Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2024-02-06Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, February 6, 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 None at this time. 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Heritage Permit Application -2024 -IV -01, 25 10m 3 Joseph Street, Replacement of Windows, DSD - 2024 -052 5. 4.2 Notice of Intention to Demolish, 1027 King 10 m 188 Street East, DSD -2024-057 4.3 Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review - 10 m 378 February 2024 Update, DSD -2024-056 4.4 2023-2026 Strategic Plan — Committee Areas 20 m 407 of Interest & 2024 Heritage Kitchener Committee Workplan The Committee will discuss Strategic Actions arising from the City of Kitchener 2023-2026 Strategic Plan as it relates to the Committee's mandate and 2024 Workplan. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 426 Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator Page 2 of 426 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 6, 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: January 12, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-052 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-01 25 Joseph Street Replacement of 7 Windowpanes RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-01 be approved to permit the replacement of seven windowpanes on the property municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed replacement of seven damaged windowpanes on the property municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed alterations are necessary for the comfort and well-being of the property residents due to the poor condition of the existing windows and is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value or interest of the subject property. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-01 seeking permission to replace seven damaged windowpanes with new panes at the property municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street. *** 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 426 JUBILEE DR Ba tr t I u I — The Boathouse ,�4 Bapti I LatestogaTowers Ii - 1ftiflfle'17fkC0 VicTawePark ,,r;E6AR HELL yr CO 0 Figure 1: Location Map of 25 Joseph Street 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 1988-154. 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 Joseph Street and eastern side of David Street, directly across from the Ontario Street South intersect. The former Victoria Public School, the subject property is comprised of three buildings having separate construction dates; the main Edwardian Baroque block constructed between 1910-1911 (Figure 2) is the identified heritage attribute within the designating by-law. Specifically, the main fagade (Joseph Street elevation) and east and west side elevations in addition to the slate roof are identified. Page 4 of 426 .�F r Y / Tile Mural rO 6f On a.. TheObx t)I MM' cx any ,re S .a .�a �Clock Tower ¢ J aueensPlace.'`CITY(—QIIA 1E .,.All xtill ertr ...I I 'O n• Lia -j litiJ. - I.nil`Luli.niliul LI Bentr°n4•h-- r JUBILEE DR Ba tr t I u I — The Boathouse ,�4 Bapti I LatestogaTowers Ii - 1ftiflfle'17fkC0 VicTawePark ,,r;E6AR HELL yr CO 0 Figure 1: Location Map of 25 Joseph Street 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 1988-154. 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 Joseph Street and eastern side of David Street, directly across from the Ontario Street South intersect. The former Victoria Public School, the subject property is comprised of three buildings having separate construction dates; the main Edwardian Baroque block constructed between 1910-1911 (Figure 2) is the identified heritage attribute within the designating by-law. Specifically, the main fagade (Joseph Street elevation) and east and west side elevations in addition to the slate roof are identified. Page 4 of 426 Figure 2: Front Facade of Subject Property Window Replacement WalterFedy was retained by the Region of Waterloo to complete a Building Condition Assessment (BCA) for the property municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street (Attachment C). The intent of the assessment was to determine the physical condition of the different components of the building and make lifecycle repair / replacement recommendations for deficiencies identified. Visual deficiencies, including the damaged windows, were identified during a site visit conducted as part of this work on June 21, 2022. The BCA identified the windows in the original portion of the building as being wood -framed units in poor condition with visible aging and deterioration. It recommended that the windows be refurbished rather than replaced, to maintain the historical value of the building. However, several located on the western elevation of the building contained broken panes of glass (Figure 3-4). Page 5 of 426 ago~ Figure 3-4: Broken Windowpanes on the Subject Property 40 To comply with the recommendations of the BCA, these broken panes are proposed to be replaced with new tempered thermal sealed glass units, frosted for privacy, rather than replace the entire window unit. While the new glass panes are not an exact match to what is currently existing, they will maintain a similar appearance. The broken panes will be removed by first carefully taping the shattered pieces, then using a heat gun to remove the putty around the sash edge. Once this is done the opening will be cleaned and prime painted before the new glass is installed in a new bed of putty with glazier's points every 6 inches. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 25 Joseph Street is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of designating by-law number 1988-154; • The proposal is for the replacement of seven panes of glass on the original 1910- 1911 Edwardian Baroque portion of the building; • The windows are identified as heritage attributes in the designating by-law; • The existing panes of glass proposed to be replaced are broken, impacting resident's quality of living and exposing the interior to damaging conditions; • While replacement is proposed for the broken panes of glass, the original window unit is proposed to be retained and refurbished; • The work is required for the comfort and well-being of the residents; Page 6 of 426 • The work will also protect the interior of the building from damage as a result of weather and animals; • 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 alteration is not anticipated to adversely impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the subject property. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener has been consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-01 Attachment B — Designating By-law 1988-154 Attachment C — Supporting Documents Page 7 of 426 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MENER 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 heritage(a)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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 2024 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: Page 5 of 10 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 2024 Masonry Work The application should include: Page 6 of 10 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.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MENER 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 ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 25 Joseph Street Kitchener, ON. N2G 4X6 Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: ® Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ® Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ® Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Lori Trumper Address: 11 Weber Street West City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, ON. N2M 3Y9 Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 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. Replacing window panes that have been damaged and broken. Replacement of 7 panes of glass Source and install 4 new Tempered thermal sealed glass units measuring 11 3/8" x 14 3/8" each. Argon Gas filled, IowE solar coating with Aluminum Spacer. PIN HEAD Frosted for privacy. Not an exact match to existing. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: It is necessary to provide security and safety to the residents residing within the building and the property. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: The windows will maintain the same or similar to the vintage glass currently installed. Carefully tapping to shatter the pane and with the heat gun remove putty around the sash edge. Clean and prime paint the opening. Insert new glass in a bed of putty with glazier's points every 6". If possible, obtain glass of the same vintage as that remaining in the window. This will conserve the character and look of the window's old glass. Paint, overlapping the glass by 1/16". 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): Repairing the window panes rather than replacing the window follows the standards of maintaining character -defining elements. Following the guidelines and standards to protect and stabilize the historic place by keeping the elements of weather, animals and other damaging events to occur. 7. PROPOSED WORKS As soon as possible a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ® Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Jessica Vieira c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes ® No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes 0 No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 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. DocuSigned by: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 1/2/2024 28E21FDDF4124A7... 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, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 084EAOCB-33A6-4DDD-A91 E-5AC30F26005F 2024 Page 10 of 10 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 'ludo C\ 17 r IV' 0 01 TTPH A4T3 r"I O-Eapquo I-TauaLID-4 �- 1 '49ax4s NoTiapa-ij zz TA cn -To,4TOTTQS -�-4T-3 13 S90,-CAJGS TPbalj -4aa-u4S Ljdasor SZ mi 0z1 go -muoTssTumoD 'aa vrnm sawr x8i pug saaj Aq pajeclad luOwn0o(3 (SO "dOJd JO ssaJPPV ledl-,,.nV-y a3lAjas Jol ...................... ............... ainleals to Oleo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . (5)ajnjvu6iS (S)awvN (isajaiui jo snjejS Ino jaS) (sal)419d (Z0 LDb DZN O-Fxe4uO 'Z1auGT40q:TX '8TTT XCE -0-d '4Ge-T4S �PTJaPOIJ ZZ -!—s,o; ssajppv (LI) : TE �b '88'6t HaHsia *3 Urd%iou JOTFOTTOS -7 ... ......... . ...... UMMMIH dO 7ZID ................... ......... .................... .......... MU do NoilviodHoo SSI ajn;eu6iS to ale(] (s)ainjeubiS (S)aw?N (isajam jo snjejS Ino t9S) (FOI)APOd (00 (s)jaqLunu juawnqsul ol salelai juatunaoCl 914.1. (6) [--I alnpoqoS uo penu!luoo GnT12A T'2m43G4TLP--m PuP oT-xo4sT ,q go f DuTaq si? JE9u9TP4TH J0 A4TD iDqq UT -490jqS'ljd;9s0f SZ 40 4 -Ted S94PubTSDP 6S-1-88 -TOqmN MLT -fig > : smollol so saplAoid SO!lJ8d F] O!ld, 140104S/U-ld 71 sqic, E josea .81A183IL100 M 1 IRUOIIIPPV IUGW B MON uawnoo() :Ieuofl,ppv jo; appatpS (q) uo!jdujsapaH (u) 9141 W aag 1VU011-ppv OQTXaTem go A4TTPdT:)TunW TPuOTb9U ate u -c '191191104TH 90 r4T3 i9tP UT QST UL -Ed p@xy4sTBGH 'v pue c 'z 'T sqoi uoildliosaa S sJ91100 '40V a]5PqTJaH 0-rJuquO 9M ;r9PTm M'eT-A9 UOT4mt6T99C V juAKunoo() to ainiGN (0 8InpOq0S "S IPUOII!PPV (S)ASuil-pi Aliedoici Pole APG&ld (C) sa6ed S 10 L 868d W LJ mu Pu -n W ful."bou w a 7661 Anr ML 13v -01911 U094"I'loem pual — 0 -0:1 lejaua!D juawnwa 93wi1j0831W slaipluapi At J,9(IOJd MON (�I 0 -0 0 SID- �Vm ';00-1 a4eTs 9114 PU12 Isasanco U95[0:xc[ ul OT-eT qsTTll; q4pm UOT-4vpmo; aluo-48 Uerloa pasTva 3x"q ,ula-4'Ted PUCrt! I-ISTUM-(,T 'e UT.5UTpTTrq IPT-lq PT --T OTICfe; IP972TE-PO-1 W.q "SITIJOS MP le'TOS'21 PaP'Ecxu TTe -Alemra-W9 WO;E; ate 504e ---r'eIu-c3 T-etpTueaAd aqq :Sdoqs qmag ext -4 ;o apTs jaqqTq uo spavpUL�qcs -3"-,eT T-zorzpuTT,lb air, .1-4saao aaa s ao U arrea z T",Zn,--r 97-D :19AO MOPUTM 9M -'S;RM;E-r nTM qtTT-4unm lqst>q, Buntl ;aTanop auTu/xTs T-eu-r&po aq-4 'SumToo oTIC(I Act paq;roddns s-4LrtvmTpa6 paipze tm�-;P-Tq z'-4TJf-,TTLr-'7 PUM '0CFP ;S7[—qqrop I;rlossnoA BuT-TeTPTz Tr TM GDTma'4m P3-4-eOPstll V,-4 SzaPrTouT ?»PT4M, 4aexjs qcTesor) swatds-Equoa; BUT -43910 -ICT qqlq4 oqq :SMO-ETO; 9'e 9:ry TJOT4vu6TsaP M; suos'eaa Tein-4oa-4Txpa-e atp aqnqT-4qt= TPM" sGznqiza; oT;To,-jc vqj, 'Ti T,"qs ptm anT-�,Olps atn 70 sqzn-4s,,-q snuTq.mr)o -4T -acb-7n-j ;o sasrou AT9-4le-4s. aLP TO -4u9OsTtl-PR;a;l 9TAIS uT PT;tc[Aq P 9T TOOqOS OETqnd PTIO-43TA UT PUP SIT ;o Ptr-,Dasat? 4 T -T ,itmcT . , ulo� F-,arT :En q v44 po eu naa vq:r, P9PunO; Oqm umsr-9u'tsnq TT?DOT 41*uTmwff le os-Ev sem -4vu6anf-ac7, -:gq T-'O--4P3nP0, M4�74 0?1 UO-F-4rqT.Tq= SSW s92,'IU603191 g PtP aPTIWT Po4unM ;mT-.TT amoaq q -am-4on.7-4s VT-, 10 BUT pLm .PT.Tnq -6u'cuulp'lc3 aql ;E9AO P9PTS;D:EcT 's -1120A LZ .70; 29CP917-1 P ptre sx2eA 6 :zo] uoTqeonpq ;o plpc)g OIR _3:0 uw:r"Esq- j- -azep to -m -T 1p -4e pelm.-tasuco pim, -Ta- sag lsLD '-Tll -KA P9u5Ts9P 929m suO'PleA9T8 4s -am Pule 4sVO EuTsTadlim s5u-E.IA 7-MT-4TP,7,? Oml Ainquan ax4 ;o uan4 oul. qt-' opmquo U19TT',nC,q Lt VF-TSSP 7m 9T-Iqs Trm-i4o--4qTiqp,-p jo quajxx:xbTa.Aar,, a-4-4 UE 9TO-1 4ue3T9:Ttl6'Es le BUT)eT SP r -n s -T --?9.7 '(NST 0-4 00,M) s4391TWIV ueTPmTe:) TO =T-40TC TleDT,_6LI-IZE—T9 9q4 9.0 loapa 'TT-Fiq *0'a o.Tarrj -tIs- :pnqp,-_. - -1 aTT.4 r 7_ Im T P9u6TsaP sera 5u-rpTTn9. TPT.,TS*Eao -ZTrT ;o aentser ,I-[ t T eonxrWq 70 -M-48'rulW aq-4 &E Peuedo ATT-eToT;;o s -PWA PuIR TT65T Pzm OT6T Uasmlaq Z49'eg qOOVCI A. Pa-40nx4smo sL-m 5[oarq anbozvq uelpaempa uTw ;atT_T 9tP ;0 '4u9ur-TO-1GAaP 9LT4 UT TP-PtmnUuT --*[PnpTATI?UT :;0 x tr4Tm P-9-4ST00897e ST IT 'AM -4U80 aq4 ;o um:l atp -4,e 9-Tn-4-,94Tq,,)x2 OTI-,WD To aTrhP-xa 5uTzyaeis4ro as 5uTal 04 UOMPPe TTI OTTCP5 .70[lea '2 SP Uo-jn Pn-,PO7 -ETT-4s 3T gre aoirmoad atp TiT scan-4onx4s Too os-4squT.j qxT4 g:o am pqrqpTsuao sem T ;DTTqja PTIO-4011A 'uO'E40n-z:ls'xO 84T 90 WTI W4 IV -spuro;rS Te:mj;D9-4TtPa-- Pue OT -704971 UD ;9PL:Nu rmaq 9PLT TipD;rati reqTaose4p UOT-4.eu6TS;Dp etkTs 166 [ Mr 03WIlAD831W -;MT aTeTs aLP Txm SU07PeAala S'PTS *4-qam rue *1912a tMq #(UOT-TPA;)Ta '499XIS tjd9SO,C) 9pleDle; UTM aLp ;0 rOSTICbCO SUT9Q400-7-4S teagot, • 1� T-e;1n-409'4tt7OzP Pue VaOTJOIS-P 90 BuTeq GV P94VU5T89P ST 919T4,1 'T • 7.0 x,4T:) exn ;o UOT-'12,10d-TOD 941 ;0 TTOM'tCy*) 9XJI 7909=, U, M 7 'A'47'edlOTut-9-1 9IT4 ;0 51-TaT-D aq4 t 7 p;m:ms ii-aga sW uOT-4?uBTG-aP pa ad 9q; 04 MT-4OaCqo ;o qDT-40j7 ou qv -m -m CLW 'S'feaM SAT-4n--)9SE= 99-nrl 10 qOV9 :CO; 9DUO A-M'226101cuntu 944 UT UDT'412Tn,);ETD TRZRU95 ]BUT �AMI J-YTL--1qm9u 12 uT P9tTsTTqnli ag c4 MTW;awl ;0 9DT'40,'q ItOns mst'QD set? PtM 'r,)aqTms;Dp 19-4;-euTaxatj ATxeTnoT-4at?d 9;rom ;0 F)UTaa 99 9-4-eU6TSWJ 0-4 UO-r-4MqUI g:o aOT-40R LD 'uOTqWjnckq S,6P-4T.7aTj OTIP-qM alq4 men Ptre ':x9u9tP4TM 30 A -4T-,3 Ou.4 UT 499a-49 14(39SOf' SZ SP hTTP-67)Tunv tr%M:N seswead pue spu-PT atq ;o ;EaumD aqq ijo pqAj--s, aq o-4 pesneo sett l9traLP4TA o-4 luco;mq-4 s-am4ona-4s tue sBu'tPTTr-q TTL- EuTpnTou-c A-4zadoad Tena a-4euSTsap cr4 stA'eT-Aq '40eua 04 �74TT2dTolumq -e ;o TTounoD zaq4 saotamprm jEsr :ra-4dsLr '086T 'O'S' -4 otxLIWO 9tTl 70 6Z t'OT*4D9'3 SV'TJT-Ri (qnjsA -['e.Tn'409-4TtP;M M -M OT;EO4sTq 9.0 STTTa�', Jat-7;ERP7T� Toa T, Oq-4 UT -4sq.7-4q tlra;RSOD SZ se A-ITQdTO-Eum" rr4;19a'O-T3 9UR ;o -4-TP-5 Cr4 MT-" lq -2 Elllag) 1661 3NRr 03NII30831W 311-ZaT:) '286T *(T*v :;0 AM )4--v -Z STq:. :(9tr,DIP"4T*A 70 AITO OLS uT 919cg7'mr TTOuncO MZ 4 W2 CPTSWe, 'cj3f99M SAT-4M9V= 99alP ;0 tPn9 20; 90M A-4TUMMCO aq-4 UT UOT4le'[MaTO TV;CaUa6 BuTAvil aarT-edsmau ams qtp m potjsT-rqncT aq cq mPT—Aq sTIT4 ;o BUTSeVd at ;C OOT40U SgnW CY4 PUO'E'4'eOunCJ ;D5'R-4Tl9H O-Cxe-4T-'O aq4 uo pue '14;radoad pTlese:lo;v qq4 jo laumo aq-4 uo pahaas act cq MeT-AH sTq'4 30 AcTOO le 99neD cr4 Paz-ElOq4ne Fq9a,#q s -c =[ T) a -C *;)o-c3g:o ria -4ST59.7 PureT .7a(,b-T3 axn Trr. (Ixed n grzog tnar P9-41216MP PTPS 9T4 tPTTIPA JO) 0-49-7afq nV, 9lnP9LPS U-1 P8qT:XDS;DP A-41-acbad atp 7-o ;a-[oqm atip -4.-uTv--51e paa-a-4sT6a:i W, 04 MeT—,Kg gTtp TO Mco L* ;gsnm cr4 pazvmunnn Tv-,a-Taq s -I :ro-4ToTTcs A-4,Tn at-rT --,7 i66 mr - z - COT:r9lM., ;0 1,-4TTP--T.TOTLM.W, -[SmTsau offlumml gw9mimomm x5naLP-4" 30 A-4T'n 'aril LmTa PaXa*49T67d t PUP S 'Z 'T S4al BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT THE REGION OF WATERLOO Kitchener Housing 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener, ON N2G 4X6 WalterFedy Project No.: 2022-0134 The Region of Waterloo Project No.: C2022-04 N ove m be r 22, 2022 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This document was prepared by WalterFedy for the above -stated client ("Client") for the specific purpose and use by the client as outlined in the client's Request for Proposal C2022-04. WalterFedy does not accept any liability if this report is used for an alternative purpose from which it is intended, nor if this report is used by a third party - any use which a third party makes of the report is at the sole responsibility and risk of the third party. This report was completed based on the information that was available at the time of report preparation and completion and is subject to all limitations, assumptions and qualifications contained herein. Any events or circumstances that have occurred since the date on which the report was prepared, are the responsibility of the client, and WalterFedy accepts no responsibility to update the report to reflect these changes. WalterFedy agrees that this report represents its professional judgement and any estimates or opinions regarding probable costs, schedules, or technical data provided represent the professional judgement of WalterFedy's experience as well as the information available at the time of report preparation. In addition, WalterFedy accepts no responsibility for changes in the market or economic conditions, price fluctuations for labour and material costs, and therefore makes no representations, guarantees or warranties for the cost estimates in this report. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. WalterFedy agrees with the Client that it will complete the work identified in the client's RFP to the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided in the performance of professional services with respect to work similar to that contemplated by this Agreement. WalterFedy at its own expense carries professional liability insurance to the extent that it deems prudent and WalterFedy's liability under this Agreement to the Client for any claim in contract or in tort related to the services provided under this Agreement howsoever arising shall be limited to the extent that such liability is covered by such professional liability insurance from time to time in effect including the deductible therein, and which is available to indemnify WalterFedy and in any event WalterFedy's liability under this Agreement shall be limited to loss or damage directly attributable to the negligent acts of WalterFedy, its officers, servants or agents, or its failure to provide the standards of care, skill and diligence aforesaid. In no event shall WalterFedy be liable for loss or damage caused by delays beyond WalterFedy's control, or for loss of earnings or for other consequential damage howsoever caused. The errors and omissions policies are available for inspection by the Client at all times upon request. If the Client, because of its particular circumstances or otherwise, desires to obtain further insurance to protect it against any risk beyond the coverage provided by such policies, WalterFedy will co-operate with the Client to obtain such insurance at the Client's expense. The Client, in consideration of the provision by WalterFedy of the services set forth in this Agreement, agrees to the limitations of the liability of WalterFedy aforesaid. The Client shall have no right of set-off against any billings of WalterFedy under this Agreement. Page 24 of 426 WalterFedy Project No.: 2022-0134 November 22, 2022 Rhonda Wadel Housing Asset Administrator 99 Regina St. S., 4th Floor Waterloo, N2J 4V6 Dear Ms. Rhonda Wade], RE: The Region of Waterloo: Building Condition Assessment 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener, ON N2G 4X6 WalterFedy is pleased to submit this Building Condition Assessment to The Region of Waterloo. This report encompasses the originally agreed upon scope, as outlined in our response to C2022-04 for the Kitchener Housing located at 25 JOSEPH ST. in Kitchener. This report was completed with the data supplied by The Region of Waterloo, and that collected during our site visit, as well as engineering judgement and various analysis tools to arrive at the final recommendations. All of which is respectfully submitted, WALTERFEDY Marlen Alem n, EED "A, FMP Team Leader Asset and Facilities Management Solutions marlen.aleman@wa]terfedy.com 519-576-2150 ext. 211 Page 25 of 426 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................5 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................6 1.1 General Information....................................................................................................................................6 1.2 Annual Investment Projections...................................................................................................................6 1.3 General Summary.......................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Structural Summary....................................................................................................................................7 1.5 Architectural: Exterior Elements Summary.................................................................................................7 1.6 Architectural: Interior Elements Summary..................................................................................................8 1.7 Mechanical Summary.................................................................................................................................8 1.8 Electrical Summary.....................................................................................................................................9 1.9 Fire & Life Safety Summary........................................................................................................................9 1.10 Accessibility Summary................................................................................................................................9 1.11 Site Summary.............................................................................................................................................9 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Objectives................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Scope of Work......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Recommended Actions............................................................................................................................ 11 2.4 Cost Estimates......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Action Year.............................................................................................................................................. 12 2.6 Condition and Priority Rating System...................................................................................................... 12 3 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX(FCI).......................................................................................................... 13 3.1 General Information and Methodology.................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Subject Building Details........................................................................................................................... 13 4 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS...................................................................... 18 4.1 Contact Information................................................................................................................................. 18 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 19 APPENDIX A - PRE -SITE VISIT INFORMATION CHECKLIST APPENDIX B - ELEVATOR REPORT Page 26 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 5 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Action Repeat Interval This means the time interval in which the recommended action needs to be repeated. For lifecycle replacement, the repeat interval is usually equal to the normal life expectancy of the component. For regular maintenance recommendations, the repeat interval is determined based on the existing condition, consultant's professional opinion, and staff/tenant's reports. Action Cost This is the estimated cost of the action recommended, repairs and/replacement, derived from the market or building cost services, which publish construction and remodeling costs on an annual basis. Replacement cost estimates are generally based on local material costs, union labor costs and normal construction conditions. Action Description This provides the details of the work recommended to be undertaken. Action Year This indicates the year in which the action recommended should be undertaken. FCI Facility Condition Index Overall Condition This identifies the overall condition of the entire element/system. For example, a new flat roof is in good overall condition, but there may be localized minor damage to the roof membrane, drainage, or flashing, etc. The observed minor defect will not affect the good overall condition. Replacement Cost These are unit cost estimates of various building components, derived from the market or building cost services, which publish construction and remodeling costs on an annual basis. Replacement cost estimates are generally based on local material costs, union labour costs and normal construction conditions. The represent the costs of major repairs or replacements at the current prices and under current conditions Reserve Fund Study (RFS) This is a study for future funding of the reserve fund that the board determines will ensure that, within a prescribed period of time and in accordance with the prescribed requirements, the fund will be adequate for the purpose for which it was established. SF Square Footage Year Installed This date indicates the timing of the installation of the element. It is noted that this date will vary for elements throughout the facility. Page 27 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing - 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 General Information Table 1- Facility Background Information Facility Name: Kitchener Housing Location: 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener Facility Type: Apartment Facility Description: Apartment Tower with 100 units. Number of Units: 100 Number of Units Assessed: 10 Date of Site Visit: Jun. 21, 2022 Assessor 1: Peter Downar Assessor 2: Construction Year: 1910 Building Age (years): 112 Estimated Current Replacement Cost: $28,000,000 at $350 per SF Number of Floors (above grade): 8 Number of Floors (below grade): 1 Number of Elevators: 2 Estimated Window Area (SF): 9,300 Window / Wall Percentage: 7.00% Site Area (SF): 100,000 Building Footprint (SF): 12,000 Building Gross Area (SF): 80,000 Percent of Site Coverage: 12.00% Estimated Permeable Site Area (SF): 20,000 Percentage Permeable Site: 20.00% FCI (2022): 0.00% - Good FCI - Next ten (10) years: 12.64% - Poor 1.2 Annual Investment Projections 2 The study timeline for this report spans from 2022 to 2052. Annual investment on maintenance, repair and end -of - life replacement of building components will be required over the next thirty (30) years in order to ensure the building lifecycle is maximized and it remains in safe condition for the users of the building. The annual expenditure forecast in each year is not constant due to different remedial actions that have been identified, and differing lifecycles for different equipment types. Therefore, WalterFedy provides annual average, maximum annual investment, and total forecast investment value over the study period, as listed in the tables below where the dollar amounts are expressed in 2022 costs without inflation: Capital Cost Forecast (Lifecycle Replacement) Page 28 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener Repair Cost Forecast Average Annual Expenditure [$] $439,485 Maximum Annual Expenditure [$] $1,290,100 Total 30 -Year Expenditure [$] $13,624,050 *2022 dollars without inflation Average Annual Expenditure [$] $20,581 Maximum Annual Expenditure [$] $89,250 Total 30 -Year Expenditure [$] $638,000 *2022 dollars without inflation 1.3 General Summary 7 The report identifies and makes lifecycle repair/replacement recommendations for deficiencies visually identified while on-site on June 21, 2022. Within the property condition assessment methodology, each major component was assessed for condition, based on a visual review, while factoring in component history, current maintenance practices, and time since the last major replacement/ repair. The assessed condition of the component is then compared against industry -accepted "expected useful life" values for each component type. An inventory of needs was then developed based on age, condition, and the relative impact that failure of that particular component represents for the building. 1.4 Structural Summary The original foundation is comprised of parged clay brick masonry foundation walls extending below grade, a poured concrete basement floor slab, and poured concrete footings extending below grade. The foundation of the addition is comprised of precast concrete foundation walls extending below grade, a poured concrete foundation floor slab and poured concrete footings extending below grade. The basement level of the addition is an underground parking garage which provides parking for the tenants. The floor of the parking garage is the poured concrete foundation slab. The superstructure of the original building is comprised of cast -in-place concrete floor slabs and clay brick masonry structural walls. The superstructure of the addition is comprised of precast concrete floor slabs and concrete block structural walls. Units on the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the addition are each equipped with two precast concrete balconies. The balconies are topped with concrete pavers and equipped with painted metal guardrails. 1.5 Architectural: Exterior Elements Summary The exterior walls of the original building are clad with clay and stone brick masonry. The majority of the addition's exterior walls are clad with clay brick masonry. A portion of the addition's exterior walls is clad with aluminum siding. A portion of the addition's exterior walls is clad with an EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System). The windows in the original building are comprised of wood -framed units in a punched configuration with vertical sliders. The windows in the addition are comprised of aluminum -framed units in a punched configuration with casement and fixed units. There are two portions of aluminum -framed exterior glazing located on the exterior wall of two staircases. The main entrances into the original building are provided by twelve (12) solid -wood glazed exterior doors. There are a pair of hollow -metal service doors which provide access to the original building. There is a pair of aluminum -framed glazed entrance doors which provide entry to the addition. Additional entry into the newer section of the building is provided by hollow -metal doors with or without inset glazing. The ground -level units of the addition are accessed through hollow -metal glazed doors. Entry onto the unit balconies is provided by aluminum -framed glazed balcony doors. Additionally, the ground -level unit patios are accessed through aluminum -framed glazed sliding doors. There Page 29 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 8 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener are two aluminum overhead doors which provide access to the parking garage. Additionally, the addition's garage room is also equipped with an aluminum overhead door. A portion of the original building's roof is clad with a BUR (Built -Up Roofing) system. A portion of the original building's roof is clad with slate roofing. The addition's roof is clad with a BUR (Built -Up Roofing) system. There are three (3) wood -framed skylights located on the roof of the original building. 1.6 Architectural: Interior Elements Summary Entry into the majority of the units is provided by solid -wood entry doors. The unit interior doors are comprised of hollow -wood room and closet doors. The number of doors varies from unit to unit (3-14 doors/unit). There are hollow -wood and hollow -metal interior doors with or without inset glazing located throughout the common areas of the building. The original building is equipped with two (2) concrete staircases which provide access to all floors of the building. The stairs are topped with paint and rubber nosings and are equipped with either painted metal handrails or painted metal guardrails with wood handgrips. The addition is equipped with two (2) metal staircases which service all the floors of the building. The stairs are topped with concrete treads and metal nosings and are equipped with painted metal guardrails. The units in the addition are equipped with wood staircases to access both floors of the units. The stairs are topped with carpet and are equipped with a wood handrail on one side. The common area interior finishes are as follows: Walls: Painted drywall and ceramic tile. Floors: Ceramic tile, vinyl sheet, terrazzo, parquet, and painted concrete. Ceilings: ACT and painted drywall. The unit interior finishes are as follows: Walls: Painted drywall. Floors: Carpet, laminate, VCT, and parquet. Ceilings: Painted drywall. 1.7 Mechanical Summary The domestic water supply system for the building is comprised of supply piping, two (2) domestic hot water storage tanks, four (4) water softener tanks, and two (2) circulation pumps. The sanitary waste piping for the building is connected to the local municipal sanitary waste sewers. The heating system for the building is comprised of four (4) gas-fired boilers, two (2) circulation pumps, hydronic baseboard heaters, hydronic cabinet heaters, fan -forced unit heaters, electric unit heaters, residential gas-fired furnaces, rooftop gas-fired furnaces, and unit gas-fired furnaces. The cooling system for the building is comprised of two condensing units and a split system. The ventilation system for the building is comprised of ceilings mounted and range hood exhaust fans in the bathrooms and kitchens, fresh air dampers, two (2) make-up air units, and air vents. The building's laundry rooms are equipped with a total of eight (8) washers and eight (8) dryers. The building is equipped with a diesel -powered emergency generator which is manufactured by Simpower and is located in the generator room. Fuel for the generator is stored in the ULC fuel storage tank which is located in the generator room. Page 30 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 9 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener Each unit kitchen is equipped with melamine cabinetry, laminate countertops, a metal sink with a metal faucet, ceramic tile backsplash, a range hood exhaust fan, a stove, a refrigerator, vinyl composite tile (VCT) or laminate flooring, and painted drywall walls and ceilings. 