of Toronto, but his father's (Arthur Pollock) illness led him to choose a career in business and industry at Electrohome in Kitchener, employing 3,100. Pollockjoined the firm and was president for many years. He was also the founder of several media outlets in Kitchener, 2 The Canadian Antique Phonograph Project, http://iceithwright.ca/CAPP/Phonoia/tahonoia.htrni, accessed February 7, 2012 on-line Radio Museum, htto://www.radioinusetim.oredso hersteller detail.cf3n?company accessed February 7, 2012 Paap 118 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street including CKKW, CFCA and CKCO. Pollock was a member of the National Design Council and in 1963 he became president of the Canadian Manufactures'Association. He was convinced that Canadian technology and industry would take no second place. His own firm led in introducing several firsts in the electronics field. In 1975, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada 'for his many services to industry, particularly in the field of electronics and for a variety of community activities. " He was a founder of the University of Waterloo, chairperson of the board ofgovernors for eleven years and chancellor from 1975 to 1978. He was a founder of the Stratford Festival of Canada and supported musical groups, including the Kitchener -Waterloo Symphony Orchestra.' 1V1Wj ra f tPoe ��14rjdexck �Vduaroy, bkr norinK Cu. LuL, Berlin, i` ao�rlo,;,r, 1914 Arthur Pollock, 1914 Card A. Pr kxk, 1,926, i10 beeavae, preudene rand rh-i-&h of tic board Of rkCin dfow ltd'. Carl Pollock, 1926 4 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, htto://en.wikioedia.or�4/wiki/Carl Pollock accessed February 7, 2012 Paap 11c) of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) University of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (B.S.A.) University of Guelph, 1965 Professional Experience: 1977 - present President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, Ontario 1965 - present President, Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1977 - 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC 1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, Ontario 1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph 1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1964 - 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, Ontario Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Member: Association for Preservation Technology Member: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage): Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), 2002-2003 Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, (ACO) 1980-2002 Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987-2000 (Chairman 1988-1990) Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985-1988 Personal and Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage): National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award 1998 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award) Award 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award) Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), Britannia School Farm Master Plan National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa, National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON Selected Heritage Publications (Heritage): Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Sunriner 2001. The Journal of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20 "' and 21 "' Centuries. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998. Scott, Owen R. Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997. Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter; The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993. Paap 14n of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double -bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp. Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI -2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV -2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association, Toronto, 1989. 9 pp. Scott, Owen R. Landscape preservation - What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects - Ontario Chapter, vol. 4 no.3, 1987. Scott, Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review, May 1986. pp. 5-9. Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University, 1984. Scott, Owen R. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference(1983). 1983. 22 pp. Scott, Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203. Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp. Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing - Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978). Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department ofLandscape Architecture, University of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R. Scott in his capacity as a landscape architect with Proj ect Planning Associates Ltd., as principal of Owen R. Scott & Associates Limited, and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. o Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton, ON o Alton Mill Landscape, Caledon, ON o Belvedere Terrace - Peer Review, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Parry Sound, ON o Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan, Toronto, ON o Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON • Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON o Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON o Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON • George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON • Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington, ON o Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON o Hespeler West Secondary Plan - Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON • John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON • Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment, Tecumseh, ON o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/ Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/Huntsville, ON o Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re -use, Landscape Design, Brampton, ON o Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON Paap 141 of 211 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON • Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake, ON o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON o Rockway Gardens Master Plan, Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener, ON • South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON • St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON • St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON o Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, MVA/Saskatoon, SK • University of Toronto Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON • Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo • Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks Canada/Kitchener, ON 0 255 Geddes Street, Elora, ON, heritage opinion evidence - Ontario Superior Court of Justice Heritage Impact Assessments, Heritage Impact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans: o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 27-31 Cambridge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 31-43 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 35 David Street (Phase II) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Kitchener, ON o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan, for Infrastructure Ontario, Hamilton, ON o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement, City of Mississauga, ON 0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 1245 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Streetsville), ON o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o Thorny -Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON University of Guelph, Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment„ Guelph, ON University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments, Guelph, ON University of Guelph, Gordon Street Houses, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON Expert Witness Experience (Heritage): Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of trials and hearings. These include Ontario Municipal Board Hearings, civil and criminal trials, Conservation Review Board Hearings, and Environmental Assessment Board and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearings. The heritage landscapes evidence he has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated. Page 142 of 211 November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors JOHN MacDONALD, B.Arch., OAA, RAIC Born in 1959 in Elliot Lake, Canada, John received his early education in Northern Ontario. He attended the University of Waterloo School of Architecture from 1978, graduating Dean's Honour List in 1985. John has gathered considerable expertise and a broad range of experience in over 25 years of work in the industry, both in Canada and abroad. Since 1988 John has lived and contributed to the Kitchener -Waterloo community through public service and as a senior project architect with a local firm. Since the founding of his own practice in 1995, John has stood personally behind the firm's high level of client service. Architectural Registration Requirements, completed 1992 University of Waterloo, Dean's Honour List, B. Arch., 1985 University of Waterloo, B.E.S., 1982 Member of Ontario Association of Architects Member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Education Ontario Association of Architects, Good Design is Good Business Award of Excellence, 2005 Major Awards First Place, Innovation Award, Airport Management Conference of Ontario, 2004 City of Kitchener Provincial Nominee, Community Service Award, 1996 University of Waterloo, American Institute of Architects Gold Medal, 1985 University of Waterloo, Lieutenant Governor General of Ontario Medal, 1985 Calgary Municipal Building Competition, Merit Award (with D. McConnell Architect), 1981 Adjunct Lecturer, Urban Design, University of Waterloo School of Urban and Academic Work Regional Planning, 1992 Assistant, Design, Carleton University School of Architecture, Rome Program, 1986 Architectural and Urban Design Specific Project Leadership and Client Facilitation Expertise Co-ordination of Project Teams Construction Contract Administration and Project Management Liaison with Government Authorities and Project Approvals Technical and Cost Evaluation for all Phases of Project Development Urban Issues Columnist, Business Times, 2006 -present Public Service Mayor's Task Force, Downtown Revitalisation & Renewal, City of Kitchener, 1995 Founding Organiser, Festival of Neighbourhoods, City of Kitchener, 1994 -present Select Soccer Co-ordinator, Kitchener Youth Soccer, 2003/04 The Common Place, Kitchener Downtown Bus. Assoc. newspaper, 1994/95 Chair, Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association, City of Kitchener, 1994/95/96 Adaptive Re -use of Industrial Buildings Committee, City of Kitchener, 1993-98 Pirol'(Nsional Official Plan and Zoning Review Study Panel, City of Kitchener, 1992 11"Wein °nce Principal, John MacDonald Architect inc., Kitchener from 1995 Project Architect, Joe Somfay Architect Inc., Waterloo 1998 to 1995 Junior Architect, Arthur Erickson Architect, Toronto 1998 Junior Architect, Garwood -Jones and Van Nostrand Architects, Toronto 1997 to 1998 Job Captain, Junior Designer, Mathers and Haldenby Architects, Toronto 1986 Designer, Faresin Associati, Vicenza, Italy 1983 to 1986 Junior Designer, Inskip & Rybczinkski Architects, London, U.K. 1983 Page 143 of 211 November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors piroject Harry Class Community Pool Renovation, Kitchener Institutional Niagara Region Recycling Centre 2010 Green Retrofit, Niagara Falls Butcher Shop Alterations, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Niagara Region Recycling Centre 2009 Green Retrofit, Niagara Falls Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Outbound Expansion, Breslau Region of Waterloo Materials Recycling Centre Expansion, Waterloo Region of Waterloo Mannheim Water Division Operation Centre (LEED Silver), Kitchener Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Inbound Addition, Breslau Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Building, Breslau *** Blacksmith Shop, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Regional Curatorial Centre, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener ** Region of Waterloo 99 Regina St S, Interior Signage, Waterloo Region of Waterloo 150 Main Street, Interior Signage, Cambridge Accessibility Changes & Hall of Fame Entrance, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Kitchener Downtown Community Health Centre, Renovation, Kitchener Zion United Church, Fire Code Upgrade, Kitchener Independent Living Centre of Waterloo Region, Tenant Upgrades, Kitchener Commercial Peter Martin's 20 King Restaurant, Kitchener T. T Supermarket Expansion and Renovation, Hamilton Iglesia Bautista Nueva Jerusalen, Kitchener Vault Restaurant & Lounge, Waterloo Williams Coffee Pub, 18 locations across Ontario The Strand Restaurant/Pub, Kitchener 141 Whitney Place Renovation, Kitchener Minit Canada, Personally Yours, 30 locations across Canada Minit Canada, Things Engraved stores and kiosks, 36 locations across Canada Minit Canada, House of Knives Stores, 14 locations across Canada Minit Canada, Sears kiosks, 9 locations across Canada Rosen & Associates, Office Renovations, Toronto Just Between Us Clothing and Gifts, Kitchener Chalmers Street School Staff/Work Room Renovation, Cambridge Educational Bluevale Collegiate Institute, Fire Code Upgrade, Waterloo Bluevale Collegiate Institute, Port -a -Pak Addition, Waterloo Bluevale Collegiate Institute, High School Science Lab, Waterloo New Academic Building, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ** Chemistry 1 Addition, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ** Cambridge Children's Centre Renovation and Expansion, Cambridge Child Care Conestoga College Child Care & Early Childhood Education Training Facility, Waterloo** Waterloo Infant -Toddler Daycare, Waterloo ** Minit Canada Distribution Centre and Offices, Kitchener Industrial City of Guelph, Wet/Dry Recycling Facility, Guelph ** Smart Choice Building Project Opportunities Analysis, Ottawa Other Studies 127 Victoria St. S. Building Project Opportunities Analysis, Kitchener Needs Assessment Study, Independent Living Centre of Waterloo, Waterloo Goudies Centre Feasibility Study, Kitchener Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union Building, Design Study ** King Street Reconstruction, Streetscape Lighting Design, Kitchener Urban Design Quinte West Urban Design Gridlines, Quinte West and Lighting Kitchener Downtown Lighting Study, 1995 Lighting Design Implementation Projects., Kitchener, 1995- present, City of Kitchener City of Guelph City Hall and Spectator Ice Facility Study, Guelph ** Page 144 of 211 **with Joe Somfay Architect Inc. ***in joint venture with ZAS Architects November 2, 2012 Staff Report I K Tc�i irrarR Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: February 13, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-091 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 72 Victoria 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 property municipally addressed as 72 Victoria Street South as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council direct the Clerk to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 72 Victoria Street South under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on January 9, 2023. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 72 Victoria Street South be recognized and designation pursued. • The key finding of this report is that the property municipally addressed as 72 Victoria Street South 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. The property is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting 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. • 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 145 of 211 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the Joseph Street and Victoria Street South intersection. It is a four -storey early 20th century brick building constructed in the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style and situated on 2.51 acres of land in the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. Figure 1 �.ftil7nii mi�k L� iirAYT`w�l��. Location Map of Subject Property A full assessment of 72 Victoria Street South has been completed and included a field evaluation and detailed archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets the criteria for designation. An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on January 9, 2024. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 72 Victoria Street South be recognized and designation pursued. This work was undertaken as part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation were contacted via a second letter dated January 16, 2024, and invited to contact the City's Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. The property owners of 72 Victoria Street South acknowledged receipt of this second letter but provided no further comments on the designation. Page 146 of 211 Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate, Owners will be contacted a third time through a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) Letter. An ad for the NOID will also be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served and the ad posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which Owners may object to the designation. 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 appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. Figure 2: Front Facade of 2-22 Duke Street East Page 147 of 211 72 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies six of the nine criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is met or not met is provided in the table below. Design /Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building. The building is four storeys in height with an elevated stone foundation, and features: red brick walls with common bond; yellow brick; brick pilasters that separate bays; stone foundation covered by concrete; 10 (east) by 18 (north) bays; flat roof with brick corbelling at roofline; concrete sills and lintels; wide window openings, modern replacement windows; main entrance on a "cutoff' corner; Doric columned portico with simple cornice at main entrance; semi -elliptical main entrance door opening with red brick voussoirs; tie rods and anchors between each storey on the north elevation; yellow brick walls; semi -circular glass block window; red brick voussoirs; red brick chimney; and, chimney clean out. The original building was only three storeys high and half of the current length. In 1914, the building doubled in size with a massive addition to the front portion (north west elevations) of the building. The fourth storey was added in 1929 and the two rear additions were constructed c. 1957. Page 148 of 211 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it Yes displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it Yes yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it No demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Design /Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building. The building is four storeys in height with an elevated stone foundation, and features: red brick walls with common bond; yellow brick; brick pilasters that separate bays; stone foundation covered by concrete; 10 (east) by 18 (north) bays; flat roof with brick corbelling at roofline; concrete sills and lintels; wide window openings, modern replacement windows; main entrance on a "cutoff' corner; Doric columned portico with simple cornice at main entrance; semi -elliptical main entrance door opening with red brick voussoirs; tie rods and anchors between each storey on the north elevation; yellow brick walls; semi -circular glass block window; red brick voussoirs; red brick chimney; and, chimney clean out. The original building was only three storeys high and half of the current length. In 1914, the building doubled in size with a massive addition to the front portion (north west elevations) of the building. The fourth storey was added in 1929 and the two rear additions were constructed c. 1957. Page 148 of 211 Front Fagade In proportion to the rest of the building, the front of 72 Victoria Street is extremely narrow in width and set at an angle to both Victoria Street South and Joseph Street. It is composed of one bay with brick pilasters on each side. There is one window on the second, third, and fourth floors and each possesses a concrete sill and lintel. The entrance on the ground floor is within a semi -elliptical opening with a red brick voussoir and is framed by a Doric columned portico with a simple cornice. It is accessed by a set of concrete stairs, the first three steps of which have a curved shape. Side (North) Fagade The north side facade fronts onto Joseph Street and is comprised of eighteen bays separated by brick pilasters. Each bay contains one window opening on each of the four floors, and each window has a concrete sill and lintel. The fourth -storey windows have additional masonry detailing above the concrete lintel. Tie rods and anchors are also visible between each storey on each pilaster. The stone foundation covered by concrete is visible along the side facade. The first and second bay from the front facade differ in that there are additional window openings and windows cut into the foundation. The third and fourth bay from the front differ in that there are additional entrances on the ground floor; the entrance in the third bay is recessed within an alcove, while the entrance of the fourth bay fronts directly onto the sidewalk. Side (East) Fagade The east side facade fronts onto Victoria Street South and is comprised of ten bays separated by brick pilasters. The bays are reflective of those on the north side facade. The east side differs, however, in that within each bay except for the tenth from the opening, there is also a narrow window opening and 3 -pane window in the foundation. The first - storey window of the tenth bay is also unlike those in the rest of the facade, being greater in height and lacking a concrete lintel. Interior Features There are a number of original interior elements that remain as well. This includes but is not limited to: exposed heavy timber (post and beam) construction with 4 -way steel post caps and metal stirrups, timber capital and support members; original hardwood and concrete floors; concrete and brick walls; original wood ceilings; original window on interior wall located at the ground floor loading entrance; original freight elevator; column base with concrete casings in basement; original metal door and hardware in basement leading to storage units; exposed cast iron sprinkler system; and, interior foundation wall in basement. Twenty -First Century Modifications All the windows do not appear to be original, as they are metal and glass with few openings. The front doorway also appears to be a newer addition, as it is a glass and steel door with multi -framed side and upper panels. Historical /Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin. The property was the Page 149 of 211 former location of The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company, Ltd. The following information is taken from the Heritage Property Report for 72 Victoria Street South prepared by Stacey Laughlin in 2002: "In 1901, William T. Sass founded The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company, which was originally located behind the Dunker building (now Manulife Financial) on King Street West in Berlin. William T. Sass had previously been a foreman at Krug Furniture and received financial backing from Hartman Krug, founder of Krug Furniture to establish The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company." In 1903, John A. Long, Homer Ford, and Peter Hummen became partners in The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the business moved to 72 Victoria Street South. This location was chosen due to its proximity to the railroad and local hardwood trees. The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company initially made furniture for banks, offices, and similar institutions including the Canadian House of