1.8 Electrical Summary The primary electrical distribution system for the building is comprised of a 2500A switchboard which is manufactured by Siemens (3 -Phase, 4 -Wire) and located in the electrical room. The secondary electrical distribution system for the building is comprised of approximately fourteen (14) distribution panels and three (3) safety switches. Each unit is equipped with a 125A electrical distribution panel which is manufactured by ITE. Hardwired light fixtures in the units use incandescent and CFL, bulbs in ceiling -mounted lighting fixtures. Hardwired light fixtures in the common areas use incandescent and CFL, bulbs and tubes in ceiling -mounted lighting fixtures. 1.9 Fire & Life Safety Summary The dry -pipe sprinkler system services the mechanical rooms, service rooms, laundry rooms, parking garage, and garbage rooms. There is a fire pump which is manufactured by ULC (M/N: 20 -IE -7) and is located in the addition's mechanical room. There is a standpipe system running vertically through the building which is connected to the fire hose cabinets. There are approximately twenty (20) fire extinguishers located throughout the building. There is a fire alarm panel which is manufactured by Troy and is located in the electrical room. Annunciator panels are present at the main entrances to the building. The fire alarm devices for the building are comprised of manual pull stations, heat detectors, and warning bells. Exit signage and emergency lighting consist of ceiling and wall -mounted exit signs and battery power emergency lighting fixtures. 1.10 Accessibility Summary A full accessibility audit was not completed as part of this assessment but general observations indicate that the building could be considered only partly accessible. The elevator does not have an audible indicator of floor level. Only audible fire alarms were observed - no visual (strobe light devices) were observed. Automatic door operators are installed at the main building entrance. 1.11 Site Summary There is an asphalt roadway which leads from Joseph Street through the site. Site parking is provided by an asphalt parking lot which is located on the North end of the site. The perimeter of the paved asphalt parking and roadways are equipped with poured concrete curbs. Pedestrian walkways for the site are comprised of poured concrete and interlocking brick. There is concrete paving located in the courtyard which is comprised of poured concrete slabs and interlocking brick. General landscaping consists of manicured lawns, shrubs, and trees. There is wood fencing between the unit patios on the South end of the site. There are painted metal railings located throughout the site. Site lighting is provided by approximately twenty (20) pole -mounted fixtures and 100 wall -mounted and soffit - mounted fixtures. Page 31 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 10 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Objectives The objectives of Building Condition Assessments (BCAs) and Elevator Audits' will be: • To determine the present physical condition of the listed facilities with respect to structural/architectural components, building envelope, mechanical and electrical systems, fire/life safety systems, and predictive 30 - year renewal costs; • To determine the scope, timing and current cost of all building component repairs or replacement likely to be required; • To determine the finances required to be set aside for both normal maintenance and capital repair/replacement of major components for budgetary purposes; and • To report all findings and recommendations from these assessments and audits of all repairs, replacements, rehabilitations, and 30 -year plans in the formats as stated in this RFP. 2.2 Scope of Work As per the agreement between the client and WalterFedy, the Building Condition Assessment (BCA) includes a visual assessment using non-destructive techniques and tools of the following major building assemblies and their component parts: • Structural assemblies (those that are visible) o Including parking garages (when applicable) • Architectural assemblies (exterior, interior components) o Roof coverings o Building wall cladding o Windows and doors o Unique architectural items o Room finishes • Mechanical assemblies o Heating, Cooling and Ventilation o Plumbing • Electrical assemblies • Fire and Life Safety assemblies • Exterior site features o Roadways and parking o Sidewalks, patios or other hard surfaces o Fences and gates o Storm water drainage o Soft landscaping • Elevators (when applicable) The assessments consider the physical condition of each assembly and its components, the age of the components compared to an expected useful life of similar components, and any capacity issues identified. When further details are required to fully understand the scope of a deficiency that is identified, WalterFedy recommends further study and investigative work to be done. 1 Where Applicable Page 32 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 11 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener Building components are identified using the ASTM E1557 - 09(2015) Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework-UNIFORMATII. This industry -recognized standard allows an easy -to -understand description of the building components, as well as a logical method to analyze collected data. 2.3 Recommended Actions When necessary WalterFedy will develop Recommended Action items for components. The Actions are classified as one of the following categories: Table 2: Possible Action Type Categories Action Type Definition Repair The existing component is functioning, but in need of repair so that it will function to its intended capacity and design lifecycle Replacement The existing component cannot be effectively repaired due to • the cost of repair being greater than the cost of a new component, • outdated technology, • the component is at its expected normal useful lifecycle, or • a repair will not be effective at resolving any deficiencies Install A component that is required is missing and should be installed Study Further detailed assessment including possible destructive testing is required in order to fully understand the requirements for the component Action items are developed based on the knowledge of WalterFedy's assessors and industry standards (including applicable Code requirements). 2.4 Cost Estimates Action cost estimates provided in this report should be considered Class "D" estimates (i.e., ±25% of expected actual costs) and are provided as a preliminary estimate of the expected costs to repair the deficiencies identified by WalterFedy assessors. The cost values are determined by identifying the requirements for an element or component of the building and then estimating element replacement costs and/or a reasonable lump sum allowance for the recommended work. The action cost estimates are, unless otherwise stated, reflective of the cost to remove the existing element and replace it with a new version of the element that would provide equivalent service (i.e., a "like -for -like" replacement). These costs are determined from a combination of source information: RS Means is an industry leader specializing in providing baseline cost estimates for building systems. Their costing databases compare building activities across North America in order to establish baseline cost estimates for replacement or installation of components and elements adjusted for the geographic location of the subject building. RS Means costs include an allowance for a contractor's overhead and profit. WalterFedy also makes use of information from other current and past projects completed by our firm that include work similar in scope to the actions recommended in the BCA reports. Page 33 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 12 Finally, with an extensive project history in Southwestern Ontario and beyond, WalterFedy has relationships with many local contractors, and has gained a good understanding of current building construction, market trends and costs. The information from the sources listed above is compiled, reviewed and maintained in an internal database of action costs for actions or building elements that are relevant to the building(s) in this study. This database is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary in order to ensure that our cost estimates match current market values. Cost estimates are prepared in 2022 Canadian Dollars (i.e., the year of assessment) and include a 20% contingency fee to cover unforeseen costs plus a 10% contingency fee to cover applicable consulting fees, but do not include any applicable taxes. The cost estimates assume work is performed at one time and, as such, do not include general project management costs, or costs for a contractor to mobilize for a project that might result from a combination of multiple actions into one larger project. More precise cost estimates would require more detailed investigations and design work than provided for in the scope of work of this project. WalterFedy cannot guarantee or warrant that the final costs will not exceed these estimated amounts, or that all ancillary costs related to the recommended actions are covered. 2.5 Action Year For each identified action WalterFedy also identifies a year when that action should occur. This timing is based on our knowledge of the typical lifecycles of building components before replacement is expected, but will also be developed taking into consideration the unique situation of the component. When a component lifecycle is less than the length of the study period (i.e., less than 30 years) the action item will appear as many times in the future as the lifecycle requires within the study period. 2.6 Condition and Priority Rating System As part of the RFP package, the client provided a template worksheet for identifying the various components within the building, including defined condition ratings: Table 3: Condition Definitions Condition Definition Very Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are well within standards and norms. Typically, asset is new or recently rehabilitated. Good Asset is physically sound and is performing its function as originally intended. Required maintenance costs are within acceptable standards and norms but are increasing. Typically, the asset has been used for some time but is within mid -stage of its expected life. Fair Asset is showing signs of deterioration and is performing at a lower level than originally intended. Some components of the asset are becoming physically deficient. Required maintenance costs exceed acceptable standards and norms are increasing. Typically, asset has been used for a long time and is within the later stage of its expected life. Poor Asset is showing significant signs of deterioration and is performing to a much lower level than originally intended. A major portion of the asset is physically deficient. Required maintenance costs significantly exceed acceptable standards and norms. Typically, asset is approaching the end of its expected life. Page 34 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 13 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener Very Poor Asset is physically unsound and/or not performing as originally intended. Asset has higher probability of failure or failure is imminent. Maintenance costs are unacceptable and rehabilitation is not cost effective. Replacement/major refurbishment is required. 3 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) 3.1 General Information and Methodology The FCI is an industry standard key performance indicator (KPI) which can be used to objectively quantify and evaluate the current condition (i.e., physical health) of an individual building, or to compare an individual building to other buildings in a portfolio. It is based on the financial needs of the building only, and can help building owners and managers make benchmark comparisons on the relative condition of buildings but should be used with care. The FCI will not allow identification of priority actions or levels of risk associated with the building, nor a detailed list of all the required Actions. By using projected renewal and replacement costs a future FCI can be predicted that will demonstrate the changing condition of the building over time. FCI is typically expressed using the following equation: FCI = Total Renewal and Repair Costs Building Replacement Cost Where: • Renewal and repair costs are determined by the identified Repair or Replacement Action items. • The building replacement cost represents the construction cost to building a building the same size, with the same function, in accordance with current Standards and Codes, exclusive of land or real estate market costs. The following benchmarks are typical industry standards used to indicate the overall building condition based on the FCI calculation: • FCI: 0-5% Good Condition • FCI: 5-10% Fair Condition • FCI: 10-30% Poor Condition • FCI: >30% Critical Condition Unless advised otherwise, WalterFedy uses a unit -cost -per -area construction cost based on current construction market costs and comparable buildings. 3.2 Subject Building Details As it stands, the building is currently in Good condition overall with an FCI score of 0.00%. In order to examine how the condition of the building may change, we assume a "worst case" scenario where no investment is made to the building. The FCI will continue to worsen (i.e., the percentage value will increase) and over the next ten (10) years, the calculated 10 -year average FCI value is 12.64%. That means the facility will be in Poor condition overall. If the FCI is calculated in a longer term such as 20-30 years, some of the lifecycle replacement actions may be repeated. Therefore, the calculation results will not accurately reflect the actual condition. Figure 1 displays the FCI graph over the thirty (30) year study period. Page 35 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 14 Figures 2 and 3 provide an annual breakdown of forecast expenditures: Figure 2 represents the forecast replacement costs (i.e., due to lifecycle needs or other reasons) and Figure 3 represents the forecast repair costs for elements that do not require full replacement, but do require attention to return them to satisfactory condition. Page 36 of 426 LO L M M L O U LL E N U) C N � Q Y C o 70_ O d 0 L C))U) �O Lo m CV O O O7 U) CO 0 r O N C C O N a� Y 9 9 9 9 9 9 N E N U) C N � Q Y C O 70 O d 0 L C))U) c0 Lo m CV O O C)) U) CO 0 r � L O N C C O N a� Y N O co m (D 0) m /gy I- N N c -I O N O O N O N m C0 E E - O c0 ��Q W - N 0 r U O N i J-+ 0 to C - �O O N N U N vo - u Y Q 0 O V) m N ci o N M M N N 4� 0 O E O a U oN m � o N U - W m o N t to U r E J N 06 o � v E L m O N _ a _0 C m O N W N O m Ln N lr0 `U M M 75 N ■ ■ C O N Q m m 0 O m m o N N O I N 0 o N to u U N � 0n i C U -O o •U N 4J o - N 0 r4 00 r4 'zT o M M M N N O ■ ■ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O o ON O W o o ON N O co m (D 0) m /gy I- O N E U) c U) :t:! Q Y O70 T O d 0 L C))U) cO Lo m CV O O O7 N to C6 0 r O N C C O N .� � Y U C ro C 4J +J cro G C ro C O .r ro O O 4J L 7 Y C 41 Q X W 75 7 C C O O O O O O O O O 0 0 N � O 0 T O — N 0C O C N 4 O _�Q W O N O .r� U O J-+ to C 0 O N U o O ca N Y Q Q lfl — Vi O N O N ci M Il O M M N ■ ■ m 0 0 N N 0 0 ti 0 N O O N m N o � ca o N E r � O W N _y 1p Y mC o vC N C O v=3 t a m o Ln zT m N lO m M M O N m 0 0 N O m 0 N O N CO O O N Y io O 0 3 N D 4J Y � N N Y NU to O L 0 N ) 4J O m i i i o O N O N4 rl 00 N M M M O 0 0 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 18 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 4 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS • ASTM E2018 - 15 Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process • ASTM E2166 - 16 Standard Practice for Organizing and Managing Building Data • ASTM E1557 - 09(2015) Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework-UNIFORMATII • Ontario Building Code, 2012 • Ontario Fire Code, 2007 4.1 Contact Information The contact information for the Owner (The Region of Waterloo) and the Consultant (WalterFedy) can be found in Table 5: Table 5: Contact Information Owner: Consultant: The Region of Waterloo Rhonda Wadel Housing Asset Administrator rwadel@regionofwaterloo.ca WalterFedy Marlen Aleman, LEED GA, FMP Team Leader 519-576-2150 ext. 211 marlen.aleman@walterfedy.com 99 Regina St. S., 4th Floor 675 Queen Street South, Suite 111 Waterloo N2J 4V6 Kitchener, ON N2M 1A1 Page 40 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 19 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS 3201 - Substructure 1. 3206 - Wall Foundations Element Name: Foundations - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The original foundation is comprised of parged clay brick masonry foundation walls extending below grade, a poured concrete basement floor slab, and poured concrete footings extending below grade. Upon inspection, the foundations appeared to be in fair condition with some of the exterior foundation's walls being visibly damaged and missing parging. Full replacement of the foundation is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the original foundations as needed. .ecommenaea Hcuon: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair the original foundation as needed. Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2024 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 5 Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 41 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3201 - Substructure 2. 3206 - Wall Foundations 20 Element Name: Foundations - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The foundation of the addition is comprised of precast concrete foundation walls extending below grade, a poured concrete foundation floor slab and poured concrete footings extending below grade. No issues with regard to the addition's foundation were reported during the site inspection, therefore, it is considered to be in good condition. Full replacement of the foundation is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: No major capital expenditures are anticipated within the terms of the study period. Recommended Action: No Action Required Action Summary: Action Description: Not Applicable Not Applicable Other Information: Action Cost: Not Applicable Action Year: Not Applicable Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: Not Applicable Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 42 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3201 - Substructure 3. 3206 - Wall Foundations 21 Element Name: Underground Parking Garage - Waterproofing Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The basement level of the addition is an underground parking garage which provides parking for the tenants. The floor of the parking garage is the poured concrete foundation slab. Upon inspection, the slab appeared to be in fair condition with some areas of visible wear and surface deterioration. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to waterproof the floors of the underground parking garage at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Install Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for installation Waterproof the parking garage floor Qty: 10,000 SF Unit Cost: $3/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2024 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 43 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3201 - Substructure 4. 3206 - Wall Foundations 22 Element Name: Underground Parking Garage - Painting Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The walls of the parking garage are finished with paint on precast concrete. The actual age of the finish is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the finish appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the paint finishes on the underground parking walls at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Repaint the parking garage walls Qty: 40,000 SF Unit Cost: $3.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $140,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 44 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell S. 3257 - Upper Floors Construction 23 Element Name: Superstructure - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The superstructure of the original building is comprised of cast -in-place concrete floor slabs and clay brick masonry structural walls. No issues with regard to the original superstructure were reported during the site inspection, therefore, it is considered to be in good condition. Full replacement of the superstructure is not anticipated within the terms of the study period. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the original superstructure as needed. .ecommenaea Action: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair the original superstructure as needed Other Information - Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 45 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 6. 3257 - Upper Floors Construction 24 Element Name: Superstructure - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The superstructure of the addition is comprised of precast concrete floor slabs and concrete block structural walls. No issues with regard to the superstructure were reported during the site inspection, therefore, it is considered to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: No major capital expenditures are anticipated within the terms of the study period. I ecommended Action: No Action Required Action Summary: Action Description: Not Applicable Not Applicable Other Information: Action Cost: Not Applicable Action Year: Not Applicable Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: Not Applicable Average CoF: 4 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 46 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 7. 3258 - Balcony Floors Construction 25 Element Name: Unit Balconies Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Units on the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors of the addition are each equipped with two precast concrete balconies. The balconies are topped with concrete pavers and equipped with painted metal guardrails. Upon inspection, the balconies appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the concrete balconies at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace concrete balconies Qty: 36 Units Unit Cost: $10,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $360,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 3 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs �/ `i Page 47 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 8. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction 26 Element Name: Brick Masonry - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The exterior walls of the original building are clad with clay and stone brick masonry. Upon inspection, the masonry appeared to be in fair condition with areas of efflorescence and deterioration. Full replacement of the masonry is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the brick masonry as needed. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair the brick masonry as needed (5% of total area) Qty: 2,500 SF Unit Cost: $7.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $18,750 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 5 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 48 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 9. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction 27 Element Name: Brick Masonry - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The majority of the addition's exterior walls are clad with clay brick masonry. Upon inspection, the masonry appeared to be in good condition. Full replacement of the brick masonry is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the brick masonry as needed. Recommended Action: Renair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair the brick masonry as needed (5% of total area) Qty: 2,500 SF Unit Cost: $7.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $18,750 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 49 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 10. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction 28 Element Name: Concrete Columns Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are six (6) concrete columns which are located at the front of the original building. Upon inspection, the columns appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: No major capital expenditures are anticipated within the terms of the study period. Recommended Action: No Action is Required. Action Summary: Action Description: Not Applicable Not Applicable Other Information: Action Cost: Not Applicable Action Year: Not Applicable Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: Not Applicable Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 50 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 11. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction Element Name: Wood Crown Molding Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Portions of the exterior wall are equipped with painted wood crown moulding. Upon inspection, the moulding appeared to be in fair condition with sections of visible wear and deterioration. Full replacement of the moulding is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair/repaint portions of the moulding as needed. .ecommenaea Action: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair/repaint the crown moulding as needed Other Information - 29 Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 51 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 12. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction 30 Element Name: Aluminum Siding Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the addition's exterior walls is clad with aluminum siding. Upon inspection, the siding appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the aluminum siding at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the aluminum siding Qty: 20,500 SF Unit Cost: $11/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $225,500 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 52 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 13. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction Element Name: Exterior Walls - EIFS Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the addition's exterior walls is clad with an EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System). Upon inspection, the cladding appeared to be in fair with some areas with visible cracking. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the EIFS. Recommended Action: Replacement 31 Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Repair/replace the damaged portions of the EIFS Expected Useful Life: (roughly 10 % of the total area) Repeat Cycle: Qty: 500 SF Unit Cost: $11/SF Other Information - Action Cost: $7,500 Action Year: 2024 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 0 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs vim 01111111111WAP"- 7 3(7 Page 53 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 14. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction Element Name: Exterior Walls - EIFS Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Please refer to the previous element for commentary. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the EIFS at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement 32 Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the EIFS Qty: 5,000 SF Unit Cost: $15/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $75,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 54 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 15. 3276 - Exterior Wall Construction 33 Element Name: Exterior Caulking Year of Installation: 2020 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is exterior caulking located along the perimeter of the exterior doors and windows. The actual age of the caulking is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the caulking appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the exterior caulking at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace exterior caulking Qty: 6,200 LF Unit Cost: $3/1-F Other Information: Action Cost: $18,600 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 8 Repeat Cycle: 8 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 55 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 16. 3286 - Windows 34 Element Name: Exterior Windows - Wood -Framed IGUs Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Poor - 4 Component Condition: The windows in the original building are comprised of wood -framed units in a punched configuration with vertical sliders. Upon inspection, the windows appeared to be in poor condition with visible aging and deterioration. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the windows be refurbished rather than replaced as they hold historical value for the building. Therefore, an allowance has been included to refurbish the wood -framed windows at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for refurbishment Refurbish the wood -framed windows Qty: 140 Windows Unit Cost: $3,000/Window Other Information: Action Cost: $340,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 4 Component Photographs Page 56 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 17. 3286 - Windows 35 Element Name: Exterior Windows - Aluminum -Framed IGUs Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The windows in the addition are comprised of aluminum -framed units in a punched configuration with casement and fixed units. Upon inspection, the windows appeared to be in good condition, therefore, their expected service life has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the windows at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the aluminum -framed windows Qty: 240 Windows Unit Cost: $2,000/Window Other Information: Action Cost: $480,000 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 57 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 18. 3286 - Windows 36 Element Name: Exterior Glazing Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are two portions of aluminum -framed exterior glazing located on the exterior wall of two staircases. Upon inspection, the glazing appeared to be in good condition, therefore, the expected service life of the glazing has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the exterior glazing at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the exterior glazing Qty: 1,700 SF Unit Cost: $100/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $170,000 Action Year: 2029 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs J Page 58 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 19. 3291 - Glazed Doors & Entrances 37 Element Name: Main Entrance Doors - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The main entrances into the original building are provided by twelve (12) solid -wood glazed exterior doors. Similar doors are located on the interior of the vestibules. The doors are equipped with top glazing. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and deterioration. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the entrance doors be refurbished rather than replaced as they hold historical value for the building. Therefore, an allowance has been included to refurbish the solid -wood entrance doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for refurbishment Refurbish the solid wood entrance doors Qty: 24 Doors Unit Cost: $3,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $72,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 59 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 20. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances 38 Element Name: Hollow -Metal Service Doors - Original Year of Installation: 2000 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There are a pair of hollow -metal service doors which provide access to the original building. The doors are equipped with top glazing. The actual age of the doors is unknown, therefore, their installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the hollow -metal service doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the hollow -metal service doors Qty: 2 Doors Unit Cost: $2,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $4,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs * s� Page 60 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 21. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances Element Name: Aluminum Framed Glazed Entrance Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There is a pair of aluminum -framed glazed entrance doors which provide entry to the addition. There is a similar set of doors on the interior of the vestibule. Both sets of doors are equipped with automatic door openers and side/top glazing. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the aluminum -framed glazed entrance doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement 39 Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the aluminum -framed glazed entrance doors Qty: 4 Doors Unit Cost: $10,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $40,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 61 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 22. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances M Element Name: Hollow -Metal Exterior Doors - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Additional entry into the newer section of the building is provided by hollow -metal doors with or without inset glazing. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the hollow -metal exterior doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the hollow -metal exterior doors Qty: 6 Doors Unit Cost: $2,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $12,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 62 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 23. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances 41 Element Name: Exterior Unit Entry Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The ground -level units of the addition are accessed through hollow -metal glazed doors. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the exterior unit entry doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace exterior unit entry doors Qty: 12 Doors Unit Cost: $2,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $24,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 63 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 24. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances Element Name: Balcony & Patio Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Entry onto the unit balconies are provided by aluminum -framed glazed balcony doors. Additionally, the ground -level unit patios are accessed through aluminum -framed glazed sliding doors. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in good condition, therefore, their expected service life has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the unit balcony and patio doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the unit balcony and patio doors Qty: 72 Doors Unit Cost: $2,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $144,000 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 64 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 25. 3295 - Other Doors & Entrances 43 Element Name: Overhead Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There are two aluminum overhead doors which provide access to the parking garage. Additionally, the addition's garbage room is also equipped with an aluminum overhead door. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the overhead doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the overhead doors Qty: 3 Doors Unit Cost: $7,500/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $22,500 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 65 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 26. 3306 - Roof Finishes Element Name: Built -Up Roofing - Original Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the original building's roof is clad with a Built -Up Roofing (BUR) system. The actual age of the roofing is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the roofing appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the BUR system at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the BUR system Qty: 7,500 SF Unit Cost: $25/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $187,500 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 66 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 27. 3306 - Roof Finishes 45 Element Name: Slate Roofing - Original Year of Installation: 1980 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the original building's roof is clad with slate roofing. The actual age of the roofing is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the roofing appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the slate roofing at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the slate roofing Qty: 21,000 SF Unit Cost: $30/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $630,000 Action Year: 2050 Expected Useful Life: 70 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs —MMA" ' M i Page 67 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 28. 3306 - Roof Finishes Element Name: Built -Up Roofing - Addition Year of Installation: 2012 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The addition's roof is clad with a BUR system. The actual age of the roofing is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the roofing appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the roofing at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the BUR system Qty: 7,000 SF Unit Cost: $25/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $175,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 68 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 29. 3306 - Roof Finishes 47 Element Name: Roof Anchors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The roof is equipped with several fall -arrest roof anchors. Upon inspection, the roof anchors appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the roof anchors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the roof anchors Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 69 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3251 - Shell 30. 3316 - Glazed Roof Openings Element Name: Skylights Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are three (3) wood -framed skylights located on the roof of the original building. Upon inspection, the skylights appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the skylights be refurbished rather than replaced as they hold value for the building. Therefore, an allowance has been included to refurbish the skylights at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for refurbishment Refurbish the skylights Qty: 3 Lights Unit Cost: $10,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 70 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 49 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 31. 3326 - Fixed Partitions Element Name: Interior Brick Masonry Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is interior brick masonry present in the lobby of the original building. Upon inspection, the masonry appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: No major capital expenditures are anticipated within the terms of the study period. ecommenaea Action: i,4o action requirea Action Summary: Action Description: Not Applicable Not Applicable Other Information - Action Cost: Not Applicable Action Year: Not Applicable Expected Useful Life: 85 Repeat Cycle: Not Applicable Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 71 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 32. 3326 - Fixed Partitions 50 Element Name: Interior Glazing Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is interior glazing in multiple locations within the common areas of the building. Upon inspection, the glazing appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the interior glazing at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace interior glazing Qty: 200 SF Unit Cost: $100/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $20,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 72 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 33. 3336 - Interior Doors 51 Element Name: Unit Entry Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Entry into the majority of the units is provided by solid -wood entry doors. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in good condition. It was reported that unit entry doors are replaced as needed, generally during unit turnover. Component Recommendation: A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time replacement of the unit entry doors is recommended. However, replacement of the doors is not always required. Therefore, an allowance has been included to replace the entry door for three (3) units annually. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the entry door in three (3) units annually Qty: 3 Units Unit Cost: $3,000/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $9,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 73 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 34. 3336 - Interior Doors 52 Element Name: Hollow -Wood Unit Interior Doors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The unit interior doors are comprised of hollow -wood room and closet doors. The number of doors varies from unit to unit (3-14 doors/unit). Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in good condition Component Recommendation: A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time replacement of the unit interior doors is recommended. However, replacement of the doors is not always needed. Therefore, an allowance has been included to replace the interior doors in three (3) units every year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the interior doors in three (3) units annually Qty: 21 Doors (7/Unit) Unit Cost: $600/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $12,600 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs ut r Page 74 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 35. 3336 - Interior Doors 53 Element Name: Interior Doors - Common Area Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are hollow -wood and hollow -metal interior doors with or without inset glazing located throughout the common areas of the building. Upon inspection, the doors appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the interior doors at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace common area interior doors Qty: 70 Doors Unit Cost: $1,200/Door Other Information: Action Cost: $84,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 75 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 36. 3352 - General Fittings & Misc. Metals 54 Element Name: Aluminum Mailboxes Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are aluminum mailboxes located in the mail room of the addition. Upon inspection, the mailboxes appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the mailboxes at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the aluminum mailboxes Qty: 100 Units Unit Cost: $140/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $14,000 Action Year: 2037 Expected Useful Life: 45 Repeat Cycle: 45 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 76 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 37. 3366 - Regular Stairs 55 Element Name: Interior Stairs - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Poor - 4 Component Condition: The original building is equipped with two (2) concrete staircases which provide access to all floors of the building. The stairs are topped with paint and rubber nosings and are equipped with either painted metal handrails or painted metal guardrails with wood handgrips. Upon inspection, the staircase finishes appeared to be in poor condition with visible wear and deterioration. Full replacement of the stairs is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the staircase finishes at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace staircase finishes and refinish Expected Useful Life: railings/handrails Repeat Cycle: Qty: 2 Staircases Unit Cost: $5,000/Staircase Other Information - Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 4 Component Photographs Page 77 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 38. 3366 - Regular Stairs 56 Element Name: Interior Stairs - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The addition is equipped with two (2) metal staircases which service all the floors of the building. The stairs are topped with concrete treads and metal nosings and are equipped with painted metal guardrails. Upon inspection, the staircase finishes appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Full replacement of the staircases is not anticipated within the terms of the study. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair the staircase treads within the terms of the study. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair the concrete treads and refinish the metal Expected Useful Life: railings Repeat Cycle: Qty: 2 Staircases Unit Cost: $12,000/Staircase Other Information: Action Cost: $24,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 100 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs �JlI Page 78 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 39.3366 - Regular Stairs 57 Element Name: Interior Stairs - Units Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The units located in the building's addition are equipped with wood staircases to access both floors of the units. The stairs are topped with carpet and are equipped with a wood handrail on one side. Upon inspection, the finishes appeared to be in good condition. Full replacement of the stairs is not anticipated within the terms of the study period. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the staircase finishes in two (2) units located in the building's addition each year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the staircase finishes and refinish the Expected Useful Life: handrails in two (2) units annually Repeat Cycle: Qty: 2 Staircases Unit Cost: $1,400/Staircase Other Information: Action Cost: $2,800 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs F qm i Page 79 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 40. 3387 - Wall Finishes to Interior Walls 58 Element Name: Painted Wall Finish Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The majority of the common area interior walls are finished with paint on drywall, brick masonry, or concrete block. The actual age of the finish is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the finish appeared to be in fair condition overall with some areas of wear and deterioration. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to refinish the common area walls at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repaint the common area walls Qty: 50,000 SF Unit Cost: $3.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $175,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs 66;;� �fllL,ti r .f,tl7 iR Page 80 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 41. 3387 - Wall Finishes to Interior Walls 59 Element Name: Ceramic Tile Walls Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the interior walls in the lobby area is finished with ceramic tile. Upon inspection, the tile appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the ceramic tile walls at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the ceramic tile walls Qty: 200 SF Unit Cost: $20/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $4,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 81 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 42. 3394 - Flooring .E Element Name: Ceramic Tile Floors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the common areas (lobbies, laundry rooms, etc.) are equipped with ceramic tile flooring. The ceramic tile was observed to be in overall good condition and therefore, the useful life has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the ceramic tile flooring at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace ceramic tile flooring Qty: 3,000 SF Unit Cost: $20/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $60,000 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 82 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 43. 3394 - Flooring 61 Element Name: Vinyl Sheet Flooring Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the common areas (addition corridors) are equipped with vinyl sheet flooring. Upon inspection, the flooring appeared to be in good condition, therefore, the expected service life of the flooring has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the vinyl sheet flooring at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace vinyl sheet flooring Qty: 1,000 SF Unit Cost: $8/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $8,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 83 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 44. 3394 - Flooring 9 Element Name: Terrazzo Flooring Year of Installation: 1985 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of floors in the original building are equipped with terrazzo flooring. The actual age of the flooring is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the flooring appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the terrazzo flooring at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the terrazzo flooring Qty: 1,000 SF Unit Cost: $95/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $95,000 Action Year: 2035 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs My --a-1 Page 84 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 45. 3394 - Flooring 63 Element Name: Wood Flooring Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: A portion of the floors in the original building (corridors) are finished with wood flooring. Upon inspection, the flooring appeared to be in fair condition with visible wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the wood flooring at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the wood flooring Qty: 2,500 SF Unit Cost: $25/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $62,500 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 85 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 46. 3395 - Carpeting Element Name: Painted Concrete Flooring Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Poor - 4 Component Condition: The majority of the service areas are equipped with painted concrete flooring. Upon inspection, the finish appeared to be in poor condition with visible deterioration and damage. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repaint the service area floors at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repaint the flooring in the service areas Qty: 5,000 SF Unit Cost: $3.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $17,500 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 4 Component Photographs Page 86 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 47. 3402 - Suspended Ceilings 65 Element Name: Acoustic Ceiling Tile (ACT) Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: A portion of the addition's corridors are equipped with Acoustic Ceiling Tile (ACT) ceilings. The actual age of the ACT is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the ACT appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the ACT at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace ACT Qty: 1,000 SF Unit Cost: $5/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs :i� !-4k: s Page 87 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3321 - Interiors 48. 3402 - Suspended Ceilings Element Name: Painted Drywall & Concrete Ceilings Year of Installation: 2000 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The majority of the common area ceilings are finished with paint on drywall and concrete ceilings. The actual age of the finish is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the finish appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and deterioration. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repaint the common area ceilings at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repaint/repair the common area drywall and concrete Expected Useful Life: ceilings Repeat Cycle: Qty: 6,500 SF Unit Cost: $3.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $22,750 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 88 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 49. 3426 - Passenger Elevators 67 Element Name: Passenger Elevators 1 & 2 - Major Modernization Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Vertical transportation for the building is provided by two (2) traction passenger elevators. The elevators were originally installed in 1992 by Northern Elevator and were modernized in 2017 by Delta. The elevators are currently maintained by Delta. Upon inspection, the elevators appeared to be in good condition. For further details, please refer to the Solucore Elevator Report dated May 9, 2022. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the major modernization of the passenger elevators at the end of their useful life. .ecommenaea Hcuon: Kepiacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Major modernization Other Information: Action Cost: $400,000 Action Year: 2047 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 89 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 50. 3426 - Passenger Elevators Element Name: Passenger Elevators 1 and 2 - Code Changes and Vandalism Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) periodically upgrade/change the requirements for elevators. The elevators may need upgrades to meet the requirements of the TSSA. The elevators may also require repairs due to vandalism. These repairs and upgrades to ensure the elevators comply with the Rulings are not covered under the maintenance contract and are the responsibility of the Owner. For more details please refer to the Elevator Report by Solucore dated May 9, 2022. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for code changes and vandalism repairs to the passenger elevators. Kecommenaea Action: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Upgrades due to code changes and vandalism Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 90 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 51. 3426 - Passenger Elevators Element Name: Passenger Elevators 1 and 2 - Door Operators Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The existing door operators have a closed-loop system and are currently in good condition. However, more efficient door operators are entering the market. For more details please refer to the Elevator Report by Solucore dated May 9, 2022. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the door operators at the end of their useful life. .ecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace door operators Other Information - Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 91 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 52. 3426 - Passenger Elevators 70 Element Name: Passenger Elevators 1 and 2 - Rusting Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Some of the door equipment is rusting which will eventually cause damage. To prevent further deterioration from occurring, the equipment should be sanded, painted and replaced if required. For more details please refer to the Elevator Report by Solucore dated May 9, 2022. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to address the rusting issues with the door equipment. Kecommenaea Action: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair rusting door equipment Other Information: Action Cost: $4,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 0 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 92 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 53. 3426 - Passenger Elevators 71 Element Name: Passenger Elevators 1 and 2 - Cab and Fixture Upgrade Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The existing passenger cab enclosures are in good condition but are starting to show signs of wear and tear. The fixtures are also in good condition but are easily damaged and can cause problems with vandals. Therefore, a cab and fixture upgrade may be required to maintain a consistent standard for the passengers. For more details please refer to the Elevator Report by Solucore dated May 9, 2022. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to upgrade the cabs and fixtures of the passenger elevators at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Cab and fixture upgrade Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 93 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 54. 3466 - Cold Water Service 72 Element Name: Domestic Water Supply - Original Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The original building is equipped with domestic water supply piping. It is our understanding that leaking and damaged sections of the pipe are repaired/replaced as needed. Upon inspection, the piping appeared to be in fair condition with areas of visible rusting and deterioration. Full replacement of the piping is not anticipated within the terms of the study period. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair/replace the original domestic water supply piping as needed. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair/replace 20% of the original building's domestic water piping as needed Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 94 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 55. 3466 - Cold Water Service 73 Element Name: Domestic Water Supply - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The building addition is equipped with copper domestic water supply piping. It is our understanding that leaking and damaged sections of the pipe are repaired/replaced as needed. Upon inspection, the domestic water piping appeared to be in good condition. Full replacement of the piping is not anticipated within the terms of the study period. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair/replace the addition's domestic water supply piping as needed. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair/replace 10% of addition's domestic water piping as needed Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 95 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 74 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 56.3468 - Domestic Water Supply Equipment Element Name: Water Storage Tank (1) Year of Installation: 2021 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a hot water storage tank which is manufactured by A.O. Smith (M/N: T -200V 000) and is located in the original building's mechanical room. The tank was found to be rated for 188 USGAL. Upon inspection, the tank appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the hot water storage tank at the end of its useful life. .ecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace water storage tank (1) Other Information - Action Cost: $7,500 Action Year: 2051 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs 3015549'715. 6V;111�tiYp�111��VlVo,�p��� �� �� ,,,IIIIVINI�IIIG� MW ,g Page 96 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 75 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 57.3468 - Domestic Water Supply Equipment Element Name: Water Storage Tank (2) Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a hot water storage tank which is manufactured by A.O. Smith and is located in the penthouse mechanical room. The equipment tag was not readable at the time of the inspection, therefore the model and capacity of the storage tank could not be determined. Based on the age of the tank, it is considered to be in fair condition as it has passed its expected service life. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the hot water storage tank at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace water storage tank (2) Other Information: Action Cost: $7,500 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 97 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 58. 3468 - Domestic Water Supply Equipment 76 Element Name: Water Softeners Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are four water softener tanks located in the original mechanical room and the penthouse mechanical room. The actual age of the tanks is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the tanks appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the water softener tanks at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace water softener tanks Expected Useful Life: Large Tank: Repeat Cycle: Qty: 1 Tank Unit Cost: $10,000/Tank Average CoF: Small Tanks: Average PoF Qty: 3 Tanks Unit Cost: $5,000/Tank Other Information: Action Cost: $25,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 98 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 59.3468 - Domestic Water Supply Equipment 77 Element Name: Domestic Water Circulation Pumps Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The domestic water supply piping is equipped with two (2) domestic water circulation pumps which are manufactured by Armstrong and located in the original building's mechanical room. The actual age of the pumps is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the pumps appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the domestic water circulation pumps at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace domestic water circulation pumps Qty: 2 Pumps Unit Cost: $2,500/Pump Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 99 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 60. 3471 - Waste Piping 78 Element Name: Sanitary Waste Piping Year of Installation: 1910 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The sanitary waste piping for the building is connected to the local municipal sanitary waste sewers. The sanitary piping is concealed under interior finishes and was not accessible for visual inspection at the time of the building assessment. No indications of problems were identified or reported by staff. Sanitary drain systems typically have a lifecycle of 50+ years with minimal maintenance. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to repair/replace the sanitary waste piping as needed. :ecommenaea Hcuon: Kepair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Repair/replace sanitary piping as -needed Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 10 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Unable to obtain photos on site. Page 100 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 61. 3483 - Rainwater Drainage Equipment 79 Element Name: Storm Water Drainage Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Storm water drainage from the roof is provided via inset drains that lead to PVC pipes on the interior side of the building. The storm drain pipes route through the building and are concealed behind interior finishes and could not be assessed. The slope and capacity of the stormwater drainage system appears to be adequate and the building representative has not observed any accumulation of water during heavy storm events. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the storm water drainage system at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the stormwater drainage system Other Information: Action Cost: $80,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 101 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 62.3497 - Gas Supply System :E Element Name: Natural Gas Piping Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Natural gas supply lines are connected to the associated mechanical equipment (Boilers, MAUs, etc.). Upon inspection, the natural gas supply piping appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the natural gas supply lines at the end of their useful life. I ecommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace gas supply piping Other Information: Action Cost: $40,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs �� Page 102 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 63.3506 - Boilers 81 Element Name: Domestic Hot Water Boilers Year of Installation: 2011 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are two (2) domestic hot water boilers which are manufactured by Rheem (M/N: WH3-HD401) and are located in the penthouse mechanical room. The boilers were found to be rated for 399,000 BTUH and 411 GPH. It is our understanding that the boilers were replaced in 2011. Upon inspection, the boilers appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the boilers at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace domestic hot water boilers Qty: 2 Boilers Unit Cost: $25,000 Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2041 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 103 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 64. 3506 - Boilers Element Name: Heating Boilers Year of Installation: 2021 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are two (2) P -K Thermific heating boilers which are manufactured by Patterson - Kelley and located in the original building's mechanical room. The heating boilers feed the fin tube radiators. It is our understanding that the boilers were replaced in 2021. Upon inspection, the boilers appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the boilers at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace boilers Qty: 2 Boilers Unit Cost: $25,000 Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2051 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 104 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 65.3506 - Boilers 83 Element Name: Circulation Pumps - Heating Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Poor - 4 Component Condition: There are two (2) circulation pumps which service the hydronic heating system. Upon inspection, the pumps appeared to be in poor condition with visible wear and deterioration. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the circulation pumps at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace circulation pumps Qty: 2 Pumps Unit Cost: $5,000 Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 4 Component Photographs Page 105 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 66. 3510 - Cooling Generating Systems Element Name: Condensing Unit (1) Year of Installation: 2019 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a condensing unit which is manufactured by Carrier (M/N: 24ABB360A520) located on the exterior of the building. Upon inspection, the condensing unit appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the condensing unit at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace condensing unit Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2039 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 106 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 85 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 67. 3510 - Cooling Generating Systems Element Name: Condensing Unit (2) Year of Installation: 1993 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a condensing unit which is manufactured by Carrier (M/N: 38TKB060500) located on the exterior of the building. Upon inspection, the condensing unit appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the condensing unit at the end of its useful life. ecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace condensing unit Other Information - Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 107 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 68. 3510 - Cooling Generating Systems Element Name: Split System Year of Installation: 2011 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a split system which is manufactured by Carrier (M/N: 38HDF036 --- 3) and is located in the elevator room. Upon inspection, the split system appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the split system at the end of its useful life. tecommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace split system Other Information: Action Cost: $6,000 Action Year: 2031 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 108 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 69. 3512 - Direct Expansion Systems 87 Element Name: Expansion Tanks Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The hydronic heating system is equipped with two (2) expansion tanks. Upon inspection, the tanks appeared to be in good condition, therefore, their expected service life has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the expansion tanks at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the expansion tanks Qty: 2 Tanks Unit Cost: $4,000/Tank Other Information: Action Cost: $8,000 Action Year: 2029 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 109 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 70. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems Element Name: Hydronic Baseboard Heaters - Original Building Year of Installation: 1995 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Heating in the common areas and units of the original building is provided by hydronic baseboard heaters. The actual age of the heater is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the heaters appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the hydronic baseboard heaters at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the hydronic baseboards in the original Expected Useful Life: building Repeat Cycle: Qty: 300 Heaters Unit Cost: $1,000/Heater Other Information - Action Cost: $300,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 110 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 71. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems Element Name: Hydronic Baseboard Heaters - Addition Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Heating in the common areas of the building addition is provided by hydronic baseboard heaters. Upon inspection, the heaters appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the hydronic baseboard heaters at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the hydronic baseboards in the addition Qty: 20 Heaters Unit Cost: $1,000/Heater Other Information: Action Cost: $20,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 111 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 72. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems Element Name: Hydronic Cabinet Heaters Year of Installation: 2000 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are approximately ten (10) hydronic cabinet heaters which are located at the entrances to the original building. The actual age of the heaters is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the heaters appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the hydronic cabinet heaters at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement .N Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the hydronic cabinet heaters Qty: 10 Heaters Unit Cost: $1,500/Heater Other Information: Action Cost: $15,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 112 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 73. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems 91 Element Name: Fan -Forced Unit Heaters Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There are approximately twenty (20) fan -forced unit heaters located throughout the building. Upon inspection, the heaters appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the fan -forced unit heaters at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the fan -forced unit heaters Qty: 20 Heaters Unit Cost: $1,500/Heater Other Information: Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 113 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 74. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems 92 Element Name: Electric Unit Heaters Year of Installation: 2020 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are approximately four (4) electric ceiling -hung unit heaters located in the service areas of the building. The actual age of the heaters is unknown, therefore, their installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the unit heaters appeared to be in good condition overall. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the ceiling -hung unit heaters at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the electric ceiling -hung unit heaters Qty: 4 Heaters Unit Cost: $2,500/Heater Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2050 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 114 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 75.3531 - Heating Generating Systems 93 Element Name: Furnaces - Parking Garage Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are two (2) gas-fired furnaces which are manufactured by Lennox and are located in the parking garage. The model and capacities of the furnaces were not accessible at the time of the site inspection. The actual age of the furnaces is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the furnaces appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the furnaces at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the furnaces in the parking garage Qty: 2 Furnaces Unit Cost: $7,500/Furnace Other Information: Action Cost: $15,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 115 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 76. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems Element Name: Furnaces - Roof Year of Installation: 1998 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are two gas-fired commercial furnaces which are manufactured by ICE (M/N: HTDM 400) and located on the roof of the addition. The furnaces were found to be rated for 400,000 BTUH and 4,000 CFM. Upon inspection, the furnaces appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the furnaces at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the rooftop furnaces Qty: 2 Units Unit Cost: $50,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2028 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 116 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 77. 3531 - Heating Generating Systems 95 Element Name: Furnaces - Units Year of Installation: 2017 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The units in the addition are heated and cooled by gas-fired furnaces which are manufactured by Napoleon (M/N: PSC030A012A) and located within the units. The furnaces were found to be rated for 30,000 BTUH and were reported to be installed in 2017. Upon inspection, the furnaces appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the furnaces at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the unit furnaces Qty: 48 Furnaces Unit Cost: $7,500/Furnace Other Information: Action Cost: $360,000 Action Year: 2037 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 3 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 117 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 78. 3534 - Exhaust & Ventilating Systems EM Element Name: Exhaust Fans Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Each kitchen within the building is equipped with a range hood exhaust fan. Additionally, the common and unit bathrooms are each equipped with a ceiling -mounted exhaust fan. The actual age of the exhaust fans is unknown, therefore, the installation year of the fans has been estimated. Upon inspection, the fans appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the exhaust fans at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace bathroom and kitchen exhaust fans Qty: 212 Fans Unit Cost: $500/Fan Other Information: Action Cost: $106,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 118 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 79. 3534 - Exhaust & Ventilating Systems 97 Element Name: Fresh Air Dampers Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There are three (3) fresh air dampers which service the parking garage. Upon inspection, the dampers appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the fresh air dampers at the end of their usefu I life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace fresh air dampers Qty: 3 Dampers Unit Cost: $5,000/Damper Other Information: Action Cost: $15,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 119 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 80. 3534 - Exhaust & Ventilating Systems Element Name: Air Vents Year of Installation: 1990 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are four (4) painted metal air vents which are located on the exterior of the original building. The actual age of the air vents is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the vents appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the air vents at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace air vents Qty: 4 Vents Unit Cost: $500/Vent Other Information: Action Cost: $2,000 Action Year: 2040 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 120 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 81. 3534 - Exhaust & Ventilating Systems Element Name: Make -Up Air Units Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There are two (2) make-up air units which are manufactured by En -Mar and are located in the original building's mechanical room. Upon inspection, the units appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the make-up air units at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the make-up air units Qty: 2 Units Unit Cost: $50,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs 'ej ago Page 121 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 82. 3537 - Energy Monitoring & Control 100 Element Name: Thermostats Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Each unit is equipped with thermostats which control the furnace/baseboard heaters. Upon inspection, the thermostats appeared to be in fair condition as they are outdated and have surpassed their expected service life. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the thermostats be upgraded to programmable units. An allowance has been included for the replacement of the thermostats at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace thermostats with programmable thermostats Qty: 100 Units Unit Cost: $500/each Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 122 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 83. 3566 - Sprinkler Water Supply 101 Element Name: Dry -Pipe Sprinkler System Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Poor - 4 Component Condition: The dry -pipe sprinkler system services the mechanical rooms, service rooms, laundry rooms, parking garage, and garbage rooms. The system was not tested but all inspection tags are up-to-date. The sprinkler system appears to have been replaced and expanded in the original building during the construction of the addition in 1992. Upon inspection, the system appeared to be in poor condition with extensive rusting and deterioration visible throughout the building. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the sprinkler system at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the dry -pipe sprinkler system Qty: 20,000 SF Unit Cost: $4.20/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $84,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 4 Component Photographs Page 123 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 102 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 84. 3567 - Sprinkler Pumping Equipment Element Name: Fire Pump Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: There is a fire pump which is manufactured by ULC (M/N: 20 -IE -7) and is located in the addition's mechanical room. The pump was found to be rated for 6.8 HP and 3500 RPM. Upon inspection, the pumps appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the fire pump at the end of its useful life. Kecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace fire pump Other Information - Action Cost: $15,000 Action Year: 2026 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs 10 b I Page 124 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 103 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 85. 3573 - Standpipe Equipment Element Name: Standpipe System Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a standpipe system running vertically through the building which is connected to the fire hose cabinets. Upon inspection, the standpipe system appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: No major capital expenditures are anticipated within the terms of the study period. Kecommenaea Action: No action required Action Summary: Action Description: Not Applicable Not Applicable Other Information - Action Cost: Not Applicable Action Year: Not Applicable Expected Useful Life: 85 Repeat Cycle: Not Applicable Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 125 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 86. 3576 - Fire Extinguishers Element Name: Fire Extinguishers Year of Installation: 2020 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are approximately twenty (20) fire extinguishers located throughout the building. The actual age of the fire extinguishers is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the fire extinguishers appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the fire extinguishers at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement 104 Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the fire extinguishers Qty: 20 Units Unit Cost: $500/unit Other Information: Action Cost: $10,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 5 Repeat Cycle: 5 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 126 of 426 �ney �.�:. awl -' • �. A9 si 4 Page 126 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 105 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 87. 3596 - High Tension Service & Dist. Element Name: Primary Electrical Distribution System Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The primary electrical distribution system for the building is comprised of a 2500A switchboard which is manufactured by Siemens (3 -Phase, 4 -Wire) and located in the electrical room. Upon inspection, the switchboard appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the switchboard at the end of its useful life. ecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the main switchboard Other Information - Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 35 Repeat Cycle: 35 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 127 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 88. 3597 - Low Tension Service & Dist. 106 Element Name: Secondary Electrical Distribution System Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The secondary electrical distribution system for the building is comprised of approximately fourteen (14) distribution panels and three (3) safety switches. Upon inspection, the panels and switches appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the secondary electrical panels and switches at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace secondary electrical panels and switches Expected Useful Life: 60-200A Panels: Repeat Cycle: Qty: 6 Panels Unit Cost: $2,500/Panel Average CoF: 200A Panels: Average PoF Qty: 6 Panels Unit Cost: 5,000/Panel 600A Panels: Qty: 2 Panels Unit Cost: 8,000/Panel 60-200A Switches: Qty: 3 Switches Unit Cost Other Information: Action Cost: $64,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 35 Repeat Cycle: 35 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs t . It[I y Page 128 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 89. 3597 - Low Tension Service & Dist. 107 Element Name: Unit Electrical Panels Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Each unit is equipped with a 125A electrical distribution panel which is manufactured by ITE. Upon inspection, the panels appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the unit electrical panels at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the unit electrical panels Qty: 100 Units Unit Cost: $1,500/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $150,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 35 Repeat Cycle: 35 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 129 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 90. 3602 - Lighting Equipment 108 Element Name: Lighting Fixtures - Units Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Hardwired light fixtures in the units use incandescent and CFL bulbs in ceiling -mounted lighting fixtures. Each unit has approximately seven (7) lighting fixtures. Upon inspection, the lighting fixtures appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: It is recommended the existing fixtures be replaced with LED fixtures for improved energy saving and illumination quality. A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time replacement of the unit lighting fixtures is recommended. Therefore, an allowance has been included for the replacement of the lighting fixtures in five (5) units every year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for LED lighting upgrade Upgrade lighting fixtures to LED in five (5) units Expected Useful Life: annually Repeat Cycle: Qty: 5 Unit Cost: $1,500/unit Other Information: Action Cost: $7,500 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 17 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs V77"I 7 Page 130 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 91. 3602 - Lighting Equipment 109 Element Name: Lighting Fixtures - Common Area Year of Installation: 2012 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Hardwired light fixtures in the common areas use incandescent and CFL bulbs and tubes in ceiling -mounted lighting fixtures. The actual age of the fixtures is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the fixtures appeared to be in good condition Component Recommendation: It is recommended the existing fixtures be replaced with LED fixtures for improved energy saving and illumination quality. An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the common area lighting fixtures at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for LED lighting upgrade Upgrade common area lighting fixtures to LED Qty: 200 Unit Cost: $350/unit Other Information: Action Cost: $70,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 17 Repeat Cycle: 17 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 131 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment 110 Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 92.3607 - Intercommunication & Paging System Element Name: Enterphone Year of Installation: 2007 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The building is equipped with an Enterphone system at the main entrance. The actual age of the system is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the Enterphone appeared to be in good condition, therefore, the expected service life of the Enterphone has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the Enterphone at the end of its useful life. .ecommenaea Hcuon: Kepiacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace Enterphone Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2036 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 132 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 93.3612 - Fire Alarm Systems Element Name: Smoke Detectors Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Each unit is equipped with a hard -wired smoke detector. Upon inspection, the smoke detectors appeared to be in good to fair condition based on the replacement dates of the observed units. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the smoke detectors as needed. Recommended Action: Replacement 111 Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace smoke detectors as needed (10% of total Expected Useful Life: units) Repeat Cycle: Quantity: 10 Units Unit Cost: $150/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $1,500 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 10 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs —A W. MIM Page 133 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 94. 3612 - Fire Alarm Systems 112 Element Name: Fire Alarm Panels Year of Installation: 2012 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is a fire alarm panel which is manufactured by Troy and is located in the electrical room. Annunciator panels are present at the main entrances to the building. The actual age of the panels is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the panels appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the fire alarm panels at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace fire alarm and annunciator panels Expected Useful Life: Main Panel: $7,500 Repeat Cycle: Annunciators: $2,500 each Other Information: Action Cost: $12,500 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs I Page 134 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 95.3612 - Fire Alarm Systems 113 Element Name: Fire Alarm Devices Year of Installation: 2007 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The fire alarm devices for the building are comprised of manual pull stations, heat detectors, and warning bells. The actual age of the devices is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the devices appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the replacement of the fire alarm devices at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace fire alarm devices Expected Useful Life: Heat Detectors: Repeat Cycle: Qty: 125 Units Unit Cost: $300/Unit Average CoF: Warning Bells: Average PoF Qty: 20 Units Unit Cost: $350/Unit Manual Pull Stations: Qty: 50 Units Unit Cost: $350/Unit Other Information - Action Cost: $62,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 135 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 96. 3613 - Security and Detection Systems 114 Element Name: Security System Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The security system for the building is comprised of nine (9) security cameras. The actual age of the cameras is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the cameras appeared to be in good condition Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the security cameras at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace security system cameras Qty: 9 Cameras Unit Cost: $1,500/Camera Other Information: Action Cost: $13,500 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 136 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3421 - Services 97. 3617 - Emergency Light & Power Systems 115 Element Name: Exit Signs & Emergency Lighting Year of Installation: 2012 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Exit signage and emergency lighting consist of ceiling and wall -mounted exit signs and battery power emergency lighting fixtures. The number of exit signs and emergency lighting fixtures appears to be sufficient for the building. All of the exit signs throughout the building were red CFL fixtures. The actual age of the fixtures is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the fixtures appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the CFL exit signage be replaced with the new, code - compliant 'green running man' signs. An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the exit signage and emergency lighting fixtures at the end of their useful Iif Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace exit signs and emergency lighting fixtures Expected Useful Life: Exit Signage: Repeat Cycle: Qty: 40 Fixtures Unit Cost: $600/Fixture Average CoF: Emergency Lighting: Average PoF Qty: 10 Fixtures Unit Cost: $1,500/Fixture Other Information: Action Cost: $39,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 137 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 98. 3651 - Laundry & Dry Cleaning Equipment 116 Element Name: Laundry Equipment Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The building's laundry rooms are equipped with a total of eight (8) washers and eight (8) dryers. The actual age of the washers and dryers is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the washers and dryers appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the washers and dryers at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the washers and dryers Qty: 16 Units Unit Cost: $1,500/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $24,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 138 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 99. 3675 - Unit Kitchens/Appliances 117 Element Name: Refrigerators Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Each unit kitchen is equipped with a refrigerator. Upon inspection, the refrigerators appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the refrigerators at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the refrigerators Qty: 100 Units Unit Cost: $1,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 139 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 100. 3675 - Unit Kitchens/Appliances 118 Element Name: Stoves Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Each unit kitchen is equipped with a stove. Upon inspection, the stoves appeared to be in fair condition with signs of wear and aging. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the stoves at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the stoves Qty: 100 Units Unit Cost: $1,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2025 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs 4 hr8. k Page 140 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 101. 3677 - Other Equipment 119 Element Name: Garbage Compactor Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The building is equipped with a garbage compactor that is attached to a chute that services all floors of the building. Upon inspection, the compactor appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that the hydraulic pump and cylinder be replaced as part of regular maintenance and repair activities for the trash compactor. Recommended Action: Renair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for as -needed replacements/repairs Replace hydraulic pump Expected Useful Life: Unit: 1 Unit Cost: $2,500 Repeat Cycle: Replace hydraulic cylinder Average CoF: Unit: 1 Unit Cost: $10,000 Other Information: Action Cost: $12,500 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 102. 3677 - Other Equipment Page 141 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 120 Element Name: Garbage Compactor Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition:. See previous element for commentary Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the garbage compactor within the study period. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace garbage compactor Unit: 1 Unit Cost: $30,000 Other Information: Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs See previous element for photo. Page 142 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 103. 3677 - Other Equipment 121 Element Name: Diesel -Powered Generator Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The building is equipped with a diesel -powered emergency generator which is manufactured by Simpower and is located in the generator room. The generator was found to be rated for 110 kW. Upon inspection, the generator appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the generator at the end of its useful life. .ecommenaea Action: Kepiacemem Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the generator Other Information - Action Cost: $60,000 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 35 Repeat Cycle: 35 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 143 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3640 - Equipment & Furnishings 104. 3677 - Other Equipment 122 Element Name: Fuel Storage Tank Year of Installation: 2015 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Fuel for the generator is stored in the ULC fuel storage tank which is located in the generator room. It is our understanding that the tank was installed in 2015. The tank was viewed to be rated for 94.5L. Upon inspection, the tank appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the fuel storage tank at the end of its useful life. tecommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the fuel storage tank Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2040 Expected Useful Life: 25 Repeat Cycle: 25 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs MMMEL ®r WESTEEi Page 144 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3710 - Special Construction & Demolition 105. 3723 - Other Integrated Construction 123 Element Name: Kitchen Renovations - Units Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: Each unit kitchen is equipped with melamine cabinetry, laminate countertops, a metal sink with a metal faucet, ceramic tile backsplash, a range hood exhaust fan, a stove, a refrigerator, VCT or laminate flooring, and painted drywall walls and ceilings. Upon inspection, the unit kitchens appeared to be in fair condition. Kitchen renovations are inclusive of melamine cabinetry, laminate countertops, a metal sink with a metal faucet, ceramic tile backsplash, flooring finishes and paint touch-ups. GFCI receptacles were not viewed to be present in the unit kitchens during the site inspection. Component Recommendation: It is recommended that GFCI receptacles be installed on outlets within 1.5m of a water source for shock prevention. A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time renovation of the kitchens is recommended. Therefore, an allowance has been included for the renovation of the kitchens in five (5) units every year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for renovations Renovate the kitchens in five (5) units annually Qty: 5 Units Unit Cost: $6,500/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $32,500 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs Page 145 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3710 - Special Construction & Demolition 106. 3723 - Other Integrated Construction 124 Element Name: Bathroom Renovations - Units Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Each unit bathroom is equipped with a melamine vanity, a laminate or ceramic countertop, a ceramic sink with a metal faucet, a toilet (unknown LPF), a tub with ceramic tile tub surround, a ceiling -mounted exhaust fan, VCT flooring, and painted drywall walls and ceilings. The units in the addition are also equipped with a powder room that has similar finishes and fixtures. Upon inspection, the unit bathrooms appeared to be in good condition. Bathroom renovations are inclusive of a vanity, a countertop, a ceramic sink with a metal faucet, a toilet, a tub and surround, flooring finishes and paint touch-ups. GFCI receptacles were viewed to be present in the unit bathrooms. Component Recommendation: A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time renovation of the bathrooms is recommended. Therefore, an allowance has been included to renovate the bathrooms in five (5) units every year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for renovations Renovate the bathrooms in five (5) units annually Qty: 5 Units Unit Cost: $6,500 Other Information: Action Cost: $32,500 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs 4 Page 146 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 125 Page 147 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3710 - Special Construction & Demolition 107. 3723 - Other Integrated Construction 126 Element Name: Bathroom Renovations - Common Area Year of Installation: 2010 Condition Rating: Fair - 3 Component Condition: The addition of the building is equipped with four (4) common area washrooms. The washrooms are equipped with a wood vanity, a laminate countertop, a ceramic sink with a metal faucet, a toilet (unknown LPF), a ceiling -mounted exhaust fan, VCT (Vinyl Composite Tile) flooring, and painted drywall walls and ceilings. The actual age of the washrooms is unknown, therefore, the installation year has been estimated. Upon inspection, the washrooms appeared to be in fair condition. Washroom renovations are inclusive of a vanity, a countertop, a ceramic sink with a metal faucet, a toilet, flooring finishes and paint touch-ups. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the renovation of the common washrooms at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for renovations Renovate the common area washrooms Qty: 4 Units Unit Cost: $5,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $20,000 Action Year: 2030 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 20 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 3 Component Photographs �ry Page 148 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3710 - Special Construction & Demolition 108. 3723 - Other Integrated Construction 127 Element Name: Unit Renovations Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The interior finishes of the units are comprised of painted drywall ceilings with or without a stipple finish, painted drywall walls, and either wood, laminate, carpet, or VCT flooring. Upon inspection, the unit interior finishes appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: A turnover rate of 5% (5 units) is anticipated annually, at which time renovation of the unit interior finishes is recommended. Therefore, an allowance has been included for the renovation of the interior finishes of five (5) units every year. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for renovations Renovate the interior finishes of five (5) units annually Qty: 5 Units Unit Cost: $10,000/Unit Other Information: Action Cost: $50,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 20 Repeat Cycle: 1 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 149 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 128 Page 150 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 109. 3827 - Parking Paving & Surfacing 129 Element Name: Asphalt Roadway & Parking Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is an asphalt roadway which leads from Joseph Street through the site. Site parking is provided by an asphalt parking lot which is located on the North end of the site. Upon inspection, the asphalt paving appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to resurface the asphalt paving within the study period. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Resurface the asphalt paving Qty: 16,700 SF Unit Cost: $2.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $41,750 Action Year: 2027 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 151 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 110. 3827 - Parking Paving & Surfacing 130 Element Name: Asphalt Roadway & Parking Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Please refer to the previous element for commentary. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been for the replacement of the asphalt paving at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for replacement Replace the asphalt paving Qty: 16,700 SF Unit Cost: $7/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $116,900 Action Year: 2047 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 152 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 111. 3828 - Curbs, Rails & Barriers 131 Element Name: Concrete Curbs Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: The perimeter of the paved asphalt parking and roadways are equipped with poured concrete curbs. The concrete curbs were observed to be in good condition overall with minor cracks and chipping noted. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the concrete curbs at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for repairs Replace the concrete curbs Qty: 970 LF Unit Cost: $25/LF Other Information: Action Cost: $24,250 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 153 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 112. 3836 - Pedestrian Paving & Surfacing 132 Element Name: Concrete Walkways Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Pedestrian walkways for the site are comprised of poured concrete and interlocking brick. Upon inspection, the walkways appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the concrete walkways at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace concrete walkways Qty: 500 LF Unit Cost: $25/LF Other Information: Action Cost: $12,500 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs a j Page 154 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 113. 3836 - Pedestrian Paving & Surfacing 133 Element Name: Concrete Paving Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is concrete paving located in the courtyard which is comprised of poured concrete slabs and interlocking brick. Upon inspection, the concrete appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the concrete paving at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace concrete paving Qty: 4,000 SF Unit Cost: $7.50/SF Other Information: Action Cost: $30,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs - Page 155 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 114. 