Commons. It also manufactured wooden seats for arenas, theatres and auditoriums. Some arena seats are displayed inside the building. The Montreal Forum was one of the many arenas that had wooden seats manufactured by the company, as well as the Kitchener -Waterloo Auditorium. The seats in the Auditorium were only replaced in 1994. In 1916, when the City changed its name to Kitchener, the company dropped the "Berlin" from its title to become the Interior Hardwood Company. William T. Sass died in 1938 and his son Arthur Sass became President of the company. At its peak, the company employed 80 people, but orders began to decline in the late 1950s and the company closed in 1960. In 1961, the building was sold to Robert Hamblin, secretary -treasurer of the candy store Smiles 'n Chuckles Ltd. Two floors of the plant were used as a warehouse for the candy store products, while the rest of the space was rented to other firms including Frame Neckware Co Ltd (1962-1979), Terry Williams Knitters Ltd (1963-1993), and Victoria Industries and Warehousing (1964-1994). The building was renovated in 2000 to accommodate office space. The original owner of 72 Victoria Street South, Wiliam T. Sass, was an active member of the community as well. Mr. Sass served on Kitchener City Council in 1917, 1918 and 1919, and for four years was a member of the K. -W. Collegiate Board. From 1922 to 1924, he was chairman of the Kitchener Board of Trade. On the wane at the time, rejuvenation of the board was said due solely to Mr. Sass' initiative. Under his term of office, membership of the all important group grew to over 300. Sass served as president of the Kitchener -Waterloo Manufacturers' Association and was a director of Queen-Lebel Mines Ltd He was a charter member of the First English Lutheran Church as well as a past grand of the Grand Union Lodge, I.O.O.F.. Contextual Values The contextual value relates to the building's physical, historical, functional and visual link to its surroundings. The building is representative of the ties among industrial entrepreneurs in the early 1900s and it illustrates the connections between industry and the railroad as well as between industry and workers housing. Originally, a spur line went Page 150 of 211 along the East elevation to Victoria, currently Joseph Street since it was important to have rail access close to the point of manufacture. 72 Victoria Street South also has contextual value in that it maintains and supports the character of the area. The subject property is located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). This CHL is the result of the rapid industrial growth — and subsequent rapid population growth — experienced within the City in the early twentieth century. Supported by the convergence of the rail lines in the area, the Warehouse District contains a number of large, historic warehouse and factory buildings formerly used for the manufacturing, storage, and exportation of raw material and products across Canada. These original factory complexes include the Huck Glove Factory, located to the south, and the Lang Tanning Company, located to the east. Heritage Attributes: The heritage value of 72 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: • Exterior elements related to the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o All elevations of the building and additions; red brick walls; brick pilasters that separate the bays; o Roof and roofline, including: flat roof; brick corbelling at the roofline; o Window openings; concrete sills and lintels; brick voussoirs; o Main entrance portico, including Doric columns; brick voussoirs; semi - elliptical opening; rounded concrete steps. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT— Heritage Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and January 16, 2024. Page 151 of 211 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: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Municipal Heritage Register Review Project — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024- 022) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 72 Victoria Street South Page 152 of 211 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 72 VICTORIA STREET SOUTH He eiir wy� CITYCOINAERCIA CORE I ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 72 Victoria St S, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 421 Lots A to H; Plan 421 Lot 34 Part Lots 34 & 41; STS & LNS Part Lot 25 TOG with ROW Year Built: 1903 Architectural Style: Berlin Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company Original Use: Industrial Condition: Excellent Page 153 of 211 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 72 Victoria Street South is an early 20th century building built in the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The building is situated on a 2.51 acre parcel of land located on the south west corner of Joseph Street and Victoria Street South. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the former industrial building. Heritage Value 72 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Berlin Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building. The building is four storeys in height with an elevated stone foundation, and features: red brick walls with common bond; yellow brick; brick pilasters that separate bays; stone foundation covered by concrete; 10 (east) by 18 (north) bays; flat roof with brick corbelling at roofline; concrete sills and lintels; wide window openings; modern replacement windows; main entrance on a ,cutoff' corner; Doric columned portico with simple cornice at main entrance; semi -elliptical main entrance door opening with red brick voussoirs; tie rods and anchors between each storey on the north elevation; yellow brick walls; semi -circular glass block window; red brick voussoirs; red brick chimney; and, chimney clean out. The original building was only three storeys high and half of the current length. In 1914, the building doubled in size with a massive addition to the front portion (north west elevations) of the building. The fourth storey was added in 1929 and the two rear additions were constructed c. 1957. Front Fagade In proportion to the rest of the building, the front of 72 Victoria Street is extremely narrow in width and set at an angle to both Victoria Street South and Joseph Street. It is composed of one bay with brick pilasters on each side. There is one window on the second, third, and fourth floors and each possesses a concrete sill and lintel. The entrance on the ground floor is within a semi -elliptical opening with a red brick voussoir and is framed by a Doric columned portico with a simple cornice. It is accessed by a set of concrete stairs, the first three steps of which have a curved shape. Side (North) Fagade The north side facade fronts onto Joseph Street and is comprised of eighteen bays separated by brick pilasters. Each bay contains one window opening on each of the four floors, and each window has a concrete sill and lintel. The fourth -storey windows have additional masonry detailing above the concrete lintel. Tie rods and anchors are also visible between each storey on each pilaster. The stone foundation covered by concrete is visible along the side facade. The first and second bay from the front facade differ in that there are additional window openings and windows cut into the foundation. The third and fourth bay from the front differ in that there are additional entrances on the ground floor; the entrance in the third bay is recessed within an alcove, while the entrance of the fourth bay fronts directly onto the sidewalk. Page 154 of 211 Side (East) Fagade The east side facade fronts onto Victoria Street South and is comprised of ten bays separated by brick pilasters. The bays are reflective of those on the north side facade. The east side differs, however, in that within each bay except for the tenth from the opening, there is also a narrow window opening and 3 -pane window in the foundation. The first -storey window of the tenth bay is also unlike those in the rest of the facade, being greater in height and lacking a concrete lintel. Interior Features There are a number of original interior elements that remain as well. This includes but is not limited to: exposed heavy timber (post and beam) construction with 4 -way steel post caps and metal stirrups, timber capital and support members; original hardwood and concrete floors; concrete and brick walls; original wood ceilings, original window on interior wall located at the ground floor loading entrance; original freight elevator; column base with concrete casings in basement; original metal door and hardware in basement leading to storage units; exposed cast iron sprinkler system; and, interior foundation wall in basement. Twenty -First Century Modifications All the windows do not appear to be original, as they are metal and glass with few openings. The front doorway also appears to be a newer addition, as it is a glass and steel door with multi -framed side and upper panels. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin. The property was the former location of The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company, Ltd. The following information is taken from the Heritage Property Report for 72 Victoria Street South prepared by Stacey Laughlin in 2002: "In 1901, William T. Sass founded The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company, which was originally located behind the Dunker building (now Manulife Financial) on King Street West in Berlin. William T. Sass had previously been a foreman at Krug Furniture and received financial backing from Hartman Krug, founder of Krug Furniture to establish The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company. " In 1903, John A. Long, Homer Ford, and Peter Hummen became partners in The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company and the business moved to 72 Victoria Street South. This location was chosen due to its proximity to the railroad and local hardwood trees. Homer Ford lived at the property now addressed 150 Water Street South/72 Heins Avenue in the Victoria Park neighbourhood in close proximity to the factory, in keeping with the Berlin tradition of manufacturers and workers living close to each other and their workplace. The Berlin Interior Hardwood Company initially made furniture for banks, offices, and similar institutions including the Canadian House of Commons. It also manufactured wooden seats for Page 155 of 211 arenas, theatres and auditoriums. Some arena seats are displayed inside the building. The Montreal Forum was one of the many arenas that had wooden seats manufactured by the company, as well as the Kitchener -Waterloo Auditorium. The seats in the Auditorium were only replaced in 1994. In 1916, when the City changed its name to Kitchener, the company dropped the "Berlin" from its title to become the Interior Hardwood Company. William T. Sass died in 1938 and his son Arthur Sass became President of the company. At its peak, the company employed 80 people, but orders began to decline in the late 1950s and the company closed in 1960. In 1961, the building was sold to Robert Hamblin, secretary -treasurer of the candy store Smiles 'n Chuckles Ltd. Two floors of the plant were used as a warehouse for the candy store products, while the rest of the space was rented to other firms including Frame Neckware Co Ltd (1962-1979), Terry Williams Knitters Ltd (1963-1993), and Victoria Industries and Warehousing (1964- 1994). The building was renovated in 2000 to accommodate office space. The original owner of 72 Victoria Street South, Wiliam T. Sass, was an active member of the community as well. Mr. Sass served on Kitchener City Council in 1917, 1918 and 1919, and for four years was a member of the K. -W. Collegiate Board. From 1922 to 1924, he was chairman of the Kitchener Board of Trade. On the wane at the time, rejuvenation of the board was said due solely to Mr. Sass' initiative. Under his term of office, membership of the all important group grew to over 300. Sass served as president of the Kitchener -Waterloo Manufacturers' Association and was a director of Queen-Lebel Mines Ltd He was a charter member of the First English Lutheran Church as well as a past grand of the Grand Union Lodge, I.O.O.F. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the building's physical, historical, functional and visual link to its surroundings. The building is representative of the ties among industrial entrepreneurs in the early 1900s and it illustrates the connections between industry and the railroad as well as between industry and workers housing. Originally, a spur line went along the East elevation to Victoria, currently Joseph Street since it was important to have rail access close to the point of manufacture. 72 Victoria Street South also has contextual value in that it maintains and supports the character of the area. The subject property is located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). This CHL is the result of the rapid industrial growth — and subsequent rapid population growth — experienced within the City in the early twentieth century. Supported by the convergence of the rail lines in the area, the Warehouse District contains a number of large, historic warehouse and factory buildings formerly used for the manufacturing, storage, and exportation of raw material and products across Canada. These original factory complexes include the Huck Glove Factory, located to the south, and the Lang Tanning Company, located to the east. Heritage Attributes Page 156 of 211 The heritage value of 72 Victoria Street South resides in the following heritage attributes: • Exterior heritage attributes: o All elevations of the building and additions; red brick walls; brick pilasters that separate the bays; o Roof and roofline, including: flat roof; brick corbelling at the roofline; o Window openings; concrete sills and lintels; brick voussoirs; o Main entrance portico, including Doric columns; brick voussoirs; semi -elliptical opening; rounded concrete steps References: House of Commons, "History, Art and Architecture." Ir tt heairlita ea/ean/co1111eactlion/se a airclri?aiIjst:::::::2034 Accessed November 27 ,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2023 Waterloo Chronicle 22 July, 1938, 1,5. Waterloo Region Generations, "William Theodore Sass.". Ir tt s:// eaneairatlioiris.irea lionof° ateairlloo.ca/ eat eairson. Ire eairsonlllC:::;� 11'1133045 tireaea::::: eaneairatlions f clllid ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IlwAll::::Z115n35aw1b.JeaVneadQ 1101h CIiIIQMnZMJ d.ff .11�C2"8xluM�f c; C11:� 311Yvnz1hIzY Accessed ........................................................................................................................g............................................................................................................. pg......................................................................................... December 5, 2023. Photographs Page 157 of 211 Front Elevation Rear Elevation Page 158 of 211 Page 159 of 211 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: Description: 72 Victoria Street South Industrial Building 1903 Berlin Industrial Vernacular Photographs Attached: Gail Pool Recorder: December 5, 2023 Date: ❑x Front Facade ❑x Left Facade ❑x Right Facade ❑x Rear Facade ❑x Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑x Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑x Yes ❑X because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 160 of 211 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑x Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑x Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or Page 161 of 211 supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. Recorder Heritage Kitchener 8. The property has Committee Interior: Is the interior contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes 0 Yes ❑X physically, ❑ noteworthy? functionally, visually Completeness: Does this or historically linked structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ to its surroundings. ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ outbuildings, notable Yes 0 *Additional archival work ❑ landscaping or external may be required. features that complete the The chimney is rare. 9. The property has site? contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. site? Yes 0 Yes *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes 0 Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ outbuildings, notable Yes 0 Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the The chimney is rare. site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes 0 Yes ❑ Page 162 of 211 * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑x Yes ❑ Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ features that should be added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N Yes ❑ *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re-use if possible and contribute towards equity-building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A N Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes Indigenous heritage and ❑ ❑ history? ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated N/A N Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes with the property? ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required *Additional archival work maybe required. Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Com function of the subject Commercial N mercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Page 163 of 211 Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes the subject property ❑ ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes have intangible value to a ❑ ❑ specific community of people? ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes Page 164 of 211 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 165 of 211 Staff Report I K Tc�i irrarR Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: February 14, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-094 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 33 Eby 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 property municipally addressed as 33 Eby Street South as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council direct the Clerk to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 33 Eby Street South under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on January 9, 2023. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 33 Eby Street South be recognized and designation pursued. • The key finding of this report is that the property municipally addressed as 33 Eby Street South 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. The property is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. • There are no financial implications with this recommendation. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting 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. • 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 166 of 211 BACKGROUND: 33 Eby Street South is a one -and -one-half storey mid -19th century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style. The house is situated on a 0.09 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Charles Street East and Eby Street South, within the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property A full assessment of 33 Eby Street South has been completed and included a field evaluation and detailed archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets the criteria for designation. An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on January 9, 2024. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 33 Eby Street South be recognized and designation pursued. This work was undertaken as part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation were contacted via a second letter dated January 16, 2024, and invited to contact the City's Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. Page 167 of 211 Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate, Owners will be contacted a third time through a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) Letter. An ad for the NOID will also be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served and the ad posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which Owners may object to the designation. 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 appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. Figure 2: Front Fagade of Subject Property Page 168 of 211 33 Eby Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies five of the nine criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is met or not met is provided in the table below. Design /Physical Value The design value relates to the house's architecture as an early and representative example of the Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style in Kitchener. The house is in good condition. It is one -and -a -half storeys in height and features a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; a symmetrical front facade with a central front door flanked by windows on either side; yellow brick construction; original window openings with brick soldier course headings; stone foundation; and, a sympathetic one -storey board and batten rear addition. The building is a typical late 19th Century example without the original embellishments typical of the style. Front (West) Fagade The front of the building is symmetrical in massing, with a pitched gable centered above the entrance. There is a single arched window within the gable and rectangular 12 -pane windows are located to either side of the front door on the ground floor. A decorative transom window and sidelites surround the entrance, though the door appears to be a modern addition. The tops of the windows and the entrance opening are adorned with soldier course heading. Page 169 of 211 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it No displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it Yes yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it No demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Design /Physical Value The design value relates to the house's architecture as an early and representative example of the Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style in Kitchener. The house is in good condition. It is one -and -a -half storeys in height and features a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; a symmetrical front facade with a central front door flanked by windows on either side; yellow brick construction; original window openings with brick soldier course headings; stone foundation; and, a sympathetic one -storey board and batten rear addition. The building is a typical late 19th Century example without the original embellishments typical of the style. Front (West) Fagade The front of the building is symmetrical in massing, with a pitched gable centered above the entrance. There is a single arched window within the gable and rectangular 12 -pane windows are located to either side of the front door on the ground floor. A decorative transom window and sidelites surround the entrance, though the door appears to be a modern addition. The tops of the windows and the entrance opening are adorned with soldier course heading. Page 169 of 211 Side (North) Fagade The original portion of the north side facade includes two second -storey windows and two first -storey windows, spaced equidistance apart. The windows are rectangular in shape and 12 -pane with soldier course heading, matching the ground -floor windows on the front. A small portion of the foundation is visible. From the side facade the one -storey rear addition is also visible. The addition is clad in board and batten and includes one rectangular 12 -pane window and one casement window as well as three skylights. Side (South) Fagade The second storey of the south side facade includes one window opening and one door opening that may have original been another window. There are two more windows on the ground floor, and all openings are spaced symmetrically. The windows are rectangular in shape and 12 -pane. The second storey door is 15 -pane and leads to a wood fire -escape. There is soldier course headings above each opening in the facade. Rear (East) Fagade There is one original window opening with brick soldier course heading and a 12 -pane window in the original portion of the rear facade. The rest of the rear facade