3841 - Fences & Gates 134 Element Name: Wood Fencing Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There is wood fencing between the unit patios on the South end of the site. Upon inspection, the wood fencing appeared to be in good condition. Based on the observered good condition of the wood fence, the useful life has been extended. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the wood fencing at the end of its useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace patio wooden fences Qty: 140 LF Unit Cost: $100/LF Other Information: Action Cost: $14,000 Action Year: 2032 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 30 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 156 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 115. 3841 - Fences & Gates 135 Element Name: Metal Railings Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: There are painted metal railings located throughout the site. Upon inspection, the railings appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the painted metal railings at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Renlacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace the painted metal railings Qty: 400 LF Unit Cost: $100/LF Other Information: Action Cost: $40,000 Action Year: 2042 Expected Useful Life: 50 Repeat Cycle: 50 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 157 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 116. 3858 - Other Landscape Features 136 Element Name: General Landscaping Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: General landscaping consists of manicured lawns, shrubs, and trees. The landscaping was found to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for regular maintenance and repair. Recommended Action: Repair Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for maintenance Allowance for tree trimming and minor landscape repairs Other Information: Action Cost: $5,000 Action Year: 2023 Expected Useful Life: 30 Repeat Cycle: 5 Average CoF: 2 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 158 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 117. 3921 - Fixtures & Transformers 137 Element Name: Site Lighting - Fixtures Year of Installation: 2020 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Site lighting is provided by approximately twenty (20) pole -mounted fixtures and 100 wall - mounted and soffit -mounted fixtures. It is our understanding that the fixtures were upgraded to LEDs in 2020. Upon inspection, the site lighting fixtures appeared to be in good condition. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included for the lifecycle replacement of the site lighting fixtures at the end of their useful life. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace LED site lighting fixtures Expected Useful Life: Pole -Mounted: Repeat Cycle: Qty: 20 Fixtures Unit Cost: $1,200/Fixture Average CoF: Wall/Soffit-Mounted: Average PoF Qty: 100 Fixtures Unit Cost: $500/Fixture Other Information: Action Cost: $74,000 Action Year: 2035 Expected Useful Life: 15 Repeat Cycle: 15 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 159 of 426 Region of Waterloo Building Condition Assessment Kitchener Housing — 25 JOSEPH ST., Kitchener 3780 - Building Sitework 118. 3921 - Fixtures & Transformers 138 Element Name: Site Lighting - Poles Year of Installation: 1992 Condition Rating: Good - 2 Component Condition: Please refer to the previous element for commentary. Component Recommendation: An allowance has been included to replace the pole standards during the lighting replacement in 2035. Recommended Action: Replacement Action Summary: Action Description: Allowance for lifecycle replacement Replace pole standards Qty: 20 Poles Unit Cost: $5,000/Pole Other Information: Action Cost: $100,000 Action Year: 2035 Expected Useful Life: 40 Repeat Cycle: 40 Average CoF: 1 Average PoF 2 Component Photographs Page 160 of 426 Page 161 of 426 BCA 2022 Questionnaire for Site Visit Please fill in the following questionnaire before the scheduled site visit. We hope to receive this completed form 2 business days before the site visit, if possible, to share with the consultant. Note: as you type in the comments field in the form, the box will keep expanding. If the site has more than one building type (apartment and townhouses) please use a separate form per building type. Highlighted questions are examples of areas that may have supporting documentation the Housing Provider can share to assist in writing their report. If possible, please send a copy of supporting documents back electronically, along with the completed questionnaire, or email on the day of site visit. Documentation can be sent to: To: HPreportinq(a)regionofwaterloo.ca Cc: RWadel(o-)regionofwaterloo.ca Subject: BCA 2022 Site Visit - <Housing Provider Name> <Site Address, City> We appreciate your help in addressing emails as such to streamline the process of documentation coming forth over the next few months. Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 162 of 426 Housing Provider Name Site Address Site visit date: Building type: Apartment/Townhouse Sect/No. Question Yes No N/A Comments/Explanation A Building Structure and Envelope There have been several minor cracks found — and they have been Any crack on the foundation, exterior wall, repaired or are in the process of 1 floor structure? X being repaired. Is there water leakage through the 2 foundation or exterior wall? X Is there water leakage or other roof -related 3 issues? X Was the roof replaced in the last 10 years? 4 If so, cost? X 5 Has roof insulation been added? X Have the windows been replaced since building construction? If so, what was the 6 cost? X If windows have not been replaced, are 7 there any plans of replacement? X There have been some repairs Is there water leakage or condensation or made to windows if leakage has 8 mould issues with the windows? X been reported/noted Has any exterior door (entrance/unit/patio door) been replaced? Identify the type of Doors are replaced as needed, 9 doors and costs of replacement. X sometimes at Unit Turnover If doors have not been replaced, are there 10 any plans of replacement? X 11 Is there underground parking? X If there is underground parking, are there 12 any issues? X B Mechanical and Plumbing What is the common area heating system (furnace, baseboard heater, rooftop unit or 1 boiler)? Boiler Any there any issues with the common area 2 heating system? X Was the common area heating system 3 replaced in the last 10 years? X Boiler installed in 2011. Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 163 of 426 No. Question Yes No N/A Comments/Explanation What is the in -suite heating system (furnace, baseboard heater, rooftop unit or 4 boiler)? Boiler Any there any issues with the in -suite 5 heating systems? X Was the in -suite heating system replaced in 6 the last 10 years? X What is the common area cooling system One MUA unit to provide tempered 7 (window AC unit or rooftop unit)? air to common spaces Was the common area cooling system 8 replaced in the last 10 years? X What is the in -suite cooling system Rooftop, as well as heating/cooling 9 (window AC unit or rooftop unit)? I furnace, MUA units. If window AC unit, are they unit owned or 10 building owned? Building Was the in -suite cooling system replaced in Heating/Cooling furnace installed in 11 the last 10 years? X 2017. Are the bathrooms equipped with exhaust 12 fans? X Were the exhaust fans replaced in the last 13 10 years? I X If existing, when was the elevator(s) 14 installed? Elevator was modernized in 2017 Were the domestic water heaters replaced No — but major repair was done in 15 in the last 10 years? X December 2021 Are there issues with pinhole leaks in the We have had leaks —that are 16 domestic water pipe lines? X repaired when found. 17 Has a back-flow preventer been installed? X C Electrical Were the electrical services updated in the last 10 years (panels, transformers, switches, UPS, etc)? Identify what was 1 updated. X Were the lighting fixtures replaced with 2 LED? Identify where. X Outdoor lighting in 2020 No. Question Yes No N/A Comments/Explanation If the lighting has not been replaced with LED, is an LED retrofit considered in the 3 future? X Is there a power generator? Type, age, 4 capacity if available. X 5 What is the type or fuel? X 6 Where is the fuel located? X Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 164 of 426 Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 165 of 426 Are there emergency lighting and exit 7 signs? X D Building Interior Were the interior finishes in public areas updated in the last 10 years, (ceiling and 1 wall paint, carpet, etc.) X Unit interior finishes are done as 2 Were the unit interior finishes updated? X needed and at turnover if needed Unit interior finishes are done as 3 Are the unit interiors updated at turnover? X needed and at turnover if needed Were the unit washrooms renovated (tubs, toilets, lavatories)? If yes, provide time of Washrooms are renovated at 4 renovation. X turnover if needed Are the unit washrooms renovated at Washrooms are renovated at 5 turnover? X turnover if needed Were the unit kitchens renovated (sinks, stoves, counter tops, cabinets)? If yes, Kitchens are done at turnover if 6 provide time of renovation. X needed Are the unit kitchens renovated at Kitchens are done at turnover if 7 turnover? X needed If there is a common kitchen, has it been renovated? If yes, provide time of 8 renovation. X If there are common washrooms, have they been renovated? If yes, provide time of 9 renovation. X Is there asbestos, lead, or mould in the When mould is identified, it gets 10 building? If yes, please specify X professionally removed Are there previous DSS reports available for 11 review? X Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 165 of 426 No. Question Yes No N/A Comments/Explanation E Site 1 Was the parking lot re -paved in the last 10 years? X We are looking into repaving. 2 Are there barrier free parking spots available? X 3 Were the site lighting fixtures (lighting poles, wall packs, flood lights) replaced in the last 10 years? X 4 Has the site lighting been replaced to LED? X Updated in 2020. 5 If not, are there any plans to replace the site lighting to LED? X 6 Are there septic or well systems on the site? If yes, please identify which. X 7 Are there electric solar systems on the site? If yes, please provide size of system, and age of system X 8 Is there a hot water heating solar system on the site? X 9 Have the catch basins ever been cleaned? If yes, when? X October 2021 F Accessibility, Health, Safety, and Others 1 Is there modified unit for barrier free access? X 5 accessible units 2 Are there automatic door openers? X 3 Is the site equipped with accessible ramps? X 4 Is there an accessible bathroom? X 5 Are there fire alarms? X 6 Are there smoke detectors? X 7 Are there heat detectors? X 8 Are there CO detectors? X 9 Is there a CCTV system? X 10 Is there a security alarm system provided for the building? X Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 166 of 426 Additional Items Comments or Concerns The building is a heritage building, which makes some repairs more difficult. Document Number: 4096801 Version: 1 Page 167 of 426 Page 168 of 426 5160 Explorer Drive, Unit 29 SOLUCORE .;A Mississauga, Ontario L4W 4T7 WO) n is s 4 Tel: 905.206.0555 P/; it www.solueore.com Offices: Calgary • Edmonton - Florida - Halifax . Kitchener • Los Angeles • hlississauga • Montreal - New York • Ottawa • Toronto • Vancouver . Victoria - Winnipeg May 9, 2022 Walterfedy 675 Queen St. S., Suite 111 Kitchener, ON, N2M 1A1 Canada Attention: Ms. Linda Bennett, Project Coordinator Reference: Kitchener Housing - Joseph Street 25 Joseph Street, Kitchener, Ontario Elevator Technical Audit Our Job Number: 2250018TO03 Dear Ms. Bennett: On May 9, 2022, we reviewed the elevator equipment at 25 Joseph Street, located in Kitchener, Ontario. Enclosed is our report detailing our findings. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely Yours, Solucore Inc. Valentin Marineci, B. Eng Field Engineer 2250018TO03(905) 25 OSEPH STREET, KITCHENER May Page 1 of 1 2022 ��� P fessional neee +� wage 1F6§3 Of 426 5160 Explorer Drive, Unit 29 SOLUCORE � Mississauga.Ontario L4W 4TT WO)T Tel: 905.206.0555 www.solueore.com Offices: Calgary • Edmonton - Florida - Halifax . Kitchener • Los Angeles • hlississauga • Montreal - New York • Ottawa • Toronto • Vancouver . Victoria - Winnipeg KITCHENER HOUSING -JOSEPH STREET 25 JOSEPH STREET KITCHENER, ONTARIO Elevator Technical Audit Performed by: Nauman Saeed, P.Eng, M.Eng, EDM -F Reviewed by: Valentin Marineci, B. Eng For: Walterfedy Date of Inspection: May 9, 2022 Job Number: 2250018TO03 2250018TO03 - 25 JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 1 of 18 � i Solucore Inc. (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 '�! PWage �1F%�" R 426 ITZ TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................................3 ITEMS OF CONCERN PASSENGER....................................................................................................................4 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION - PASSENGER........................................................................................................5 NOTES ON PERFORMANCE DATA....................................................................................................................7 PERFORMANCE DATA - PASSENGER................................................................................................................8 DEFICIENCIES - PASSENGER...........................................................................................................................10 MAINTENANCE RELATED DEFICIENCIES........................................................................................................................ 10 OTHER MAINTENANCE RELATED DEFICIENCIES.............................................................................................................. 12 OWNER RELATED DEFICIENCIES.................................................................................................................................. 12 PHOTO REFERENCE PASSENGER..................................................................................................................13 POSSIBLE UPGRADES AND CONCERNS..........................................................................................................14 REQUIRED IMMEDIATE (PASSENGER)..................................................................................................................... 14 REQUIRED-SHORTTERM (PASSENGER)................................................................................................................. 14 REQUIRED - MID TERM (PASSENGER)..................................................................................................................... 14 OPTIONAL - MID TERM (PASSENGER)..................................................................................................................... 15 REQUIRED- LONGTERM (PASSENGER)................................................................................................................... 15 COST ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - REQUIRED (PASSENGER)................................................................................................ 16 COST ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - OPTIONAL (PASSENGER)................................................................................................ 16 RIDEANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................................17 PASSENGER- 1........................................................................................................................................................ 17 PASSENGER- 2........................................................................................................................................................ 18 2250018TO03 - 25 JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 2 of 18 � i ,c� Solucore Inc. (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 '�! (Fuge �M" R 426 SUMMARY On May 9, 2022, Solucore Inc. performed an inspection of the vertical transportation equipment located at 25 Joseph Street, in Kitchener, Ontario, for Walterfedy. The purpose of the inspection was to check the general condition and operation of the equipment and to note concerns and deficiencies. A detailed reserve fund study and performance audit was performed. The vertical transportation consists of 2 traction Passenger elevators. A visual review of the equipment was performed and the available documentation in the equipment room was reviewed. This inspection did not include a review of the safety aspects of the installation as this falls under the jurisdiction of the governing authorities. There are no major areas in which the equipment is not in compliance with current codes except as noted. An electronic copy of the maintenance contract was not provided for review. The elevators appear to be covered under the terms of a full maintenance contract with Delta Elevator. The typical elevator "full maintenance" contract covers the replacement of major components in addition to the labour and materials necessary for ongoing repairs, adjustment and preventative maintenance work. Entrances and cab finishes are normally excluded. As long as "full maintenance" is purchased the only additional costs to the Owner should be for malicious damage, repairs to the elevator cabs and entrances and replacement of obsolescent parts. We are assuming, of course, that repairs required due to accidents or "Acts of God" (flood, fire, etc.) are covered by insurance. The schematics are located in the machine room and were laminated. The Maintenance Control Program (MCP) was also reviewed and all items appear to be complete. The fire testing according to Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) Code Amendment Document (CAD) 261-13 r1 and Director's Order 239/10 has been completed and is available in the machine room. The vertical transportation equipment installed at this location is generally considered to be of average quality in terms of longevity, reliability and performance. The elevators have been located in an adequate manner to provide a reasonable level of service for a building of this type and size. Car top railings have been installed and are compliant with TSSA Code Amendment Document (CAD) 261-13 r1 and Director's Order 245/10. Machine guarding has been installed as per Ministry of Labour (MOL) requirements. The elevators were modernized in 2017 and will most likely require modernization again in the long term of this review. This is mostly due to shortage in parts and expertise. Modernizing the equipment will also bring the elevators up to new code requirements. Therefore, we have made some recommendations in the Possible Upgrades and Concerns section of the report. S050�f8T003(905) 206 25 E0555PH TREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� e 3 of 18 P fessional nese +� wage 1�! of 426 ITEMS OF CONCERN PASSENGER Controls Passenger: 1, 2 - The Delta elevator controls provided at this site are considered to be of reasonable quality. The controllers are provided in several installations around the country. The controller is having Delta Diagnostic Interface (DDI) to access the DMPC elevator controller, which may render them easy for others to service and maintain. The advantages of having a non-proprietary elevator control system are: greater flexibility in selecting the elevator contractor; ability to get competitive quotes; and wider sources for parts. The manufacturer should also provide a certificate to the Owner pledging support for parts and labour. Elevator Ride Passenger: 1, 2 - The ride profiles consist of horizontal vibrations (front to rear or X-axis and side to side or Y-axis) and vertical vibrations (up and down or Z-axis) as well as jerk and acceleration. Some of these vibrations are above the recommended value and should be adjusted to improve the overall ride quality. Manuals Passenger: 1, 2 - A complete set of manuals should be provided to the Owner with the latest information on this elevator equipment. The information should include the following where applicable: door operator manual, door locks, clutch and door operator arms adjustment manual, car top devices, motor, machine, governor, rope gripper, drive, controller, safeties, and door infrared detector manuals. Performance Passenger: 1, 2 - We observed during our maintenance audit that the elevator control system is not adequately adjusted to provide optimum performance. Given the type of elevator(s) installed, the performance can be significantly improved. Some of the performance concerns identified during the inspection include: car up and down times, door open and close times and car dwell times. S050�f8T003(905) 206 25 E0555PH TREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� e 4 of 18 P fessional nese +� wage 1 & 426 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION - PASSENGER Installation Number: 68490 68491 OEM Manufacturer: Northern Elevator Northern Elevator Modernization Installer: Delta Delta Current Contractor: Delta Delta Year Installed: Circa 1993 Circa 1993 Year Modernized: Circa 2017 Circa 2017 Sales Number: EP176340 EP176341 Control Manufacturer: Delta Delta Control Type: PC6AR PC6AR Elevator Classification: Passenger Passenger Capacity (lbs): 2500 2000 Contract Speed (fpm): 200 200 Governor Trip Speed: 266 266 Motor Manufacturer: Reuland Reuland Motor Type: A000 A000 Motor Output: 15 HP 12.5 HP Machine Type: Geared Geared Machine Manufacturer: Hollister Whitney Hollister Whitney Machine Model: 540H 440H Drive Manufacturer: Yaskawa Yaskawa Drive Type: VVVF VVVF Drive Model: A1000 A1000 Drive Configuration: Overhead Overhead Rope Ratio: 1:1 1:1 # of Ropes/Belts: 4 4 Rope Diameter: 0.5 0.5 Auxiliary Brake: Rope gripper - HW Rope gripper - HW Entrance Type: SSSO SSSO Door Operator Type: GAL MOVFE 2500 GAL MOVFE 2500 Door Locks: GAL GAL Entrance Protection: Infrared Infrared Entrance Width (inches): 42 36 2250018Solucore Inc. (905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� P fessional g' ece (wage 426 Entrance Height (inches): 84 84 Arrival Signal: Car lantern Car lantern Cab Width (inches): 76 66 Cab Depth (inches): 50 49 Cab Height (inches): 103 90 Car Operating Panels: Main Main Floors Served: P,G,2-5 P,G,2-5 Fire Service: FEO FEO Communication: Hands-free Hands-free Secu rity: Keyed Keyed S050�f8T003(905) 206 25 E0555PH TREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� e 6 of 18 P fessional ece +� wage 1�t & 426 NOTES ON PERFORMANCE DATA 1. The Operating Time is measured from the time the doors begin to close until they are three quarters open at the next floor. 2. The Door Open Time is measured from the time the doors begin to open until they are fully open. 3. The Door Close Time is measured from the time the doors begin to close until they are completely closed. 4. The Door Dwell times are measured from the time the doors are fully open until they start to close after answering a hall or car call. 5. Hall Advance Time is measured in seconds from the time the hall directional lantern chimes until the door begins to open. 6. Noise levels are measured with an ANSI type 2 sound level meter on the "A" scale, set for an "F" response. For elevators the running (fan) noise level is measured inside the cab with the doors closed; the door operation noise level is measured during a full door open and close cycle. For escalators the ambient noise level is measured at the respective landing with the meter at eye level; escalator noise level is measured with the meter pointed to the respective deck plate. 7. Unless otherwise stated, all times are in seconds, all distances are in inches (in) or millimeters (mm), all speeds are in feet per minute (fpm) or meter per second (mps), all capacities are in pounds (lbs) or kilograms (kg), all sound levels are in decibels, all temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit (F) or Celsius (C) and all forces are in pound -force (lbf) or Newton (N). 8. Unless otherwise stated, for elevators the terms "left" and "right" are used viewing the elevator from the hall lobby. For escalators the terms "left" and "right" are used viewing the escalator from the bottom landing looking up. 9. Acceleration is the change in velocity and is measured in feet per second squared (ft/sec') or meter per second squared (m/sec') and is measured from peak -to -peak. 10. Jerk is the rate of change in acceleration and is measured in feet per second cubed (ft/sec') or meter per second cubed (m/sec'). S050�f8T003(905) 206 25 E0555PH TREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� e 7 of 18 P fessional neer +� wage 1 N 426 PERFORMANCE DATA - PASSENGER Designation: I Measured Values Suggested Values' Installation Number: 68490 - Speed Up (fpm): 204.0 196.0 - 204.0 Speed Down (fpm): 204.0 196.0 - 204.0 Operating Time Up (s): 15.19 10.20 Operating Time Down (s): 15.24 10.20 Door Open Time (s): 4.29 2.70 Door Close Time (s): 4.66 4.30 Car Call Dwell Time (s): 7.29 3.00-4.00 Hall Call Dwell Time (s): 5.52 5.00-6.00 Nudging Time (s): 18.29 <_ 20.00 Running (Fan) Noise Level (db): 54.0 <_ 55.0 Door Open Noise Level (db): 57.0 <_ 62.0 Door Close Noise Level (db): 56.0 <_ 62.0 Max: X (mg): 3.3 <_ 10.0 Max: Y (mg): 8.2 <_ 10.0 Max: Z (mg): 12.7 <_ 10.0 A95: X (mg): 1.6 <_ 6.0 A95: Y (mg): 3.7 <_ 6.0 A95: Z (mg): 5.3 <_ 6.0 Levelling Accuracy (inches): 0.250 <_ 0.250 Door Closing Force (lbf): 20 <_ 30 Jerk (ft/s3): 4.4 <_ 9.0 A95 Acceleration (ft/s2): 3.1 <_ 4.5 2250018TO03 - 25 JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 8 of 18 Solucore Inc. (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 =60 �1 '%' o 426 Designation: 2 Measured Values Suggested Values' Installation Number: 68491 - Speed Up (fpm): 196.4 196.0 - 204.0 Speed Down (fpm): 196.0 196.0 - 204.0 Operating Time Up (s): 16.36 10.00 Operating Time Down (s): 14.98 10.00 Door Open Time (s): 4.07 2.50 Door Close Time (s): 4.61 4.10 Car Call Dwell Time (s): 7.58 3.00-4.00 Hall Call Dwell Time (s): 5.24 5.00-6.00 Nudging Time (s): 17.59 <_ 20.00 Running (Fan) Noise Level (db): 54.0 <_ 55.0 Door Open Noise Level (db): 57.0 <_ 62.0 Door Close Noise Level (db): 57.0 <_ 62.0 Max: X (mg): 4.1 <_ 10.0 Max: Y (mg): 5.7 <_ 10.0 Max: Z (mg): 15.5 <_ 10.0 A95: X (mg): 1.6 <_ 6.0 A95: Y (mg): 3.7 <_ 6.0 A95: Z (mg): 8.6 <_ 6.0 Levelling Accuracy (inches): 0.250 <_ 0.250 Door Closing Force (lbf): 20 <_ 30 Jerk (ft/s3): 3.0 <_ 9.0 A95 Acceleration (ft/s2): 2.4 <_ 4.5 4P- Operating times and door times should be discussed with building management. s/d - Elevator shutdown. S050�f8T003(905) 206 25 E0555PH TREET, KITCHENER May 25, 2022 ��� e 9 of 18 P fessional nese +� wage 1 & 426 DEFICIENCIES - PASSENGER Maintenance Related Deficiencies The elevator company should address the following deficiencies under the maintenance contract: 1 1 The cab handrail is loose or damaged. The cab handrail should be repaired or secured properly. Right hand side is loose. 2 1 We observed rollback in one or both directions. The contractor should adjust the preloading and rollback of the elevator as well as review the drive and acceleration parameters. 3 1 The car door is scratched, scuffed, or damaged. The contractor should refinish or repair the door as required. 4 1 The overlap between the hall door and entrance frame is less than the allowable limit. Adjust the door to increase the overlap and prevent any passenger injuries. On floor 4. 5 1 One or more hall door gibs are loose or worn. The worn gibs should be replaced or adjusted to prevent excessive door movement or scraping. On floor 4 6 1 The grounding/bonding for the machine guards is missing or not secured properly. The grounding should be provided and properly installed. Missing. 7 1 The door open time is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 8 1 The door close time is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 9 1 The operating time up is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 10 1 The operating time down is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 11 1 The car call dwell time is too long. The time should be improved so that this time is within expectations. Refer to the "Performance Data" table for suggested value. 12 1 The maximum vertical vibration in the Z-axis or up and down direction is greater than the suggested limit. Refer to the Performance Data for suggested value and to the ride analysis portion of our report for more details. 2250018TO03 - 25 JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 10 of 18 Solucore Inc. (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 (wage � '�1�' n & 426 13 2 One or more hall door rubber stops are missing. The contractor should replace the missing rubber stops. On floor 5. 14 2 The car door is scratched, scuffed, or damaged. The contractor should refinish or repair the door as required. 15 2 The overlap between the hall door and entrance frame is less than the allowable 1 limit. Adjust the door to increase the overlap and prevent any passenger injuries. On floor 2. 16 2 The hall door does not open fully reducing the open width. The contractor should adjust the door equipment and replace worn components to allow for a full width opening. 17 2 One or more screws in the hall call faceplate are missing or loose. The loose or missing screws should be secured or provided. Not flushed against the wall on floor 5. 18 2 The grounding/bonding for the machine guards is missing or not secured properly. The grounding should be provided and properly installed. Missing. 19 2 The door open time is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 20 2 The door close time is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 21 2 The operating time up is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 22 2 The operating time down is too slow and should be improved. Refer to the "Performance Data" for suggested value. 23 2 The car call dwell time is too long. The time should be improved so that this time is within expectations. Refer to the "Performance Data" table for suggested value. 24 2 The maximum vertical vibration in the Z-axis or up and down direction is greater than the suggested limit. Refer to the Performance Data for suggested value and to the ride analysis portion of our report for more details. 25 2 The maximum vertical vibration in the Z-axis or up and down direction for 95% of the ride is greater than the suggested limit. Refer to the Performance Data for suggested value and to the ride analysis portion of our report for more details. 2250018Solucore Inc. i905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page May 2512022 4 of 18 P fessional nese (wage 1bb 426 Other Maintenance Related Deficiencies The elevator company should address the following deficiencies under the maintenance contract: 26 1 The pit is slightly dusty and dirty. The pit should be cleaned. 27 2 The pit is slightly dusty and dirty. The pit should be cleaned. Owner Related Deficiencies Trades other than the elevator company, at the conclusion of construction, should have addressed the following deficiencies: 28 1 No load rating is provided on the overhead beams in the machine room. The load rating of the beam should be verified and a label installed. 29 1 The hall door is scuffed or damaged in places. Owner should repair the door skin. Hall door frame is scratched on few floors and needs to be re -painted. 30 1 The hall door equipment is rusting. To correct this problem we recommend sanding, priming and painting the hall door equipment with a high grade rust inhibitor. On floor P. 31 2 The hall door is scuffed or damaged in places. Owner should repair the door skin. Hall door frame is scratched on few floors and needs to be re -painted. 32 2 The handrail has been removed on one or more sides. The missing handrails should be replaced. 33 2 The hall door equipment is rusting. To correct this problem we recommend 2 sanding, priming and painting the hall door equipment with a high grade rust inhibitor. On floor P. 2250018Solucore Inc. (905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 12 of 18 May 25, 2022 4P fessional nese (wage 181 of 426 ITZ PHOTO REFERENCE PASSENGER Photo - 1 Photo - 2 2250018TO03 - 25 JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 13 of 18 Solucore Inc. (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 ageI'nN 426 POSSIBLE UPGRADES AND CONCERNS A summary of possible elevator related upgrades and/or concerns are as follows. We would suggest that money be set aside for the following upgrades that will likely be required (voluntarily or otherwise) over the next 30 years. Please note that all capital costs are in today's dollar and these costs are estimates for budgetary purpose only. These costs can change without notice due to fluctuation in the Canadian Dollar, changes in the collective agreement, inflation, war, and strikes. REQUIRED IMMEDIATE (Passenger) Rusting - Door Equipment (1, 2) Some of the door equipment such as hall doors, entrance frames, car door equipment and sills are rusting and the presence of rust on the equipment will eventually cause damage. To prevent further deterioration from occurring, the equipment should be sanded and painted so that further damage does not occur. The scope of work includes cleaning and treating the steel, sanding the equipment and priming and painting. Some components may need to be replaced as required. Total cost of upgrade : $4,000 REQUIRED - SHORT TERM (Passenger) Code Changes and Vandalism (Short Term) (1, 2) Some money should be set aside for code changes and to repair vandalism of the equipment or for other items not covered under the maintenance contract. If the money is not used, it can be redistributed to help finance some of the capital upgrade items. Total cost of upgrade : $10,000 REQUIRED - MIDTERM (Passenger) Code Changes and Vandalism (Mid Term) (1, 2) Some money should be set aside for code changes and to repair vandalism of the equipment or for other items not covered under the maintenance contract. If the money is not used, it can be redistributed to help finance some of the capital upgrade items. Total cost of upgrade : $10,000 Door Operators (1, 2) The existing door operator(s) have a closed loop system. However, newer closed loop door operators are entering the market that are more efficient and durable while still adjusting the door closing force to compensate for wind pressure and other obstacles. Since door related calls represent 80% of the callbacks, it is not uncommon to upgrade the door operators prior to a modernization. Therefore, an upgrade is recommended. Total cost of upgrade : $30,000 2250018 i905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 14 of 18 May 25, 2022 ��� P fessional nese Solucore Inc. (wage 1�' 426 OPTIONAL - MID TERM (Passenger) Cab and Fixture Upgrade (1, 2) The existing passenger cab enclosure(s) are in good condition, but starting to show signs of wear and tear. The fixtures are in good condition, but are also easily damaged and stop buttons if equipped can also cause problems with vandals. Hence, upgrading the cab and fixtures may be required in order to maintain a consistent standard and clean looking elevator cab(s). Furthermore, upgrading the fixtures will increase the user's confidence with the elevator because new fixtures are associated with new elevators. The upgrade will include emergency light, new hall and car pushbuttons, new service panel and switches, integrated security capabilities where required, tactile markings, new digital position indicator where chosen, integrated hands-free phone and license certificate. The cab would also be refurbished. Total cost of upgrade : $50,000 REQUIRED - LONG TERM (Passenger) Major Modernization (1, 2) Over time elevators will require modernization as certain elevator components may be unavailable due to obsolescence. Additionally, as newer equipment designs become more predominant, the service personnel capable of performing necessary adjustments will become increasingly difficult to find. Thus, in order to remain competitive and ensure reliable elevator service over the long term, modernization of the elevators will likely be required. Though parts are still available from elevator parts manufacturers they will become increasingly difficult to source and expertise in trouble -shooting may eventually become scarce. The elevating device system in this complex is equipped with a Variable Voltage Variable Frequency (VVVF) drive. This design has become very common and popular. Therefore, a major modernization is anticipated depending on the need to compete with other buildings, and how well this equipment functions. The scope of work would include replacing existing controller with newer microprocessor based controls, replacing existing motor controls with newer solid-state electronic VVVF, providing emergency lighting, and updating cab and fixtures if not already performed. Barrier free requirements should also be addressed during this time if not compliant with local legislation. Other costs for items like taxes, electrical work and patching should be added to the overall cost. We recommend budgeting a contingency of 20% to cover these additional costs. Total cost of upgrade : $400,000 2250018Solucore Inc. (905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 15 of 18 May 25, 2022 4P fessional g' ece (wage 426 Cost Assessment Summary - Required (Passenger) Cost Assessment Summary - Optional (Passenger) Component Repair/Replacement Reserve Analysis Component Immediate Short Term Mid Term Long Term Total (1-10 years) (11-20 years) (21-30 years) Total Code Changes and Vandalism $10,000 $50,000 $10,000 (Short Term) Code Changes and Vandalism $10,000 $10,000 (Mid Term) Door Operators $30,000 $30,000 Major Modernization $400,000 $400,000 Rusting - Door Equipment $4,000 $4,000 Total $4,000 $10,000 $40,000 $400,000 $454,000 Cost Assessment Summary - Optional (Passenger) Component Repair/Replacement Reserve Analysis Immediate Short Term (1-10 years) Mid Term (11-20 years) Long Term (21-30 years) Total Cab and Fixture Upgrade $50,000 $50,000 Total $50,000 $50,000 2250018Solucore Inc. (905) TO03JOSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 16 of 18 May 25, 2022 4P fessional ece (wage 18�' 426 ITZ RIDE ANALYSIS The following graphs show the ride quality ofthe building equipment. The ride quality appears to be good in all axes. No further action is required by the contractor other than monitoring. 25 Joseph Street 250001 Units: miu(o File:0000mcn`E2 11J7:240J11)9t22 300 ED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ED U , ry Seconds ISO %(Ple, Body Y�yz 1999 Solucore Inc- (905) 206-0555 May 25, 2022 * 31a ... ge 1865"N 426 Passenger - 2 The ride quality appears to be poor in the Z-axis. The readings are greater than the suggested value and should be improved. The contractor should review the ride quality in the Z-axis and make the necessary adjustment or repairs to rollers, rails, stabilizers, etc. as required. 25 Joseph Street Elevator/Escalator 250002 Units: milli(o File: YR7H9GRB.VE2 12:03 5S 05.",122 IA—W Aced: 2. 406DeceJ: -2.79711.971 W— Pd Pk: 4.1 A95: 1.6: 6 -Pk: 2.4 F. hl- Pk Pk: 5.7 A95: 3.7: 4Pk: 3.7 °.� -5. Pk: 1 .5 0 -Pk: 20.0 Jer# Zone Ik P)JPk: 29.9 - ------------- - ----- ---------- -- -------- - F 0 5 10 15 20 25 Seconds ISO Whole Body XYZ 1999 2250018TO03(905) 25 OSEPH STREET, KITCHENER Page 18 of 18 May 25, 2022 '/ ��ge 187 Wf 426 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 6, 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: January 18, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-057 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Demolish 1027 King Street East RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of Intention to Demolish received on January 18, 2024, and dated January 17, 2024 regarding the property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East, be received for information and that the notice period run its course. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed demolition of the property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East, presently listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, as a Notice of Intention to Demolish dated January 17th, 2024 has been submitted (Attachment A). • The key finding of this report is that the Art Deco style tower is the only remaining component of the property which demonstrates cultural heritage value or interest. While its demolition would be considered an adverse impact as it results in the removal of original heritage fabric that possesses design/physical value, mitigation measures including salvage, documentation, and commemoration have been or are proposed to be implemented. Council should let the notice period run its course as designation is not recommended. • 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 188 of 426 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Demolish the existing building located on the property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East, which is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject property was listed by City Council on February 1 st, 2010, and a copy of the associated Statement of Significance for the property can be found in Attachment B. The building is known as the former home of the Onward Manufacturing Company, which operated in this location from 1916 until approximately 1980. f� V 967 �4. !!I \ 983 991 1074 1001 �r KING EAST 5 51.6 t1 007 f f ! f !1015 51 fi � Sia 7 1122 q 50 Iw11LLcOURTLAND VVOODSIDE PARK ST • �� �(;` P y.° F~ ti 564 rG] 14� 1105 r 1S 511 ~r 22 ;per 11125f��. /1175 Figure 1: Location Map of 1001-1027 King Street East and 534-564 Charles Street East An Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that included the subject property was previously submitted to the City in 2022 and have received approval from Kitchener Council. The purpose of the amendments was to redesignate the lands to `Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy Area 10', rezone the lands to `High Intensity Mixed Use corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provision 544R, 788R, and Holding Provision 100H, and increase or reduce various permissions including the maximum Floor Space Ratio, parking rates, and property setbacks. A Site Plan Application (Sp23/075/K/CD) has now been submitted, proposing the redevelopment of the site with a mixed-use building containing two towers, 11 and 29 storeys in height, as well as a four -storey podium. The demolition of the existing building is required to facilitate this construction. Page 189 of 426 Ontario Heritage Act Provisions Part IV, Section 27(9), of the Ontario Heritage Act provides certain protections to properties listed as non -designated property on the City's Municipal Heritage Register: Restriction on demolition, etc. (9) If a property that has not been designated under this Part has been included in the register under subsection (3), the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6. (11) The notice required by subsection (9) shall be accompanied by such plans and shall set out such information as the council may require. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6. A Notice of Intention to Demolish dated January 17, 2024 has been received by Heritage Planning Staff (Attachment A). The Notice was accompanied by a revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Salvage, Documentation, and Commemoration Plan, prepared by MHBC Planning and dated January 2024 (Attachment C and D, respectively). Both are in their draft stage and have not yet received approval from the Director of Development and Housing but are sufficient to consider the Notice complete. In accordance with the Act, Council has 60 days to act, if it so chooses, on the Notice of Intention to Demolish. The 60 days provides Council with the time it requires to issue a Notice of Intention to Designation as a means of preventing the demolition. REPORT: The subject property (Figure 2) is located on the south side of King Street East and north side of Charles Street East, between the Ottawa Street South intersection to the east and the Borden Avenue South intersection to the west. Several properties were merged on title in 2020 to create the existing 1.60 -acre parcel currently subject to the site plan application. However, at the time it was listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, 1027 King Street East was an individual property (Figure 3). As such, though the site is occupied by nine structures, the former Onward Manufacturing Company building is the only identified heritage resource. The development proposal includes the demolition of all structures on the site. Those that are not subject to heritage review and are non-residential are exempt from demolition control. Per the Statement of Significance associated with the listing of 1027 King Street East, the building was recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Identified heritage attributes included all elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, as well as all elements related to the context, including the relationship of the original building to King Street and Onward Avenue. Page 190 of 426 ap, Amro PARTS ir Figure 2: Front Facade of 1027 King Street East 'qZ46�TS 77 Figure 3: Parcel Division at the Time of Listing (2010) A, Page 191 of 426 Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to pass by-laws for the protection (designation) of individual properties that have cultural heritage value or interest. Heritage designation is a protection mechanism with long-term implications for the alteration and demolition of a cultural heritage resource. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, now amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22, prescribes the criteria for determining property of cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation requires that, to be designated, a property must meet two or more of nine set criteria. The criteria can be broadly grouped into the categories of Design / Physical Value, Historical / Associative Value, and Contextual Value. Heritage Impact Assessment Due to its status as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register, a draft Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by MHBC Planning. The initial draft was submitted in November 2021, and the study has gone through several revisions, with the most recent occurring in January 2024. The purpose of the draft HIA was to evaluate 1027 King Street East against the criteria of Ontario Regulation 9/06, determine potential impacts to the cultural heritage resource as a result of the proposed redevelopment, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. The initial draft of the HIA was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on January 4t', 2022. No comments or concerns were identified by the Committee at this time. r Figure 4: Division of Building Per the HIA (photograph provided by MHBC) 1011 The evaluation divided the building into three different sections, referred to as Section `A', Section `B', and Section `C'. It determined that Section `A' and `C' met two of the nine criteria for designation, well Section `B' met three. A summary of the evaluation is provided in the table below, copied from the draft HIA. Page 192 of 426 Ontario Regulation 9/06 1027 King Street E The property has design value or physical Only section `B' is considered value because it is a rare, unique, representative of a particular architectural representative or early example of a style, style (Art Deco). All other portions of the type, material, or construction method. building (Sections `A' and `C') have been extensively altered and features have been removed. As a result, Sections `A' and `C' have not retained their heritage integrity and are not considered representative of a particular architectural style. The property has design value or physical No. value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The property has design or physical value No. because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical value or Yes. Directly associated with the Onward associative value because it has direct Manufacturing Co. from approximately associations with a theme, event, belief, 1914 to at least the 1980s. Also person, activity, organization, or institution associated with Theodore A. Witzel. that is significant to a community. The property has historical or associative No. value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. The property has historical value or Unknown. The architect of the building associative value because it demonstrates (and its various additions) is unknown but or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, could be added to the historic record artist, builder, designer or theorist who is should the information become available significant to a community. in the future. The property has contextual value because No. it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. The property has contextual value because Yes. The view of the property looking it is physically, functionally, visually, or south along Onward Avenue has been historically linked to its surroundings. identified as a view of cultural heritage value or interest in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. Page 193 of 426 The property has contextual value because No. it is a landmark. Though the draft HIA established that the building satisfied criterion for designation, it does not recommend that the property be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. It suggests that Sections `A' and `C' of the building have been altered to the extent that they have lost their heritage integrity, and states that as they have no significant design/physical value, their demolition could be classified as being a negligible impact. The demolition of Section `B' was identified as being an adverse impact, as this section has design/physical value as a representative and rare example of the Art Deco architectural style and having retained the majority of its heritage attributes. Alternative development approaches were considered within the draft HIA, including redevelopment of the site in a manner that allowed for the retention, integration, and restoration of Section `B' of the original building. A structural assessment was undertaken by Strike, Baldinelli and Monix on June 22, 2021 to determine the viability of this approach. The assessment, found in Appendix C of the draft HIA, determined that it would be incredibly difficult to stabilize and redevelop the existing structure to comply with present-day building codes and requirements, due to the age, material, and construct of the tower. The draft HIA concludes that as the retention of the existing tower is not feasible, the demolition of all buildings and structures on the property is the preferred development option. The recommended mitigation measures provided includes photographic documentation of the property and building, as well as salvage and commemoration. Documentation, Saivape, and Commemoration Report An initial draft Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Report was prepared and submitted by MHBC Planning in November 2021. The report has undergone several revisions, with the most recent being in January, 2024. The purpose of this study is twofold: the first intent is to record and document the known history, buildings, and structures identified as having cultural heritage value or interest on the subject property. The second intent is to identify historic materials that may be salvaged, reused, and/or interpreted in the proposed new development as commemoration. Documentation is provided within this report in the form of measured architectural drawings and a photo map and photographs. The photographs capture both the interior and exterior. Figure 5 below is an excerpt from the draft report which identifies what items are recommended for salvage. Items categorized as A have significant heritage value, while items categorized a B have modest heritage value. Page 194 of 426 Item Ouantitv Cateaory Location Photo Interior (Section Eureka Terazzo Tile 1 A B) Ground floor Exterior Column 1 B Exterior (front, Section B) Door/Winslow Entry 1 B Exterior (front, France and Cornice Section B) A Exterior (selection in Cladding � ood B Exterior (front, concrete) condition) Section B)PEE Figure 5: Excerpt from Draft Report Identifying Recommend Items for Salvage The items identified for salvage are to be removed using hand tools to avoid damage. They will be stored indoors off-site, wrapped with tarps and on wood pallets until their re -use. Should any of the recommended materials not be salvageable, it is recommended that the commemorative displays detailed below include additional images and text which communicate the features of the building that have been removed. Interior Commemoration The Eureka Terazzo Tile, exterior column, and door/window entry frame and cornice are proposed to be reused to create an interior display (Figure 6). The salvaged window is proposed to include two photographs (Figure 7 and 8) as well as the following text: "The property on which you stand is the former location of the Onward Manufacturing Company. The Onward Manufacturing Company was started by Theodore Adam "Ted" Witzel (b. 1875). The company became the first in Canada to manufacture Onward and Triumph brand vacuums. Ted Witzel obtained exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the "Eureka" brand vacuum cleaner in 1909. The features of this display, including the "Eureka" tile were extracted from the building formerly in this location. During World War 11 the Onward Manufacturing Company shifted production to manufacture arms and ammunition. After the war, the company expanded again to manufacture barbeques and developed brands such as Broil King." Page 195 of 426 E V n `H A MEMORY STAND Repsirpose Existing Historical Rvi.lding Elements For Proposed. Lobby: mann a� O„p .ru eao.Ko yHmd »kAttA— Figure 6: Rendering of Proposed Interior Commemorative Feature h Figure 7: Photograph of Original Building to be Included in Interior Commemorative Feature Page 196 of 426 I � Is "Volar CIVRExs of rp s ice' [4[Cil1C YAL'i�I1M C:rtAMLiI j . C,INI N4%-taE IM L# N/LI 46 Figure 8: Photograph of Company Logo to be Included in Interior Commemorative Feature Exterior Commemoration Two commemorative features are proposed for the exterior. This first in a timeline with dates and text that communicate the history of the Onward Manufacturing Company (Figure 9). The associated text proposed for the timeline commemoration piece can be found on page 26 of the draft HIA. Figure 9: Rendering of Proposed Commemorative Timeline The second commemorative feature is an Art Deco style mural reminiscent of Section B of the original building (Figure 10). The mural is designed within a tall and rectangular portion of the building and includes a series of concentric circles and geometric shapes indicative of the art and design movements of the Art Deco period. Page 197 of 426 Figure 10: Rendering of Proposed Commemorative Art Deco Style Mural Council's Options Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council does not have the authority to approve or refuse an owner's Notice of Intention to Demolish. Rather, Council's options include the following: 1. Request further information. 2. Receive the Notice of Intention to Demolish, allowing the notice period to run its course, at the end of which the Building Division may issue a demolition permit as early as May 16, 2022. 3. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition. Heritage Planning Staff Comment Heritage Planning Staff provide the follow comments with regard to Council's options noted above. Heritage Planning Staff are of the opinion that sufficient information have been received to consider the request. Staff are in agreement with the conclusions of the evaluation against Criteria 9/06 within the draft Heritage Impact Assessment, which establishes that the primary Page 198 of 426 significance of the building lies in its historical association with the Onward Manufacturing Company and Theodore A. Witzel, and that Section `B' is the only part to have retained enough of the original features to have design/physical value. Per the structural assessment completed by Strik, Baldinelli and Monix which forms part of the draft HIA, the retention of the portion of the building that still possesses tangible heritage value is not feasible. The Art Deco style tower relies on the adjacent portion of the buildings for structural stability. Were it to be retained, large steel columns and bracing would be required to bring it to up to the current Ontario Building Code standards. This would alter the appearance of the tower and therefore impact its heritage integrity. Further, the hollow clay blocks used in the construction of the tower are likely no longer manufactured, being created before the current codes which prescribe the required compressive strength of masonry units. As the retention of the structure is not a viable option, documentation, salvage, and commemoration are appropriate mitigation measures. The proposed interior and exterior commemoration features are sufficient to capture the intangible heritage values and interests of the site, that being the association with the Onward Manufacturing Company and Theodore A. Witzel. The salvaged material incorporated within the proposed features in addition to the design of the proposed features encapsulates the design and physical value. The contextual value is also respected, as the terminating view from the Onward Axis will be of the proposed Art Deco mural and memory wall. In consideration of the above, it is Heritage Planning Staffs opinion that no action to designate 1027 King Street East is required. Of Council's available options, it is recommended that Option 2 be the appropriate course of action to pursue, that being Council revied the Notice of Intention to Demolish and allow the notice period to run its course. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener will be consulted regarding the subject Notice of Intention of Demolish. Page 199 of 426 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Planning Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A — Notice of Intention to Demolish • Attachment B — 1027 King Street East Statement of Significance • Attachment C — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment • Attachment D — Draft Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Report Page 200 of 426 PLANNING IURBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE MHBC ARCHITECTURE January 17 2024 Jessica Vieira Planning Division 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.0 Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Jessica.Vieira@kitchener.ca Dear Ms. Vieira, RE: Notice to Demolish Buildings on a Listed Property under Part IV, Section 27 (9) of the Ontario Heritage Act — 1027 King Street East, Kitchener ON OUR FILE: 15213 I The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Kitchener with Notice in writing of the intent to demolish/remove buildings on the listed property located at 1027 King Street East, Kitchener. Part IV, Section 27 (9) of the Ontario Heritage Act provides the following as it relates to the removal of buildings on listed properties: Restriction on demolition, etc, (9) If a property that has not been designated under this Part has been included in the register under subsection (3), the owner of the property shall not demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure unless the owner gives the council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of the owner's intention to demolish or remove the building or structure or to permit the demolition or removal of the building or structure. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 11, s. 6. The purpose of the removal of the buildings is related to the proposed development of the subject lands located at 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, which includes the listed property at 1027 King Street East. The proposed development was reviewed in detail in the Heritage Impact Assessment completed by MHBC and provided to the City in December 2021. This HIA was revised and updated as per comments provided by City staff and submitted again in 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON I N2B 3X9 519-576-3650 www.mhbcplan.com Page 201 of 426 November 2022. The proposed development of the site includes the removal of all existing features to permit the construction of a mixed-use development. The proposed development has been approved as per the following: • Approval of Official Plan Amendment — Amendment No. 126 to Official Plan granted on October 10 2023 with no appeals and was therefore in effect as of October 31, 2023 • Approval of Zoning By-law Amendment — Approved by Council on May 8, 2023 • Site Plan Application (Conditional Approval) — Conditional approval of SPA SP23/075/K/CD dated October 24, 2023 approved as per the letter provided to Pierre Chauvin dated December 22, 2023 authored by Craig Dumart, City of Kitchener Yours truly, MHBC Vanessa Hicks cc. Garett Ste venson, City of Kitchener cc. Stephen Litt, VIVE cc. Mark Hocuiik, VIVE cc. Dan Currie, MHBC cc. Pierre Chauvin, MHBC 2 Page 202 of 426 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 1027 KING STREET EAST Municipal Address: 1027 King Street East, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 404 Lot 16 to 18 Lot 27 to 29 Part Lot 25 Year Built: 1914 Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: Onward Manufacturing Company Limited Original Use: Institutional Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1027 King Street East was originally a two storey early 20th century building built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. Various additions and modifications have occurred to the building resulting in no single distinct architectural style. One interesting addition was the construction of a central tower addition, which is influenced by the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.76 acre parcel of land located on the south side of King Street East between Borden Avenue and Ottawa Street in the King East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the original building and Art Deco addition. Heritage Value 1027 King Street East is recognized for its contextual, historical and associative values. The original building is representative of industrial vernacular architecture. The building is three bays wide by six bays deep. Three bays face both King Street East and Charles Street East. The main fagade is King Street East. The building features: brick construction; brick pilasters; large window openings; and, concrete headers and sills. The contextual value relates to the buildings location and design. The fagade of the original building is parallel to King Street East and is perpendicular to Onward Avenue. The original building is located directly across from Onward Avenue resulting in a clear view down Onward Avenue towards the front fagade of the original building. It is clear that the original architect and builder considered the importance of siting the building directly across from Onward Avenue. Page 203 of 426 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building as well as the architect of the 1946 addition. The original owner was Theodore Adam Witzel of the Onward Manufacturing Company Limited. In 1906, Mr. Witzel's company became the first in Canada to manufacture and sell hand vacuum sweepers and electric vacuum cleaners under the trade names of Onward and Triumph. The company was renamed Onward Manufacturing Company Limited in 1908. In 1908 a second company, The Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Company, was established. The vacuums were manufactured in the US while the Onward Manufacturing Company Limited focused on product distribution throughout Canada. The plant opened at 1027 King Street East, Kitchener, in 1914. The Eureka and Onward companies were amalgamated under the name Onward Manufacturing Company Limited in 1924. After the war, the company expanded to manufacture cabinet and utility hardware in 1946. Mr. Witzel died in 1948 and his son Theodore Andrew Witzel Senior (1918-1995) became the President. The company continued to grow between 1949 and 1960 with the introduction of home appliance distribution. In 1966, National Union Electric Corporation of Stamford, Connecticut purchased 80% of the Eureka vacuum cleaner and appliance distribution division as well as the name Onward Manufacturing Company Limited. T.A. Witzel, Sr. remained President of Onward Manufacturing Limited until his resignation in 1974. He retained ownership and was President of Onward Hardware Limited for the manufacturing and selling of cabinet and general hardware and developed another Company he owned known as Tawco Limited for commercial cleaning equipment distribution and franchising coin operated laundry and dry cleaning stores. Vernon's Directory records suggest that the business operated at 1027 King Street East for approximately 67 years until 1981. Around that time, Onward Hardware began to manufacture fireplace inserts and charcoal water smokers and an appliance retail division (now known as T.A. Appliance Warehouse) was established at 932 Victoria Street North, Kitchener. T.A. Witzel Senior passed away in 1995 and the company is now owned and operated by his three sons. The company was divided into three separate companies in 2000. The barbecue division adopted the original name "Onward Manufacturing Company Limited", the hardware division became "Onward Cluthe Hardware Products Inc.", and the appliance division became "TA Appliance Inc." All three companies continue to operate. The architects of the 1946 addition to the building at 1027 King Street East were William Stuart Jenkins and Sherman W. Wright. Jenkins and Wright were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario towns and for the restoration in 1952 of `Woodside' the home of William Lyon Mackenzie King. Jenkins and Wright were the architects for the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1027 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o Roof and roofline; o Large window openings, including concrete headers and sills; and, Page 204 of 426 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE o Brick construction, including brick pilasters; All elements related to the context, including the relationship of the original building to King Street and Onward Avenue. Photos 1027 King Street East (King Street Elevation Page 205 of 426 1=1 W El ° ° ElW El o H H ❑ p p ❑ n p p p p ❑0 El p p Elp z z z z z o z z z z z ❑ ❑ ❑ ° pEl z ❑ ° ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ° ❑ El El El El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ � z z z z W z z b o° El❑ ❑ o z z z El El El El El ° ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ b ❑ ¢ ❑ ❑ ❑ •� -o Z Z Z z Z �� � � � Z Z a o z z z xuz ❑❑❑ U ❑ b9A pp 4r GUJ .�•,, O N O C• .� cd � ti � 'w. � W �' 'd C bA O 0 � U U a��J y � y •T'U y� F. bA CQ � � � � � � � � U � o � � °�' � � O o on b � •� � U U c� � y w � � � � y� ��p, '�,� •moo �� y �.� �� '� � y�o ��a p ewe mon ° •ti � •� '� � '� � � � '3 '� � � bA � °Q' � '� '� °QQJ •� -� � � o � � y L V U � Q a A U A rpr Z -x . U U ►a U OW O z w ti D ❑ ❑ D ❑ D D ❑ z zz z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z z z z o ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 z z z z ❑ ❑ ❑ w a a ❑ ❑ w z ° ❑ ❑ ❑ z z El ❑ xQr b� O 'N y .b ti � � �� w •�°.ti •° o o cs, y a 8 �• 0 d w •CJ O � � .cd+ � cd �., d fi b O, � b�A O 'O 3 y N U ti .0, E 2] � U cd ', Ow U d N� ti y� Q U 7J tt z w ri IVI PAL ASSESSMENT Report 1001-1051 King Street East, and 530- 564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Date: January 2024 (submitted November 2021); (updated November, 2022); and (updated January, 2024) Prepared for: Vive Development Corp. C) Prepared by: C MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) U 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 5195763650 Our file: 15213 1 I - n' u MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE AR: H TEcT:1RE Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel................................................................................................................................... PropertyOwner..................................................................................................................................... Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities.................................................................................... ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................ 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1.1 Description of the Subject Lands................................................................................................. 1.2 Heritage Status............................................................................................................................. 2.0 Policy Context.................................................................................................................................. 2.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020.................................................................................................... 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act............................................................................................................. 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan.................................................................................................. 