is covered by the board and batten addition, the massing of which is off centered to the south. There is a dormer with a semi -circular window and board and batten cladding located above the rear addition on the original roof. Modifications The original door has been replaced by a steel door with side windows. A modern porch hides much of the arched facade. A symmetrical front facade with a central front door is flanked by original window openings with modern windows with brick voussoirs; stone foundation. Additional decorative elements typical to the Ontario Gothic Revival Cottage style may have been present, such as barge boards and scalloping under the eaves. The current portico is not a sympathetic design. A West elevation fire escape is a recent addition. Historical /Associative Value Henry Eby, born on January 25, 1820, was the son of Bishop Benjamin Eby. His foray into journalism commenced in December 1837 when he assumed an active role at the Canada Museum and Allgemeine Zeitung. Alongside Thomas Enslin, he undertook the acquisition of a subscription list, laying the foundation for the establishment of Der Deutsche Canadier and Neuigkeitsbote in September 1841. Distinguished as the sole German -language newspaper in British North America from 1841 to 1848, the Deutsche Canadier was very successful. The printing office was located on King Street East at Eby Street South, a block away from Eby's home. The first grammar and common school opened in the printing office before Suddaby School was built on Frederick Street. Henry was also one of the first school trustees. Henry built the house at 33 Eby Street in 1850 (Waterloo Region Generations, 2013). The historical and associative values relate to the original owner of the property Henry Eby as well as the Eby family. Having a broadly read German newspaper and various books Page 170 of 211 and pamphlets set the German speaking people of Kitchener apart from the largely rural and Mennonite community in surrounding areas. Berlin was a vibrant and economically progressive community unlike any other in Ontario. According to various directories the house remained in the Eby family from 1820 to 1946, including Louisa Eby, Menno Eby, and Ilda Eby. The Eby family was a prominent pioneering family that played a key role in shaping what Kitchener looks like today. Contextual Values The contextual value relates to the buildings functional, physical, and visual link to the surrounding area as well as the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Eby Street streetscape. The building is located in-situ along the intersection of Charles Street East and Eby Street South. It is within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), which is home to a wide variety of some of the earlier homes of Kitchener. The CHL is further characterized by the elevated topography, narrow street widths, and dramatically long views. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 33 Eby Street South resides in the following Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style, including: • One -and -one-half storey height of the house; • Side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; • Symmetrical front facade with central front door flanked by windows on either side; • Yellow brick construction; • Original window openings with brick voussoirs; • Stone foundation; and • Sympathetic one -storey board and batten rear addition. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT— Heritage Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and January 16, 2024. Page 171 of 211 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: Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 Municipal Heritage Register Review Project — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024- 022) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 33 Eby Street South Page 172 of 211 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 33 EBY STREET SOUTH Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 33 Eby St S Legal Description: Plan 367 Pt Lt 10 GCT Sub Lt 2 & 1 Year Built: c. 1850 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Revival Original Owner: Henry Eby Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Page 173 of 211 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 33 Eby Street South is a one -and -one-half storey mid -19th century brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style. The house is situated on a 0.09 acre parcel of land located on the south east corner of Charles Street East and Eby Street South, within the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 33 Eby Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The design value relates to the architecture of the house as an early and representative example of the Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style in Kitchener. The house is in good condition. It is one -and -a - half storeys in height and features a side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; a symmetrical front facade with a central front door flanked by windows on either side; yellow brick construction; original window openings with brick soldier course headings; stone foundation; and, a sympathetic one -storey board and batten rear addition. The building is a typical late 19th Century example without the original embellishments typical of the style. Front (West) Fagade The front of the building is symmetrical in massing, with a pitched gable centered above the entrance. There is a single arched window within the gable and rectangular 12 -pane windows are located to either side of the front door on the ground floor. A decorative transom window and sidelites surround the entrance, though the door appears to be a modern addition. The tops of the windows and the entrance opening are adorned with soldier course heading. Side (North) Fagade The original portion of the north side facade includes two second -storey windows and two first -storey windows, spaced equidistance apart. The windows are rectangular in shape and 12 -pane with soldier course heading, matching the ground -floor windows on the front. A small portion of the foundation is visible. From the side facade the one -storey rear addition is also visible. The addition is clad in board and batten and includes one rectangular 12 -pane window and one casement window as well as three skylights. Side (South) Fagade The second storey of the south side facade includes one window opening and one door opening that may have original been another window. There are two more windows on the ground floor, and all openings are spaced symmetrically. The windows are rectangular in shape and 12 -pane. The second storey door is 15 -pane and leads to a wood fire -escape. There is soldier course headings above each opening in the facade. Rear (East) Fagade There is one original window opening with brick soldier course heading and a 12 -pane window in the original portion of the rear facade. The rest of the rear facade is covered by the board and batten Page 174 of 211 addition, the massing of which is off -centered to the south. There is a dormer with a semi -circular window and board and batten cladding located above the rear addition on the original roof. Modifications The original door has been replaced by a steel door with side windows. A modern porch hides much of the arched facade. A symmetrical front facade with a central front door is flanked by original window openings with modern windows with brick voussoirs; stone foundation. Additional decorative elements typical to the Ontario Gothic Revival Cottage style may have been present, such as barge boards and scalloping under the eaves. The current portico is not a sympathetic design. A West elevation fire escape is a recent addition. Historical/Associative Values Henry Eby was the son of Bishop Benjamin Eby. He was born on January 25, 1820. In December 1837 Eby began an active role in journalism, working at Canada Museum, and Allgemeine Zeitung. Eby was a former apprentice at the Canada Museum, a short-lived German weekly, published in Waterloo. Thomas Enslin and Henry Eby acquired a subscription list and they founded Der Deutsche Canadier and Neuigkeitsbote in September 1841. They may have acquired some equipment from publisher Benjamin Burkholder. As the sole German -language newspaper published in British North America from 1841 to 1848, the Deutsche Canadier was more successful than its short-lived rival, Der Morgenstern (1839-1841), and it continued in print until January 1865. The printing office was located on King Street East at Eby Street South a block away from Eby's home. Eby printed a number of books and pamphlets in German during the 1840s (Bloomfield 1993). Henry was one of the first trustees of the public school board. (Uttley, 1937: 217). The first grammar and common school opened in the printing office before Suddaby School was built on Frederick Street. Henry was also one of the first school trustees. Henry built the house at 33 Eby Street in 1850 (Waterloo Region Generations, 2013). The historical and associative values relate to the original owner of the property Henry Eby as well as the Eby family. Henry Eby was the son of Bishop Benjamin Eby. He was born on January 25, 1820 and in 1840 became a printer associated with publishing Berlin's newspaper, Der Deutsche Canadier, which became the most successful and widely read German newspaper in the country (English & McLaughlin, 1983). Having a broadly read German newspaper and various books and pamphlets set the German speaking people of Kitchener apart from the largely rural and Mennonite community in surrounding areas. Berlin was a vibrant and economically progressive community unlike any other in Ontario. According to various directories the house remained in the Eby family from 1820 to 1946, including Louisa Eby, Menno Eby, and Ilda Eby. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to the buildings functional, physical, and visual link to the surrounding area as well as the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Eby Street streetscape. The building is located in-situ along the intersection of Charles Street East and Eby Street South. It is within the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), which is home to a wide variety of some of the earlier homes of Kitchener. The CHL is further characterized by the elevated topography, narrow street widths, and dramatically long views. Page 175 of 211 Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 33 Eby Street South resides in the following Ontario Gothic Revival cottage style, including: • One -and -one-half storey height of the house; • Side gable roof with a centred gable with pointed arch door located above the front door; • Symmetrical front facade with central front door flanked by windows on either side; • Yellow brick construction; • Original window openings with brick voussoirs; • Stone foundation; and • Sympathetic one -storey board and batten rear addition. References Bloomfield, Elizabeth (1993) Waterloo County to 1972: an annotated bibliography of regional history. Waterloo Regional Heritage Foundation: Waterloo, Ontario. Eadie, Tom. "Enslin, Christian," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 8, University of Toronto/Universite Laval, 2003— Irr.blio ira 1r�rli.ca/ean/blio/eanslllin chirlisdan 811:::::.1htrrnll Accessed November 24 2023. ,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,,,....,,,,,,,„,,,.......................... Eby, Ezra E 1978 [1895] A biographical history of early settlers and their descendants in Waterloo Township. AIJon Print -Craft, Ltd.: Waterloo. English, J. & K. McLaughlin. (1983). Kitchener. An Illustrated History. Wilfrid Laurier University Press: Waterloo, Ontario. Vernon, Henry (1908-09) Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport Directory. Vernon Directories Limited: Hamilton, Ont. Uttley, W. V. (Ben) (1937) A History of Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo: The Chronicle Press. Vernon, Henry (1908-1909) Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport Directory Vernon Directories Limited: Hamilton, Ont. Vernon, Henry (1921) Vernon's City of Kitchener and Town of Waterloo Directory. Vernon Directories Limited.: Hamilton. Vernon, Henry (1932) Kitchener City Directory and Town of Waterloo. Note: Digitized City Directories are available online at the Kitchner Public Library. Irr s://rryal�lin Irrlisoir .I� „II„plc/ean/Illisc.iidliireacoir& 11& s 20 Accessed December 5, 2023. Irr s://rryal�lin Irrlisoir .I� Il.oir/ean/Illisr 11& s 20&colllleaclion facea Cliff/,20aid/,20Coui /,201C:::iliireacfo .............................................................................................................................. iri12s%20Co11112c lion Accessed December 5 2023. Waterloo Region Generations. (2013). "Henry "Heinrich” Eby.” Waterloo Region Generations: A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario. Retrieved from Irr s:// eaneairalions.irea lionofaeairlloo.ca/ ea eairson. Irr 22.2.!E 2.! 