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan...................................................................................................... 3.0 Historical Overview.......................................................................................................................... 3.1 City of Berlin (now Kitchener)...................................................................................................... 3.2 1027 King Street East................................................................................................................... 4.0 Description of Site and Context....................................................................................................... 4.1 Waterloo County, Waterloo Township........................................................................................ 4.2 Historical Context......................................................................................................................... 4.2 Landscape.................................................................................................................................... 4.3 Description of Built Heritage Resources...................................................................................... 4.3.1 Exterior.................................................................................................................................. 4.3.2 Interior.................................................................................................................................. 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources...................................................................................... 5.1 Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................................................ 5.2 1027 King Street East................................................................................................................... 5.2.1 Evaluation of Design/Physical Value..................................................................................... 5.2.2 Evaluation of Historical or Associative Value........................................................................ .. 3 .. 3 .. 3 .. 3 .. 4 .. 6 .. 6 .. 8 11 11 12 13 15 19 19 20 24 24 24 27 27 28 31 39 39 40 40 40 November2022,updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC I i Page 209 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 5.2.3 Evaluation of Contextual Value..................................................................................................41 5.2.4 Heritage Attributes....................................................................................................................41 5.6 Summary of Evaluation.....................................................................................................................42 6.0 Description of Proposed Development.................................................................................................44 6.1 Description of Proposed Development.............................................................................................44 7.0 Impacts of Proposed Development......................................................................................................50 7.1 Classifications of Impacts..................................................................................................................50 7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1027 King Street East .................................................... 50 7.2.1 Demolition of Section 'A'...........................................................................................................50 7.2.2 Demolition of Section '13' (i & ii).................................................................................................51 7.2.3. Demolition of Section 'C'.......................................................................................................... 51 7.2.4 Alteration of Identified View...................................................................................................... 51 7.3 Summary of Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................53 8.0 Consideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations...................................................................................................................................... 54 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches.............................................................................................. 54 8.1.1 Do nothing..................................................................................................................................54 8.1.2 Develop the site while retaining all buildings............................................................................54 8.1.3 Develop the site while retaining a portion of the buildings......................................................54 8.2 Mitigation Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 56 9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions.....................................................................................................57 10.0 Sources................................................................................................................................................59 AppendixA.................................................................................................................................................. 61 Site Plan, Elevations, Views Analysis (next page)....................................................................................... 61 AppendixB..................................................................................................................................................62 Terms of Reference and Statement of Significance, City of Kitchener (next page)....................................62 AppendixC..................................................................................................................................................63 Structural Assessment (next page).............................................................................................................63 AppendixD..................................................................................................................................................64 Curriculum Vitae (next page)......................................................................................................................64 November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC I ii Page 210 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA Property Owner Managing Director of Cultural Project Manager, Senior Heritage Review Heritage Planner Research, Author, Field Analyst Vive Development Corporation (C/O Stephen Litt) 1020 King Street East Kitchener ON N2G 2M9 Acknowledgements This report acknowledges that assistance provided by the City of Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room of Local History. It should be noted that the copying of images and Fire Insurance Plans for commercial purposes which are intended for publication is restricted. Therefore, this report provides a written review of Fire Insurance Plans, but does not provide images of such in this report. Acknowledgement of Indigenous Communities This HIA acknowledges that the subject lands are located on the traditional territory of the Anishinabek (whoseland.ca) and is associated with the following treaties: • Haldimand Treaty The Haldimand Treaty of 1784 is related to the Haldimand Tract, which runs 6 miles on both sides of the Grand River and was originally comprised of 950, 000 acres of land. The settlement of these lands by Euro -Canadian settlers began in 1798 (Source: accessed online in 2021 at sixnations.ca) November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 13 Page 211 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Executive Summary MHBC was retained to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development of the subject lands located at 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener. The proposed development of the subject lands includes the demolition of all buildings and structures to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located on-site and adjacent. The property located at 1027 King Street East is 'listed' (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The subject lands includes a building which is known locally as the former home of the Onward Manufacturing Company which operated at this location from 1916 until approximately 1980. The building has been altered over time and has lost original heritage fabric and as a result, its heritage integrity has been compromised. The existing building is comprised of three main sections which are visible from King Street. These components are described in this report as Sections 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The central portion of the building (Section "B") includes elements indicative of the Art Deco architectural style and was constructed subsequent to sections "A" and "C". A structural analysis has been completed for the building and has determined that Section "B" is not a stand-alone structure and likely relies on Sections "A" and "C" for structural stability. The Art Deco style tower (Section 'B ii') is the only remaining component of the site which demonstrates design/physical value. Portions A, B, and C of the building also serve as a terminus of the view from Onward Avenue looking south towards King Street. The Onward Avenue neighbourhood has been identified by the City as a potential Cultural Heritage Landscape. The demolition of the building at 1027 King Street is considered a negligible adverse impact given that it has been extensively altered and its integrity has been compromised. In particular, Sections "A" and "C" in have been altered to the extent that original fabric has been removed and no longer communicates its original design features. Details regarding structural and condition issues with the building are provided in Section 8.1 of this report as well as Appendix C. The demolition of the Art Deco tower (i.e. Section "B ii") is considered an adverse heritage impact since it results in the removal of original heritage fabric which has design/physical value. Should the building be removed, the following mitigation measures are recommended: • Submission of a Documentation Report which includes: November2022, updotedJanuary2024 MHBC 14 Page 212 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener o Photographic descriptions and photo maps of the property and the various sections of the building. Further mitigation has also taken place, and a Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Plan has been submitted to the City of Kitchener in 2023. No further mitigation recommendations are necessary. November2022, updotedJanuory2024 MHBC 15 Page 213 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 1.0 Introduction MHBC was retained to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed development located at 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to evaluate the proposed development in terms of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources located on-site and adjacent. This report has been prepared as input to the planning application and development proposal. The background information and research has provided direction on the redevelopment concept. This report evaluates the proposal in the context of the City's policy framework and Provincial policy. . 1 Description of the Subject Lands The property located at 1027 King Street East is 'listed' (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. The subject lands include the properties located at 1001, 1007, 1015, 1027, and 1051 King Street East as well as the properties located at 530, 534, 542, and 564 Charles Street East. Together these properties result in a roughly rectangular -shaped area, referred to in this report as the subject lands. The subject lands are situated south of King Street East, east of Borden Avenue South, north of Charles Street East, and west of Ottawa Street South. The subject lands are located east of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) boundary and are zoned MU -3 (High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor). November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 16 Page 214 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 6_ ' Figure 1: Satellite Photo of the broader context of the site. Approximate location of subject lands noted with red dashing and 'listed' property identified with green dashing. (Source: Google Earth, 2021) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 17 Page 215 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener X y "A' �h Ir £ 4% fr 22 . . Figure 2: Aerial photo of the subject lands. Approximate boundary of subject lands noted with solid red line. Location of'listed' property at 1027 King Street East identified with dotted green line. (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, accessed 2021) 1 .2 Heritage Status The property located at 1027 is 'listed' (non -designated) on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register as per Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject lands are not located within a designated Heritage Conservation District. The subject lands are not located adjacent to any properties which are either 'listed' or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The lands are identified as being part of the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood (L-NBR-3), which is a potential Cultural Heritage Landscape identified in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study (See Figure 4). November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 18 Page 216 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener The description of the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood identifies the property located at 1027 King Street East (on the subject lands), but does not include information on the specific property. The focus of the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood landscape is on street patterns and built elements of the early residential neighbourhood. It is important to note that as a result of the City's Neighbourhood Planning Review, this property is being proposed to Council for exclusion from the Onward Neighbourhood CHL Boundary. Council approval for the final boundary is pending. Heritage register YO tabu. AVDI70RIL1M +'� Intend to DesignateCATEGORY Listed Properties jPartIVDesignation QF�� �Q hrt rw„ r._nr..i, 1�, 1 �N g Of.G i Ne. 41 PartV (District) Designation TST s' r:stvnanG C' '�4� Iri1, ti Ci Part IV and V Designation Heritage district �Q4' F,S� t% a P 5� O� hJiJ,ener rvienrK>t,de y srethainChurch -- so g...- 4 f c�i l ff Cyd j �4r, EAs hal Evangeic I -Lu di � �tidd MILL COURTLAND WOODSIDE PARK � ,- tY6erg 'r44 •,� 4fQ�,�rc NO FIVrIM11 f Fsp SSj t'Y E Q�tit Q Rmkvray Gsrdins QFCP HiQ Farmli 9aAecr OVA C �CFtES -- _ 4G_ ROCKWAY ` Figure 3: Map of subject lands (noted in red) identifying that the property located at 1027 King Street East is 'listed'on the Heritage Register (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 19 Page 217 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener t .4let Abr 411 �` Wig. � d�� .� �� ♦ f. � ki S 4 i. �ssoq y t � �IL ~�* Pilo AT Figure 4: Map of the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood noting approximate location of subject lands in red (Source: Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes Study, 2014) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 110 Page 218 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 2.OPolicy Context 2.1 The Planning Act and PPS 2020 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2 The Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest which must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to "encourage the co-operation and co-ordination among the various interests. Regarding Cultural Heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters ofprovincial interest such as... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Significant: e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 111 Page 219 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including on Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers. Cultural heritage landscape:: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms. Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. The subject lands includes property that is considered to be a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest under the consideration of the PPS, as the subject lands are recognized on the Municipal Heritage Register as part of the City's'listed' properties. 2.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as Amended in 2022 as per Bill 23 (Schedule 6). Ontario Regulation 9/06 outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Here, a property must meet at least 2 of 9 criteria to be considered for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 112 Page 220 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 2.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: 3.G Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage resources are the inheritance of natural and cultural assets that give people a sense of place, community and personal identity. Continuity with the past promotes creativity and cultural diversity. The region has a rich and diverse heritage, including distinctive cultures, traditions, festivals, artisans and craftspeople, landmarks, landscapes, properties, structures, burial sites, cemeteries, natural features and archaeological resources. These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G.73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G. 74 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G. 73 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, theArea Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G. 75 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submita Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G. 76 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 113 Page 221 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. 3.G.77 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; (c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; (d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts, (e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (0 schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring, and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G. 78 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by: (a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource, (b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and (c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3.G.79 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G. 78, the conservation recommendations will: (a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork ofpost artisans, and (b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 114 Page 222 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 2.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 12.1.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.1.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.0:1.1. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 12.0 1.2. The City will establish and consult with a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) on matters relating to cultural heritage resources in accordance with provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.0 1.3. The City will develop, prioritize and maintain a list of cultural heritage resources which will include the following: a) properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; b) properties designated under Part Wand V of the Ontario HeritageAct, c) cultural heritage landscapes; and, d) heritage corridors. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 115 Page 223 of 426 Heritage ImpactAssessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 12.0:1.4. The City acknowledges that not all of the city's cultural heritage resources have been identified as a cultural heritage resource as in Policy 12.01.3. Accordingly, a property does not have to be listed or designated to be considered as having cultural heritage value or interest. 12.0:1.5. Through the processing of applications submitted under the Planning Act, resources ofpotential cultural heritage value or interest will be identified, evaluated and considered for listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register and/or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.0:1.23. The City will require the submission of Heritage ImpactAssessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan fordevelopment, redevelopment andsitealteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.04.6 through 73.C4.78 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to on identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.0:1.24. Where a Heritage ImpactAssessment required under Policy 72.C. 7.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.0:1.25. A Heritage ImpactAssessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City ofKitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.0:1.26. The contents of Heritage ImpactAssessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of Heritage ImpactAssessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 116 Page 224 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts,- e) mpacts, e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods, 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.0:1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.0 7.28. Heritage ImpactAssessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 72.0 7.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.0:1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of on approval and/or permit. 12.0:1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 117 Page 225 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 12.0:1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.0:1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/Integration 12.0:1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 72.0 7.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 118 Page 226 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 3.0 Historical Overview 3.1 City of Berlin (now Kitchener) The subject property is located in the former City of Berlin (now Kitchener), which was settled in 1807 by Joseph Schneider, who constructed a log cabin on Lot 17 on the east side of Queen Street. Other early settlers included Benjamin Eby, Samuel Eby, and John Brubacher. The hamlet of Berlin was incorporated in 1833. At this time, Berlin had a population of 1,000 people. By 1912, Berlin was proclaimed a City, having a population of 15,195 people. An influx of German workers came to the city in the first half of the 19th century (Uttley, 1937). The construction of the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856 increased the settlement and industrialization of the area. By the early 20th century, Berlin's urban core was dominated by a variety of factories. Berlin experienced anti -German sentiments following World War I, and as a result the City of Berlin changed its name to the City of Kitchener after'Lord Kitchener' in 1916 following a petition of over 200 businessmen (Uttley, 1937). s Jr.10! s 4W r- 17 ba -'14E: '.0— -- t� irkJ. d 44 , om ' 4'+. f Figure 5: Tremaine Map of Waterloo Township, 1861. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 119 Page 227 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 6: 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Waterloo & Wellington Counties. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. 3.2 1027 King Street East The subject lands are legally described as Part Lots 16, 17, and 18 Plan 262, City of Kitchener. According to records available from the City of Kitchener Land Registry Office, Theodore A. Witzel purchased Lot 16 of Plan 262 in 1916, Lot 17 in 1916, and Lot 18 in 1919. November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 120 Page 228 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener F` Figure 7: Historic photograph of the building located at 1027 King Street East, early 201h century (Source: Onward Manufacturing Company, n.d.) According to the Waterloo Generations website, Theodore Adam'Ted' Witzel was born in 1875 and initiated a manufacturing company in 1906 in Berlin (now Kitchener) making ball-point pens. His company became the Onward Manufacturing Company by 1908 and expanded the range of manufactured products to include hardware and home appliances (such as steam cookers, sliding furniture shoes, and suitcase hardware). According to the history of the Onward Manufacturing Company (available on the Onward Manufacturing Company website), the company became the first in Canada to manufacture the Onward and Triumph brand vacuums. T.A. Witzel obtained exclusive rights to sell the Eureka Vacuum cleaner in 1909 and retail stores were developed across Canada. During the Second World War, the company shifted production from housewares to manufacture arms and ammunition. After the war, the company expanded again to include barbeques and developed brands such as Broil King and Stirling (Waterloo Generations). According to the 1911 census, Theodore Witzel is listed as a manufacturer of German descent (born in the U.S.A.), residing with his wife Carrie and daughter Hellen at 53 Roy Street (See Figure 8). November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 121 Page 229 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 8: Excerpt of 1911 census, Berlin (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to Vernon's 1910-1911 Directory for the City of Kitchener, the Onward Mfg. Co is listed at 143 King Street West (south side) between Gaukel Street and Water Street South (Berlin). This is likely the first building of the Onward Manuf. Co. According to the 1916 Directory for the City of Kitchener, Theodore A. Witzel is listed as the Manager of the Onward Mfg. Co, and resides at 53 Roy Street, Berlin. At this time, the Onward Manuf. Co. is located at 399 King Street East, which was re -addressed to 1027 King Street in 1930 (See Figure 10). King. Ontario Hutton Co., Mgr,, Chas.. & Kerteher, 16:3 W. Kinn. Ontario Glove Mfg. Co.. mfrs. glnvet, 38 Benton. Owario WoMe.nware Sir., mfr4., ,yn N. Ced it Onward Mfg. Co., T. A. Witzel, pRerm, nn. M. sa c=rr?an, ,W if) '1. 1 . 4-.r[rrtiDn Av@. Orasek, Frank.--oldier, h. 121 ii"anve Figure 9: Excerpt of Cairnes' 1916 Directory of the City of Kitchener (Source: City of Kitchener Public Li bra ry) The company remained at 1027 King Street East until at least 1980 (See Figure 12). November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 122 Page 230 of 426 f %- ` - -. (A 1J" -a- a- +�irsa wz_ 37 3 . Yz ' .. � ..r � �:jry � f3s %iiEtiJ� #6 � .r .`.yi..-... ..� ... !.'.'i . L..... _ ' I .... F+ r3 1 �� .. �!'..,...,.,_ .........41" Figure 8: Excerpt of 1911 census, Berlin (Source: Ancestry.ca) According to Vernon's 1910-1911 Directory for the City of Kitchener, the Onward Mfg. Co is listed at 143 King Street West (south side) between Gaukel Street and Water Street South (Berlin). This is likely the first building of the Onward Manuf. Co. According to the 1916 Directory for the City of Kitchener, Theodore A. Witzel is listed as the Manager of the Onward Mfg. Co, and resides at 53 Roy Street, Berlin. At this time, the Onward Manuf. Co. is located at 399 King Street East, which was re -addressed to 1027 King Street in 1930 (See Figure 10). King. Ontario Hutton Co., Mgr,, Chas.. & Kerteher, 16:3 W. Kinn. Ontario Glove Mfg. Co.. mfrs. glnvet, 38 Benton. Owario WoMe.nware Sir., mfr4., ,yn N. Ced it Onward Mfg. Co., T. A. Witzel, pRerm, nn. M. sa c=rr?an, ,W if) '1. 1 . 4-.r[rrtiDn Av@. Orasek, Frank.--oldier, h. 121 ii"anve Figure 9: Excerpt of Cairnes' 1916 Directory of the City of Kitchener (Source: City of Kitchener Public Li bra ry) The company remained at 1027 King Street East until at least 1980 (See Figure 12). November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 122 Page 230 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 1102:7 Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Do, Ltd ♦South begins you 1110.5 Roman, Rev M C 1:1105 Grieve, Mrs A 11.2+4 ackfe,T,aa= W -S Figure 10: Excerpt of 1930 Directory of the City of Kitchener (Source: City of Kitchener Public Library) ♦Nelson ttv b,egin,& 1001 Vacant W * 9117 Vacant 0,2 7 O-nwu r d Mfg Co, 745-2111 977 Hartleib, ,Jos * ,14 027 Eureka Vacuum 933 I1oy`ves, A C C.Co Ltd 1015 Brandy's Car Care 1.041 Nortan, Mrs R.wtil * 14J 18 1081 Buck, John E, chick 11003 Norton's Drinx, hatchery str�` carb beverages 1105 Bowman, IS, Mrs * 10017 Norton Chas H 11.05 6hoemaker, Irwin W Figure 11: Excerpt of 1027 Onward Mfg 'Co, 1102:7 Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Do, Ltd ♦South begins you 1110.5 Roman, Rev M C 1:1105 Grieve, Mrs A 11.2+4 ackfe,T,aa= W -S Figure 10: Excerpt of 1930 Directory of the City of Kitchener (Source: City of Kitchener Public Library) 28 30 S . 34 38 36 36 C fn 36 Sauc 36 36 : City of Kitchener Public Library) Ltd 744-3751 IMM tlRRw7'Wrthulr WR 1001 Vacant 1015 Enns, G W, monu- 1001 Auto Mart Car Sales 0,2 7 O-nwu r d Mfg Co, 745-2111 Ltd 1003 Storage 027 Eureka Vacuum 1007'Godlrey 0 745-2111 C.Co Ltd 1015 Brandy's Car Care 1081 Owen, Horace V 576-7740 1081 Buck, John E, chick hatchery +South begins 1105 Bowman, IS, Mrs * 11.05 6hoemaker, Irwin W Figure 11: Excerpt of the 1941 Directory of the City of Kitchener (SourcE 28 30 S . 34 38 36 36 C fn 36 Sauc 36 36 : City of Kitchener Public Library) Ltd 744-3751 1001 Vacant 1001 Auto Mart Car Sales 745-2111 G 1003 Storage 1007'Godlrey 0 745-2111 �19 1015 Brandy's Car Care 29 576-7740 1027 Onward Manufacturing 2 Co Ltd 579-3100 1 2 578-5949 1065 Gentlemen's Choice Hairslyting Salon Figure 12: Excerpt of 1980 Directory of the City of Kitchener (Source: City of Kitchener Public Library) November 2022, updated January 2024 MHBC 123 Page 231 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 4 4, 0 Description of Site and Context 4.1 Waterloo County, Waterloo Township The subject property is located on lands where pioneer settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, the Haldimand Tract was granted to Six Nations by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution (Bloomfield 19, 2006). Over time the lands were subdivided, and in 1798 Block2 (which became Waterloo Township) was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York who had arrived in Canada in 1777 (McLaughlin 2007). The land was then surveyed and further subdivided. At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 5, 1997). 4.2 Historical Context The building located on the subject lands is noted on the Onward Manufacturing Company website as being constructed in 1914, with additions added to the east at some point between 1925 and 1947 (as per a review of Fire Insurance Plans). According to the 1908 rev. 1925 Fire Insurance Plan, the first portion of the existing building to be constructed was the northerly portion, described in this report (see Figure 16). The fire insurance plan describes the building as being a 3 storey building of brick construction. The building is noted as a 'Vacuum Cleaner Factory' owned by the 'Onward Mfg. Co.' which includes electrical power, heated by steam and fueled by coal. The Fire Insurance Plan notes that a small single storey wood frame 'auto' building or shed is located east of the building, which has since been demolished. The building is addressed as 1027 King Street East. At this time, 5 small single -detached residential buildings are located to the west. No buildings or structures are located to the east towards Ottawa Street South. The 1908 rev. 1947 Fire Insurance Plan notes that the northerly portion of the building (referred to in this report as Section 'A') remains, and that a larger building has been added to the east. The records available at the City of Kitchener Public Library are only available in black and white and the details of this map are difficult to decipher. Sections'B' and 'C' of the building appear to both have November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 124 Page 232 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener been constructed by this date (at some point between 1925 and 1947). The Fire Insurance Plan notes that the facility is known as the 'Onward Mfg. Co., Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co. Ltd'. Several additional buildings have been added north of the building, including single -detached residences, a soda water company, and a brass and aluminum foundry. Dwellings and small businesses have been added east of the subject lands towards Ottawa Street. According to a review of aerial photographs of the subject lands dated 1945, 1955, and 1965, the subject lands appear to have changed little during these eras. By 1945 the area was built-up with commercial, retail, and residential buildings. The tree -lined boulevard is easily distinguished to the north, along Onward Avenue. The building located at 1027 King Street East becomes more easily distinguished in the 1955 and 1965 aerial photos (See Figures 15 — 17). Figure 13: 1945 Aerial Photograph noting approximate location of the building located at 1027 King Street East. (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 125 Page 233 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 14: 1955 Aerial Photograph noting approximate location of the building located at 1027 King Street East. (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library, 2018) Figure 15: 1965 Aerial Photograph noting approximate location of the building located at 1027 King Street East. (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library, 2018). November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 126 Page 234 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 4.2 Landscape The subject lands are comprised of structures related to commercial, retail, residential uses. This includes businesses related to the automobile industry along King Street East. One residential building is located to the south, fronting Charles Street East at 534 Charles Street East. A residential building was previously located at 542 Charles Street East, but was demolished at some point between 2016 and 2017. The building located at 1027 King Street East is set -back approximately 24 metres from the property line at King Street East. The eastern portion of the building extends all the way to the property line at Charles Street East. The western half of the building is set -back approximately 10 metres from the rear property line. A parking lot is located at the front of the lot adjacent to King Street East. No natural features or plantings are located on the property at 1027 King Street East. The rear yards of 534 Charles Street East appears to have formerly included open landscaped space associated with the residential dwelling. 