112111144&ireaea::::: eaneaira!lions ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.......................... November 27, 2023 Page 176 of 211 Photos Page 177 of 211 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Address: Description: 33 Eby Street South 1 '/2 Storey Residence Ontario Gothic Revival Cottage. Built c. 1850 Gail Pool Recorder: December 5, 2023 Date: Photographs Attached: NFront Facade N Left Facade ❑ Right Facade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑x Yes ❑ because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 178 of 211 * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑x Yes ❑ because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑x Yes ❑ because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, Page 179 of 211 artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑x Yes ❑ important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑x Yes ❑ physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Page 180 of 211 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes craftsmanship and/or ❑ detail noteworthy? Yes ❑ Completeness: Does this structure have other N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes original outbuildings, ❑ notable landscaping or Yes ❑ external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes original site? ❑ Yes ❑x * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes original materials and ❑ design features? Please Yes ❑x refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance The two storey portico is modern and indicate which and obscures the good features of elements are still existing the style. The front door is also and which ones have been modern. It is unknown whether removed. there was an original portico. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes features that should be ❑ added to the heritage Yes ❑ attribute list? Page 181 of 211 Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes R *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to Indigenous heritage and N/A N Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes history? ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ *Additional archival work may ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required be required. Function: What is the Unknown ❑ Residential N Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ present function of the Commercial ❑ subject property? Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: N/A N Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes Does the subject property ❑ ❑ contribute to the cultural Page 182 of 211 heritage of a community of ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes people? ❑ ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes Page 183 of 211 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification Page 184 of 211 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: March 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Housing and Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: February 15, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-093 SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review — March 2024 Update RECOMMENDATION: The pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized, and designation pursued for the following properties: • 35 Courtland Avenue West' • 131 Victoria Street South REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend pursuing designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for one property that is currently listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. • The key finding of this report is that the property possess design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value and meet the criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22). • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. On January 1St, 2023 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) came into effect through Bill 23, the More Homes Build Faster Act. One of the primary changes introduced was the imposition of a new timeline which requires "listed" properties on the Municipal Heritage Register to be evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria for heritage designation before January 1St, 2025. Listed properties are properties that have not been designated, but that the municipal Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. The criterion for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario Regulation 9/06, which has now been amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22) and a minimum of two must be met for a property to be eligible for designation. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 185 of 211 A work plan to address these changes has been developed by Heritage Planning Staff with consultation from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7t", 2023. Implementation of the work plan has now commenced. The Architectural Conservancy Ontario North Waterloo Branch have offered assistance in conducting the Municipal Heritage Register Review and have aided Heritage Planning Staff in a review of the properties subject to this report. Below is a summary of the findings for the properties recently reviewed, and recommendations for next steps. REPORT: Ontario Regulation 569/22 (Amended from Ontario Regulation 9/06) Among the changes that were implemented through Bill 23, the Ontario Regulation 9/06 — which is a regulation used to determine the cultural heritage value or interest of a property, was amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22 (O. Reg. 569/22). Where the original regulation had three main categories — design/physical, historical/associative and contextual - with three (3) sub -categories for determining cultural heritage value, the amended regulation now lists all nine (9) criteria independently. The new regulation has been amended to the following - 1 . ollowing:1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Also, among the changes brought about by Bill 23 are how properties can now be listed or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They include: • Properties would warrant being listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register if they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). Page 186 of 211 35 Courtland Avenue South The subject property municipally addressed as 35 Courtland Avenue West meets four (4) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 131 Victoria Street South The subject property municipally addressed as 131 Victoria Street South meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations, with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Heritage Kitchener Committee Options Option 1 — Pursuing Designation for this property Should Heritage Kitchener committee vote to start pursuing designation for this property, staff will then contact the respective property owner to inform them and to start working with them towards designation. Staff will then bring a Notice of Intention to Designate back to the Committee to initiate the designation process. Should a property owner object to their property being designated, they can submit an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) to rule on the decision. If the OLT determines that the property should not be designated but remain listed, it will be removed from the Municipal Heritage Register on January 1, 2025. Page 187 of 211 Option 2 — Deferring the Designation Process Should Heritage Kitchener vote to defer the designation process for this property, it will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will have to be removed. The process of designating this property can be started at any time until January 1, 2025. Option 3 — Not Pursuing Designation for this property Should Heritage Kitchener vote not to pursue the designation of this property, it will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed. Once removed, these properties will not be able to be re -listed for the next five (5) years i.e. — January 1, 2030. It should be noted that, per the endorsed work plan, staff are currently undertaking evaluations for high priority properties that are in located in areas of the City that are experiencing significant redevelopment. 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 AND COLLABORATE — The Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) have been consulted at previous meetings regarding the proposed strategy to review the Municipal Heritage Register of Non -designated Properties and participated in the assessment of the properties subject to this report. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 — DSD -2023-053 • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review — DSD -2023-225 • Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review — August Update — DSD -2023-309 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update — DSD -202-022 • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 REVIEWED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Page 188 of 211 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - 35 Courtland Avenue West Statement of Significance Attachment B — 131 Victoria Street South Statement of Significance Page 189 of 211 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 35 Courtland Avenue West u� Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ® Historical Value ® Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value Municipal Address: 35 Courtland Avenue West, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 38 Lot 6 Year Built: 1900-1907 Architectural Styles: Queen Anne Original Owner: Christian Asmussen Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 35 Courtland Avenue West is a two -and -a -half storey 20th century brick building built in the Queen Anne architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.13 acre parcel of land located on the east Page 190 of 211 a side of David Street between Courtland Avenue and Hilda Place in the Victoria Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the residential building. Heritage Value 35 Courtland Avenue West is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the Queen Anne architectural style that is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building is two -and -a -half storey in height, and includes an irregular roof plan with multiple roof shapes.: red brick construction, decorative brick details, including door and window voussoirs; multiple rooflines, including gables, pyramidal turret with finial, and decorative chimney; the woodwork, including brackets, scroll work, fascia and soffits; wrap around verandah with wood columns and shingle roofing; and windows and window openings, including small lunette in dormer peak. Front (North) Facade The front facade of the house includes a dominant projecting front -facing gable with decorative gable brackets, soffit and fascia, and small lunette with a recessed pyramidal turret and a wrap around verandah. There is a central semi -arched window on the upper -storey with voussoirs and a single - hung window with voussoirs and stone sills on the lower storey. The wrap-around porch includes wooden columns and decorative spindlework. West Elevation The west elevation features a portion of a wrap-around verandah with another dominant front -facing gable and the pyramidal turret. This gable portion also has a central semi -arched window with voussoirs and stone sills and a square sash window with voussoirs. Next to this is a covered addition with a shingle roof and square addition. The date of the addition is unknown. The gable roof also includes a small lunette, decorative brackets, fascia and soffits. Just behind this addition on the upper storey is a faux gable roof a square window on the upper storey South Elevation The south elevation includes the a double window with stone sills on the first storey, and two single windows with stone sills on the upper -storey. East Elevation The front portion of this elevation includes a brick chimney with a gabled -roof portion towards the back. That portion includes a sem-arched window with voussoirs on the second -storey, and two single hung windows with stone sills on the first -storey. Historical/Associative Value Page 191 of 211 The associative and historic values relate to the original owner and later significant owner; Christian Asmussen and Edwin B. Dunke. Christian Asmussen The original owner was Christian Asmussen, who local builder and contractor responsible for many of the homes in the neighborhood and in Berlin (Kitchener). He was born on November 20, 1859 in Germany and immigrated to Canada in 1876. He built a number of residences in the town, including 57 Mill Street, 35 Courtland Avenue West, and 18 Church Street (which has since been demolished). He died on 19 May 1924. Edwin B. Dunke Edwin B. Dunke was born on January 3, 1872 in Berlin (now Kitchener), Ontario. He, along with his brother Charles Boehmer Dunke, owned and operated Dunke and Company, and was a prominent independent grocer on King Street for 35 years. He was also a member of the Benton Street Baptist Church and was a treasurer for the church for 23 years. Edwin Dunke lived in 35 Courtland Avenue for over 50 years, atleast from 1907 until 1958, after which it was vacant for several years, until a new resident moved into the house in 1970. Edwin Dunke died in Kitchener on November 7, 1938. Contextual Value The contextual value of the property related to its strategic location on a corner lot at the intersection of Courtland Avenue West and David Street. Certain architectural elements of the house, including the pyramidal turret, and the wrap around verandah were strategically designed to compliment the corner lot on which the property was built. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of 35 Courtland Avenue West resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the construction and Queen Anne architectural style of the building, including: o The massing, setback and scale of the building; o Red brick construction; o Decorative brick details, including door and window voussoirs; o Decorative wood trimming; o Multiple rooflines, including gables, pyramidal turret with finial, and chimney; o Lunettes at gable ends; o Woodwork, including brackets, scroll work, trimming, fascia and soffits; o Wrap around verandah with wood columns, spindlework and shingle roofing; o window openings, including small lunette in dormer peak. All elements related to the contextual value of the Queen Anne architectural style of the building, including: o The original location of the church and Duke Street. its contribution to the historical landscape of Page 192 of 211 Photos 35 Courtland Avenue West — Corner View at Courtland Avenue & David Street Page 193 of 211 135 Courtland Avenue West — David Street Elevation Page 194 of 211 135 Courtland Avenue West - Side (East) Elevation CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 35 Courtland Avenue West Address: Residential Description: Photographs Attached: ❑x Front Facade Deeksha Choudhry Recorder: February 5, 2024 — Date: ❑ Left Facade ❑x Right Facade ❑x Rear Facade ❑x Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder— Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, Page 195 of 211 unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an Page 196 of 211 understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. Page 197 of 211 9. The property has Recorder Heritage Kitchener contextual value N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. arrangement, finish, N/A Notes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑x Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑ Yes ❑X Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Page 198 of 211 features that should be added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑X *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A ❑X Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous heritage and es ❑ ❑X Additional Research Required history? ❑ Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous history associated ❑X Additional Research Required with the property? N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y * Additional archival work may be es ❑ required. ❑ Additional Research Required Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑X Com function of the subject Commercial ❑ mercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ Church Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ the subject property es ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y ❑ Additional Research Required specific community of people? es ❑ * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington Required Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Page 199 of 211 Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General/ Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 200 of 211 REFERENCES * BeohmerFamily Records, accessed via Kitchener Public Library • Waterloo Region Generations, * Waterloo Region Generations, * Vernon's street, alphabetical, business and miscellaneous Directory —19U7,19ZU,194U 1958,197U. Page 201Of211 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 131 Victoria Street South Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Social Value ®Historical/Associative Value ❑Economic Value ®Contextual Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 131 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Plan 378 Part Lot 552 Year Built: 1926 Architectural Style: Modest Vernacular example of the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style with influences from the Byzantine architectural style Original Owner: Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration Original Use: Religious Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 131 Victoria Street South is an early 20th century building displaying a modest vernacular example of the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style with influences from the Byzantine architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.22 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Victoria Street South between Theresa Street and Michael Street in the Victoria Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the main church building. The property is located adjacent to the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District, which contains the circa 1952 church rectory (49 Michael Street) and 1972 parish centre (15 Michael Street). Page 202 of 211 Heritage Value 131 Victoria Street South is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, contextual, and social values. Desipn/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 131 Victoria Street South demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and unique example of an early 20th century religious building displaying a modest vernacular example of the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style with influences from the Byzantine architectural style. The building has many intact heritage attributes in good condition including: clerestory windows, bronze pear-shaped dome, rooftop cupola topped by a cross; front hipped gable roof; cross plan; red brick construction; brick dentils below the eaves; round window with stained glass; semi -circular window openings displaying paintings; semi -circular window openings with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights under the main arch; brick voussoirs with drip molds; stone sills; semi -circular double front door entrance with stone surround; rose window; and, a 1926 stone datestone. Various additions have been added to the church building (1938, 19477 2015) and adjacent to the building (1952, 19557 1971-72). Front (West) FaQade The front of the building faces Victoria Street South and is comprised of three bays including a centre projecting bay. The most prominent feature of the building is the bronze pear-shaped dome with rooftop cupola topped by a cross. The centre bay features brick dentils at the roofline, a large round stained- glass window with brick surround, a semi -circular stone door surround, and paneled double doors with a decorative semi -circular transom. The end bays each feature semi -circular window openings, brick voussoirs with drip molds, and stone sills. The windows in these openings have been removed and replaced with Byzantine paintings. The left bay (when looking at the front of the building) also features a 1926 stone datestone. The current exterior stairs were constructed in 1993 and provide access from the north and south. These stairs feature four brick piers of varying heights with stone caps. Between each brick pier is an angel stone wall capped with concrete. Two brick piers with concrete caps have been added to the front of the building along with an angel stone wall capped with concrete. The centre bay of the angel stone wall displays a cross. Four additional brick piers create a brick and iron fence that extends south along the property line (parallel to Victoria Street). A portion of the cross -building plan on the south side also faces Victoria Street South. This section of the building was constructed in 1938 as the original church rectory. This elevation is setback approximately 11.5 metres (52.2 feet) from the front facade and is two storeys high. This elevation features a rose window, two 1/1 hung windows with flat lintels and stone sills on the first storey, two 1/1 hung windows with semi -circular lintels and stone sills on the second story (these windows appear to be altered with exterior trim or storm windows displaying flat lintels), a slightly inset semi -circular wood door with brick voussoirs, two lights flanking the door, the municipal address "131" above the door, and concrete stairs with a metal hand railing. A rusticated stone foundation is partially exposed above ground. An alteration to the cross -building plan on the north side also faces Victoria Street South. This section has been altered twice. First, in 1947, when the original building was lengthened by 20 feet, and again, in 2015. As it exists today, this elevation is a new addition with a flat roof constructed in 2015. It appears that windows from the original building were salvaged and reused in the addition. The addition features a semi -circular window opening with decorative transom, brick voussoirs with drip molds, and stone sills. Beneath the main window is a square window that matches other basement windows around the building. This square window has no brick voussoir but it does have a stone sill. This window opening Page 203 of 211 is cut into a portion of the partially exposed parged concrete foundation as well as the red brick. The red brick is not original and not an exact match to the original. Side (North) FaQade The north side fagade features three bays; however, used to feature four bays. This section has been altered twice. First, in 1938, when the building was lengthened by 20 feet, and in 2015 with a building addition that increased the height and depth of the building. The fourth bay was covered by the 2015 building addition. Each bay features a large semi -circular window opening with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights under the main arch with with brick voussoirs and drip molds along with a stone sill. Beneath two of the bays is a square window opening with what appears to be a non -original window with no voussoirs and a stone sill. These window openings cut into a portion of the partially exposed rusticated stone foundation as well as the red brick. Beneath one of the windows is a modern metal man door. The primary building material is brick. The eaves, soffits and fascia are plain apart from a discrete bracket at the southwest corner of the roofline. The side gable of the north side facade was altered by the 2015 building addition which increased the height of the gable and extended the depth of the cross gable on the north along with a square addition with a flat roof. The side gable of the north facade features a single bay with a round rose decorative detail and a large semi -circular window opening with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights under the main arch with brick voussoirs and drip molds along with a stone sill. Two modern lights flank the window. The foundation is parged concrete. The flat roof addition is red brick with no other significant architectural features. Side (South) FaQade The south side facade features three bays. Each bay features a large semi -circular window with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights under the main arch with brick voussoirs and drip molds along with a stone sill. Beneath two of the windows is a square window opening with what appears to be a non -original window with no voussoirs and a stone sill. These window openings cut into a portion of the partially exposed rusticated stone foundation as well as the red brick. The primary building material is red brick. The eaves, soffits and fascia are plain apart from a discrete bracket at the southwest corner of the roofline. The side gable of the south side facade features two bays divided by a chimney that extends above the roofline. The two bays are not symmetrical. Each bay of the first storey displays two 1/1 hung windows with a flat lintel and a stone sill. The second storey displays three windows of different size but similar style. The style again is 1/1 hung windows with a flat lintel and a stone sill. The third storey is symmetrical with two 1/1 hung windows with a flat lintel and a stone sill. The rusticated stone foundation is partially exposed above ground. Rear (East) Facade The rear of the church is an addition that was built in 1947 to lengthen the church and hall by 20 feet. As it exists today, the end gable at the rear of the building is comprised of three unseparated bays. The third storey of the centre bay features a semi -circular window opening with brick voussoir, drip mold and stone sill. It appears that the original windows have been removed and replaced with Byzantine paintings. The second story features semi -circular window openings with brick voussoirs, drip molds and stone sills. These window openings also contain Byzantine paintings. Beneath each of the second storey windows are square window openings with no voussoirs or sills. These window openings cut into a portion of the partially exposed foundation as well as the red brick. Page 204 of 211 The rear facade was altered again in 2015 with a building addition that increased the height of the gable and extended the depth of the cross gable. This addition features a new barrier -free building entrance. The entrance is covered by a small gable roof with supports that lead to modern doors made with metal and glass. The red brick is not original and not an exact match to the original. Interior The interior of the church was painted in 1949 by a St. Catherine's artist Mr. L. Scott Young who was unable to complete the project due to his unexpected death (Wynnyckyj, 1987). The project was finished by an unknown artist in 1951 (Wynnyckyj, 1987). Major renovations to the interior of the church were initiated in 1977, including: refurbishing the walls, pews, and woodwork; replacing the altars; installing a 15 -foot -high wood iconostasis - a lattice screened between the nave and the sanctuary - covered by 18 painted icons in the Byzantine style (Wynnyckyj, 1987). Another project to paint the interior of the church in the Byzantine style began in 1983 and was completed in 1986 (Wynnyckyj, 1987). Historical/Associative Value The subject property has historical and associative value due to its history and association with Ukrainian immigrants, Kitchener's industrial history; the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration and Mykola Bibniak. In the early 1900s immigrants from Ukraine started to arrive and sponsor Masses in the Eastern Rite at local Roman Catholic churches. They were drawn to the area by the industrial activity (Gesza, 2010), especially the rubber, machinery and tannery industries (Namara, 1987). Many worked for prominent industries such as the Huck Glove Factory, the Lang Tannery, and the Kaufman Rubber Company. The parish beginning's date to the early 1920s when five Ukrainian families broke away from the local chapter of the Ukrainian Labor and Farm Temple Association (ULFTA) (Namara, 1987). At the same time, other Ukrainians in the ULFTA became trade union activists in Kitchener's rubber, machinery and tannery industries (Namara, 1987). By 1922, the non -communists in the community (Namara, 1987) organized their own parish and in 1924 named it The Church of the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Wynncyckyj, 1987). Land to construct the church was acquired in 1925 for a cost of $1,160.00 (Wynncyckyj, 1987). Mr. Zomer who lived at the corner of Victoria Street and Oak Street acquired a mortgage (Gesza, 2020). These immigrants completed the construction of the church building in 1926 for a cost of $11,400.00 (Wynncyckyj, 1987). The cornerstone was laid on December 5, 1926 and blessed by His Excellency, Bishop Nykyta Budka, the first bishop for the Ukrainian Catholics in Canada (Wynncyckyj, 1987). In the beginning, Mass was performed by visiting priests from larger centres such as Toronto or Brantford. In 1938, the parish built an addition at the cost of $3,635.00 to the church to serve as a rectory, which ultimately attracted the first resident priest — Father Charny (Wynncyckyj, 1987). The home adjacent to the church building was purchased in 1952 to house the members of the order of Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate (Wynncyckyj, 1987). The church building was a focal point for Ukrainians. In the 1940s, at least 52 families lived within a 5 - block radius of the church building (Gesza, 2010). The hall beneath the church hosted numerous activities such as dances, concerts, performances, English language instruction, etc. (Gesza, 2010). By the end of 1977, significant interior heritage attributes — the iconostas- were added to the interior of the church building. The iconostas were 12 -feet high and carved in wood by V. Barach. Within each of the iconostas, 18 icons were painted by Mykola Bidniak. Mykola lost his hands as a teenager and went on to learn how to paint with his mouth (K -W Record, 1979). He studied at the Ontario College of Art and in 1978 he was commissioned to "write" 18 Byzantine icons at a cost of $20,000 (K -W Record, Page 205 of 211 1979). Bidniak's icons are fine examples of the inspiration and challenge of the iconographer's art (The Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration, date unknown). Additional wall paintings were added in 1949 by Mr. L. Scott Young (Wynnyckyj, 1987). Young was a church mural artist who painted more than three dozen churches in Canada (Unknown, 1994). Today, his artwork is only present in four churches, including the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration (Unknown, 1994). Additional icons were painted on the walls and ceilings in 1984 by Rev. Theodore Koufos, a Tortonto-based Greek orthodox priest. Contextual Value The contextual value of the property relates to its location and proximity to the church rectory, parish centre, on-site park and local industries. The home adjacent to the church building was purchased in 1952 to house the members of the order of Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate (Wynncyckyj, 1987). In more recent years, this home has served as the church rectory. This home is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as it is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. Lands for the parish centre, the Ukrainian Catholic Centre at 15 Michael Street, were purchased in 1963 for the sum of $19,500.00 (Wynncyckyj, 1987) and the building was constructed in 1971-1972 to provide the congregation with a large, combined auditorium -gymnasium and some classroom space (K -W Record, 1972). The cornerstone was laid in November 1971 along with the burial of a time capsule (K- W Record, 1972). The opening ceremonies were held in May of 1972 and participants included Most Rev. Isidore Borecky (Ukrainian bishop of Eastern Canada), Rev. Russel Chyz (parish priest), and an official opening by Donna Sawicky (Miss Canada) (K -W Record, 1972a; K -W Record, 1972b). In 2010, the parish planned the installation of a park on the south side of the church building to include an open wrought iron gate and walkways leading to a granite monument and landscaped with flowers, trees and benches (Gesza, 2010). Social Value The social value of the property relates to the parish, church building, rectory and parish centre. The parish and church building were the original focal point of the Ukrainian community. The church building not only held worship services but also dances, concerts, dance and theatrical performances, choir practices and English language classes (Gesza, 2010). In 1971, the parish held it's first annual East Egg Festival sponsored by the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League (Denney, 1986). This tradition continued for at least 21 years (Koza, 1992). Heritage Attributes All elements related to the construction and modest vernacular example of the Ukrainian Baroque architectural style with influences from the Byzantine architectural style, including: • Cross -building plan; • front hipped gable roofline with plain eaves, soffits and fascia as well as discrete brackets; • red brick laid in a running bond, including brick dentils at the roofline on the front (west) elevation; • rusticated stone foundation; • the number, placement and details of bays on each elevation; Page 206 of 211 • clerestory windows below bronze pear-shaped dome with rooftop cupola topped by a cross; • windows and window openings, including- * the large round stained-glass window with brick surround; o semi -circular windows with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights under the main arch with brick voussoirs and drip molds along with a stone sill; o semi -circular window openings featuring brick voussoirs with drip molds and stone sills; o semi -circular window openings featuring decorative paintings; o the rose window; 0 1/1 hung windows with flat lintels and stone sills; 0 1/1 hung windows with semi -circular lintels and stone sills; o Square window openings with flat lintels and stone sills; • doors and door openings, including: o a semi -circular stone door surround displaying double paneled wood doors with modest tracery, consisting of a plain circle with two rounded lancet lights; o semi -circular wood door with brick voussoirs, two lights flanking the door, the municipal address "131" above the door, rusticated stone stairs with metal/iron hand railing; • 1926 datestone; and, • round rose decorative detail. References Denney, F. L., (1986). Easter Egg Festival Celebrates 15th year. K -W Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Gesza, C. (2010). Presentation for the Heritage Kitchener Committee. Kitchener, Ontario. K -W Record. (1971). Will lay cornerstone. Kitchener, Ontario. K -W Record. (1972a). Ukrainian Catholics to inaugurate unit. Kitchener, Ontario. K -W Record. (1972b). Centre Opening. K -W Record. (1979). Handless artist paints icons. Kitchener, Ontario. Koza, R. (1992). Pysanky eggs. K -W Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Unknown. (1994). L. Scott Young, Artist. Waterloo Historical Society: 82(1994): 26-30. Cober Printing: Kitchener, Ontario. Wynnyckyj, I. L., (1987). Milestones: A History of the Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration. Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration: Kitchener, Ontario. Page 207 of 211 Rear Elevation Page 208 of 211 Page 209 of 211 Photograph of monument located in the south garden Photograph showing the details on the north 2015 building addition Page 210 of 211 Photograph showing the 1926 datestone Page 211 of 211