4.3 Description of Built Heritage Resources The building located at 1027 King Street East is comprised of six different parts referred to in this report as Sections'A','B (i)','B (ii),'C','D', and 'E'. Section Description Approx. Date of Construction A 3 storey brick building Between 1914-1916 B (i) 3 storey Art Deco style in -fill Between 1925 and 1947 B (h) Art Deco "tower" Between 1925 and 1947 C Single storey addition Between 1925 and 1947 Single Storey loading bay 2nd half 20th Century E Outbuilding/Garage 2111 half 2011 Century November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 127 Page 235 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener IF 41111111111" Figure 16: Aerial photo of the subject lands noting different sections of 1027 King Street East (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2018) 4.3.1 Exterior North Elevation The north elevation includes the front facade of Sections'A','B', and 'Cof the building. Section 'A' (to the west) includes a main floor (slightly below grade), as well as a second and third storey above. The north elevation displays three bays of vertical windows which have been altered from their original appearance to include contemporary windows with dark tinted spandrel glass. The north elevation of Section'B' is an Art Deco style tower that was the original main entrance and includes a staircase that provides access to the upper floors. This portion of the building has been altered, but retains most of its original features including the staircase and windows. The north elevation of Section'C(to the east) has been altered. This building formerly displayed a brickfacade with two sets of 8 rectangular -shaped windows across the front of the building. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 128 Page 236 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener —" au TO PARTS �p J i11ItItII� Emma l - � Figures 17 & 18: (left) View of north elevation looking south-west from south side of King Street East, (right) View of north elevation looking south from north side of King Street East (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 19 & 20: (left) Detail view of north elevation (Section 'C) looking south-west from south side of King Street East, (right) Detail view of north elevation (Section 'B') looking south from south side of King Street East (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figure 21: (left) Detail view of north elevation (Section 'A') looking south-west from south side of King Street East (Source: MHBC, 2018) November 2022, updated January 2024 MHBC 129 Page 237 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener East Elevation The east elevation has been significantly altered, where all original industrial -style building windows have been stuccoed or parged over. Figures 22 & 23: (left) View of east elevation looking south-west from laneway (right) View of east A elevation looking north-west from north side of Charles Street East (Source: MHBC, 2018) South Elevation The south elevation provides views of the rear facades of Sections 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E'. The rear of Section 'A' has a small cinder block addition (constructed at some point in the second half of the 20th century) and includestwo large loading -bays. Section 'B'(single storey brick structure) includes a flat roof and one boarded -up window opening. Section'Chas a very shallow pitched gabled roof (which appears almost flat) and displays two small boarded -up window openings just below the roof, with four large boarded -up rectangular -shaped window openings below. While Section 'D' displays cinder block construction, the rear of Sections 'B' and 'C' appear to include painted red brick. The existing single storey garage/outbuilding constructed of cinder blocks and displays a flat roof and garage door at the south elevation. This structure as well as Section 'D' are 20th century additions to the site and are not of cultural heritage value or interest. Figures 24 & 25: (left) View of south elevation looking north from south side of Charles Street East (right) View of south elevation looking north from south side of Charles Street East (Source: MHBC, 2018) November 2022, updated January 2024 MHBC 130 Page 238 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener West Elevation The west elevation is primarily the side facade of Section 'A'. The building originally displayed 5 bays of very large windows spanning the second and third storeys. These windows have been partially bricked -over and portions of the windows now include contemporary block -style glass. Figures 26 & 27: (left) View of west elevation looking south-east (right) Detail view of west elevation looking south-east (Source: MHBC, 2018) 4.3.2 Interior The following provides a description of the interior of Sections 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Only Section 'A' includes a basement. It is important to note that the floors of Sections'A','B' and 'C' do not match - up. Section 'C' appears to have originally been accessed by Section 'B'. Section 'B' of the building (ground floor portion running north -south towards Charles Street) appears to be part of Section 'C'. Section'A' — Basement The basement of Section 'A' is currently used as a staff room and storage. The basement includes remnants of original heating/cooling components such as the boiler and coal oven. A ramp is provided in the basement of Section 'A' providing access to Section 'C'(See Figure 34). November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 131 Page 239 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figures 28 & 29: (left) View of entrance to basement (right) View of basement storage room, looking south (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 30 & 31: (left) Detail view of exposed foundation material (right) Detail view of typical wood column and structural framing (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 32 & 33: (left) View of basement noting floor and wall materials (right) View of basement, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 132 Page 240 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 34: (left) View basement in Section'A', looking west towards ramp providing access to main floor of Section 'C(Source: MHBC, 2018) Section'A' — Second/Main Floor The main floor of Section 'A' is not at ground level. Instead, it is elevated above the ground level above the basement. The second floor of Section 'A' has been altered to include partitioned walls to function as office space. The building has been carpeted and re -finished with 20th century materials. It is important to note that the ceiling provides evidence of considerable fire damage, where the ceiling in several places has been scorched black. Figures 35 & 36: (left) View of second storey of Structure'A' looking south (right) View of partitioned walls and hallway in Structure'A', looking north (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 133 Page 241 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figures 37 & 38: (left) View of room at north-west corner noting ceiling damage„ (right) Detail view of room in second storey noting ceiling damage (Source: MHBC, 2018) IRR Figures 39 & 40: (left) Detail view of ceiling and fire damage, second storey, (right) Detail view of former staircase leading to third storey (blocked off and decommissioned) (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 41 &42: (left) View of mid. century kitchenette at the rear of second storey (right) Detail view of contemporary bathroom at the rear of Section 'A' (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 134 Page 242 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Section W— Third Floor The third floor provides views of rooms which have been partitioned for office space. The rooms have been re -finished and original finished have been removed. Figures 43 & 44: (left) View of typical room in third storey, looking north, (right) Detail view of typical room in third storey, looking north-west (Source: MHBC, 2018) mI_,MM is m I - 1 a a -lima -%gum _IW la_ Figures 45 &46: (left) View of typical room in third storey, (right) View of property south of Charles Street East, looking south from roof of Structure 'D', (Source: MHBC, 2018) Section 'B' — Ground Floor The ground floor of Section 'B'is the main entrance and access to the staircase. The floor is tile with the 'Eureka' brand name in the tile. November 2022, updated January 2024 MHBC 135 Page 243 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figures 47 & 48: (left) View of'Eu reka'tile in ground floor of Section 'B', (right) Detail view of retail display case, looking west Source: MHBC, 2018) Section 'B'— Second and Third Floor This portion of Section 'B' facilitates as a staircase only and provides access to the roof. This portion of the building provides evidence of water damage, including peeling paint, mold and rot. Figures 49 & 50: (left) View of staircase looking towards main floor from third floor (right) Detail view of access to roof noting damage due to water egress, looking west (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figure 51: (left) View of staircase looking towards second storey from ground floor (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 136 Page 244 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Section 'C' Section 'Cis one room used as a retail area, with open concept storage areas towards the rear. The interior of the building has been altered and provides little evidence of its construction date. The roof may have been altered as it now appears to be contemporary metal roofing. All original windows have either been removed and replaced with contemporary windows or been bricked - over. Figures 52 & 53: (left) View interior of north elevation, looking north towards retail showroom (right) View of storage rooms behind the retail showroom area, looking north along east elevation wall (Source: MHBC, 2018) Figures 54 & 55: (left) Detail view of roof structure at the rear of Structure 'C', looking west (right) View of ramp providing access to basement of Section W, looking west (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 137 Page 245 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figures 56 & 57: (left) View rear storage rooms, looking east (right) View of narrow hallway of Section 'B' to the left, with retail area within Section 'Cto the right (Source: MHBC, 2018) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 138 Page 246 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 5.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources 5.1 Evaluation Criteria Ontario Regulation 9/06 prescribes that that: A property may be designated under section 29 of theAct if it meets two or more or the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest.- The nterest. The property has design value or physical value because it, 7. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, 2. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or 3. a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, 4. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, 5. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to on understanding of a community or culture, or 6. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The property has contextual value because it 7. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, 8. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or 9. is a landmark. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 139 Page 247 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 5.2 1027 King Street East The property located at 1027 King Street East can be described as a roughly rectangular -shaped lot with frontage on King Street East and frontage on Charles Street East. The property contains an industrial building which is comprised of different sections, described in this report as'A', B','C', and 'D'. The building also includes a small single storey garage to the south of the industrial building described in this report as Building 'E'. Sections 'D' and 'E' were constructed in the second half of the 201h century of cinder block construction, and these structures are not of significant cultural heritage value or interest and are not included in the following sub -sections of this report. 5.2.1 Evaluation of Design/Physical Value The property located at 1027 King Street East has modest design/physical value. The original portion of the building (section 'A') can be described as a brick industrial building constructed c.1916 by Thomas A. Witzel. The building was constructed for the Onward Manufacturing Company. Additions were constructed between 1925 and 1947. Section 'A' can be described as a common industrial style building and includes architectural features (such as large windows) which are common in the Edwardian period. Views of the building from the public realm compared to the early 20th century photograph of the building demonstrate that the building has been altered and had some original building fabric removed. All windows have been altered or replaced and the exterior has been parged and painted. Section 'B' of the structure was constructed in the Art Deco style and includes features indicative of this period. This includes multiple windows and geometric shapes, as well as a portico and display area at the main entrance. Some elements of Section 'B' remain, but have been altered. Section 'C'was constructed at some point between 1925 and 1947 and likely housed the 'Eureka' Vacuum manufacturing shops. All windows at the north elevation have been replaced and the entire building has been painted. All industrial -style windows with multiple lights along the east facade have been parged over. Only Section 'B' may be considered representative of the Art Deco style of architecture as the majority of its attributes remain. The building is not considered early, rare, and does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. It is important to note that a visual inspection of Building 'A' shows evidence of considerable damage as the result of a fire which occurred at an unknown date. It is unknown whether or not the extent of these damages affects the structural stability of the building and how this has an impact on potential retention of the building. 5.2.2 Evaluation of Historical or Associative Value The building located at 1027 King Street East has cultural heritage value primarily vested in its historic use as the Onward Manufacturing Co. facility from 1916 to the 1980s. The building is also November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 140 Page 248 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener associated with Theodore A. Witzel and family as owners and managers. The company was known for manufacturing and selling vacuums under the brand names Eureka and Triumph. The company manufactured ammunition for the Second World War, and went on to expand business to include barbeques, now known as Broil King and Stirling. The property is not likely to have the potential to yield further information that contributes to the community. The architect or builder is unknown. 5.2.3 Evaluation of Contextual Value The property located at 1027 King Street East has limited contextual value. The building remains in its original location in-situ and does not demonstrate a significant functional or physical connection to the subject lands or the surrounding landscape. The existing building at 1027 King Street East terminates a view at the intersection of King Street East Onward Avenue (i.e. looking south from Onward Avenue towards the front facade of the building.) While this view remains available, the front facade of the building and front yard amenity area has been considerably altered. The photograph of the building dated to the early 19th century demonstrates the building originally included a fenced -in open landscaped area to the north fronting King Street. This would have provided a complementary setting for the building and has since been removed and replaced with a parking lot. The City of Kitchener Statement of Significance for the property at 1027 King Street East (See Appendix B) identifies that'The original building is located directly across from Onward Avenue resulting in a clear view down Onward Avenue towards the front facade of the original building. It is clear that the original architect and builder considered the importance of siting the building directly across from Onward Avenue." 5.2.4 Heritage Attributes Section 'A': • 3 storey scale and massing with original brick construction and flat roof; The existing windows at all elevations are not considered to be heritage attributes as they have been altered or replaced. Section 'B': • 3 storey massing with multiple -light windows spanning the second and third storeys; • Geometric details and roof shape near the roofline which is indicative of the Art Deco architectural style; • Large glass showroom at ground level; • Gold and glass retail storefront and main entrance; November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 141 Page 249 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener While the existing pillar and portico structure remain, they have been altered are not considered heritage attributes. Section 'C': • Single storey massing with very shallow pitched roof gable; and • Arrangement of window openings, have 2 horizontal sets of 8 bays separated by bricks within a rectangular -shaped frame. The existing windows at all elevations have not been identified as heritage attributes as they have been considerably altered or replaced. Views: • View of 1027 King Street (front facade) looking south-east along Onward Avenue. 5.6 Summary of Evaluation A summary of the evaluation of cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 is provided below in chart form. While the property meets certain criteria for cultural heritage significance, the heritage value of the property is modest. The cultural heritage value of the building is vested primarily in its historical associations with the operations of the Onward Manufacturing Co. and the Witzel family. Ontario Regulation 9/06 1027 King Street East (Sections 'A', '13', and 'C') 1. Design/Physical Value i. Rare, unique, representative Only section 'B' is considered representative of a or early example of a style, particular architectural style (Art Deco). All other type, expression, material or portions of the building (Sections 'A' and 'C') have construction method been extensively altered and features have been removed. As a result, Sections 'A' and 'C' have not retained their heritage integrity and are not considered representative of a particular architectural style. ii. Displays high degree of No. craftsmanship or artistic merit iii. Demonstrates high degree of No. technical or scientific achievement 2. Historical/associative value i. Direct associations with a Yes. Directly associated with the Onward theme, event, belief, person, Manufacturing Co. from approximately 1914 to at November2022, updoted-lanuary2024 MHBC 142 Page 250 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener activity, organization, institution that is significant ii. Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. 3. Contextual value i. Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area ii. Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings iii. Is a landmark November 2022, updated January 2024 least the 1980s Witzel. No. Also associated with Theodore A. Unknown. The architect of the building (and its various additions) is unknown, but could be added to the historic record should the information become available in the future. 1►n Yes. The view of the property looking south along Onward Avenue has been identified as a view of cultural heritage value or interest in the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. No. MHBC 143 Page 251 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 6.0 Description of Proposed Development 6.1 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development of the subject lands includes the demolition of all buildings and structures to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development. The development consists of an 11 and 29 storey 1 -shaped" residential apartment tower with a 4 storey podium, with a proposed floor space ration (FSR) of 8.1. A total of 514 rental apartment units are proposed. A total of 372 parking spaces are provided. A copy of Site Plans and Elevations are provided in Appendix A of this report. November2022, updotedJanuory2024 MHBC 144 Page 252 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 58: Site Plan (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2023) November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 145 Page 253 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 59: Rendering of Proposed Development (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2023) The proposed new building has been designed to consider the positive and negative space of the existing building and incorporate these into the design of the podium (See Figure 60). The proposed Art Deco mural, Eureka sign, and memory wall will be visible from the Onward Axis. An analysis of the view from Onward Avenue is provided in Section 7.2.4 of this report. November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 146 Page 254 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Q (0 I E 4LA O NORTH ELEVATVDN Figure 60: Rendering of Proposed Development looking south from Onward Avenue towards front elevation of the Podium, (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2023) The proposed development includes features which commemorates the history of the site. The development includes an Art Deco inspired mural at the north, east, and south elevations of the podium (See Figures 59 - 61). The mural commemorates the "Art Deco Tower" portion of the existing building which is proposed for removal. November 2022, updated January 2024 MHBC 147 Page 255 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 61: Rendering of Proposed Development and Art Deco Mural (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2023) Public commemoration of the site is proposed through the installation of a large "Memorial Wall" at the entrance to the podium (See Figure 62). The memorial wall includes information of the history of the site and it's evolution over time with photographs and images. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 148 Page 256 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Figure 62: Detail rendering of proposed Onward Memorial Wall. (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2022) The development also proposes to salvage elements of the Art Deco Tower to commemorate the site at the interior of the proposed lobby area. This includes salvaging and re -purposing a) original Eureka tile, b) windows and door elements, and c) the existing metal column (See Figure 63 and Appendix A). EUREKA MEMORY STAND itepurpose Existing i-iistnrical 130ding Elements Fa Proposed Lobby-. ew.a„ "l—o- 1i l-, 1 --------------- n:/W.rtrowa twaknc ;v v f, rnm�en nae, ------------------------------- ------'^__.- ,_-___.-------- 'Cr` r r �lf Figure 63: Proposed Eureka Memory Stand at the Interior of the Proposed Lobby. (Source: NEO Architecture Inc., 2022) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 149 Page 257 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 7,01mpacts of Proposed Development 7.1 Classifications of Impacts The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may occur over a short or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. According to the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, the following constitutes negative impacts which may result of a proposed development: • Destruction; • Alteration; • Shadows; • Isolation; • Direct or indirect obstruction; • A change in land use; and • Land disturbances. The above noted adverse impacts will be considered as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment. 7.2 Impacts of the Proposed Development on 1027 King Street East 7.2.1 Demolition of Section 'A' The proposed development includes the demolition of Section 'A' of the existing industrial building. This section of the building is the original location of the Onward Manufacturing Co. building constructed at some point between 1914 and 1916. The building was constructed in a vernacular industrial architectural style as a 3 storey red brick building. The evaluation of this building has concluded that the building does not demonstrate significant design/physical value and has lost its heritage integrity. Section 'A' is not considered a rare, unique, or early form of construction in Ontario. The building was constructed in a vernacular industrial style which is well represented throughout Kitchener. While the building would have been considered representative of the vernacular industrial architectural style, the considerable alterations to the building over the November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 150 Page 258 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener years have resulted in the loss of the majority of its heritage attributes. Therefore, the proposed demolition of the building is considered a negligible impact. 7.2.2 Demolition of Section 'B' (i & ii) The proposed development includes the demolition of Section'B' of the existing industrial building. This HIA concludes that Section 'B' was an addition to the original Section 'A' of the building and was constructed at some point between 1925 and 1947. The building has design/physical value for its construction in the Art Deco style of architecture. While the tower and its window arrangement has been retained, the ground floor podium has been altered. However, the majority of heritage attributes have been retained. According to the early 2011 century photo of this portion of the building, the podium included a delicate roof overhang which displayed the 'EUREKA' company name. It is important to note that the existing gold retail display window and door arrangement is also original. Section 'B' is considered a representative example of the Art Deco architectural style. Buildings in the Art Deco style are not common and there are few representative examples known in Kitchener which have been retained and conserved. Therefore, the demolition of Section 'B' is considered an adverse impact as it would result in the permanent removal of a building which has design/physical value and has retained its heritage integrity and is considered a representative example of the Art Deco architectural style employed for an industrial setting and purpose. 7.2.3. Demolition of Section 'C' The proposed development includes the demolition of Section 'C' of the existing industrial building. Section 'C' was an addition to the original portion of the building, constructed at some point between 1925 and 1947. The building appears to have been constructed as a single storey red brick industrial vernacular building, previously having multiple -light windows along the entire east elevation. The existing window arrangement at the north elevation reflects the original, but has been substantially altered to the extent which it no longer communicates its original design. All original windows of the building have either been replaced (as with the north elevation) or covered -over. This portion of the building has retained its original scale and massing but is altered to the extent that it has lost much of its heritage integrity and is no longer a representative example of the vernacular industrial architectural style. The demolition of Section 'C' of the building is considered a negligible impact as it does not have significant design/physical value. 7.2.4 Alteration of Identified View The City of Kitchener Statement of Significance for the property at 1027 King Street East (See Appendix B) identifies that'The original building is located directly across from Onward Avenue resulting in a clear view down Onward Avenue towards the front facade of the original building. It November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 151 Page 259 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener is clear that the original architect and builder considered the importance of siting the building directly across from Onward Avenue." The following provides a comparison between existing views and those which would be available should the proposed new building be constructed. Existing views along Onward Avenue are terminated by the existing building located on the subject property. While the termination of the view would change, the proposed new building continues to provide a focus at the terminus of the view. The proposed new building includes the construction of a podium which has elements of positive and negative space, as well as horizontal and vertical arrangements which have been inspired by the existing building (See Figure 60 and Appendix A). The new views along Onward Avenue would be terminated by the portion of the podium which features the "Eureka" sign and Memory Wall (See Figures 66 & 68 below). Figures 65 & 66: (left) View of 1027 King Street East looking south-east from Onward Avenue, as existing; (right) Rendering of proposed development of the subject lands (front elevation) looking south-east from Onward Avenue. (Source: MHBC, 2021;NEO Architecture Inc., 2022) Figures 67 & 68: (left) View of 1027 King Street East looking south-east from Onward Avenue, as existing; Rendering of proposed development on the subject lands (front elevation) looking south-east from Onward Avenue. (Source: MHBC, 2021;NEO Architecture Inc., 2022) November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 152 Page 260 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 7.3 Summary of Impact Analysis As per the review provided above, the demolition of Sections'A' and 'C' of the building constitute a neutral impact. The demolition of Section 'B' is considered an adverse impact as it is the only portion of the building which has design/physical value and has retained its heritage integrity. The building (including sections 'A', 'B', and 'C') has historical associations with the Onward Manufacturing Co. which operated from 1916 to about 1980 and Theodore A. Witzel. The building (including Sections 'A','B', and 'Q has been identified in this report as being the only feature of cultural heritage value or interest on the subject lands. The context and surrounding landscape of the building has changed considerably over the years. As demonstrated with a review of early 201h century photographs, Fire Insurance Plans, and aerial photographs, the setting and context has changed and evolved over the years. The existing building appears to have been the only factory located on the block surrounded by King Street East, Ottawa Street South, Charles Street East, and Borden Ave up until approximately the 1940s/1 950s era. The block slowly began to develop with additional single detached residences, factories/industrial buildings, and other retail/service/commercial buildings usually associated with the automotive industry. The early 201h century photograph of the building depicting Sections 'A','B', and 'C' demonstrate that the north portion of the lot fronting King Street included landscaped open space surrounded by a fence. The demolition of the building is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to the existing context and setting. The building has also been identified as part of the Onward Avenue potential Cultural Heritage Landscape' as an example of a 1920s era neighbourhood subdivision designed to co -exist with the automobile. The character defining features of the landscape are listed as including the boulevard along Onward Avenue and Crescent Avenue, curved and linear streets, mature trees, and residential and institutional buildings (including those of the Arts and Crafts style). The Onward Manufacturing Co. building is not specifically identified as a heritage attribute or character defining feature of the landscape. However, the existing building provides a termination to the view when looking south along Onward Avenue. The City of Kitchener CHL Study suggests that the placement of the building implies an intent to create the terminus of a view. The new building will not change any features of the Onward neighbourhood or the street. Instead, it will change the terminus of the view which is currently available. This is considered a negligible impact, provided that any new building continue to provide a view terminus. 1 City Staff have confirmed that the boundary of the Onward Avenue CHL are likely to be revised, and may result in the exclusion of the subject property. November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 153 Page 261 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 8,OConsideration of Development Alternatives, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Recommendations 8.1 Alternative Development Approaches The following have been identified as a range of development alternatives that may be considered as part of the heritage planning process. They have been listed in order from least to greatest impact on cultural heritage resources. 8.1.1 Do nothing This option would result in the continued vacancy of the majority of the subject lands and would retain the existing structures located along King Street and Charles Street East, including that of the various 'listed' properties on the subject lands. This option would preclude the redevelopment of the property. 8.1.2 Develop the site while retaining all buildings This option results in the retention of all portions of the building located at 1027 King Street East. As this Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that the demolition of Sections'A' and 'C' is considered a neutral impact, the retention of these portions of the building is not necessary. The demolition of Section 'B' of the building would constitute an adverse impact as it would result in the demolition of a portion of the building which has design/physical value. The option to retain all of the building located at 1027 King Street East is not recommended as it would not contribute to a greater understanding of the community. Retaining portions of the building which have lost their original heritage attributes and heritage integrity would not result in good conservation best practices. 8.1.3 Develop the site while retaining a portion of the buildings This option would result in demolishing portions of the existing building and retaining others for the purpose of retention and conservation over the long-term. This Heritage Impact Assessment has demonstrated that Section 'B' is the only portion of the existing building which has retained its November2022, updotedJanuary2024 MHBC 154 Page 262 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener heritage integrity. This option would include the demolition of sections Wand 'C' while retaining and appropriately restoring Section 'B'to its original design quality. This option would result in the abilityto proceed with redevelopment while retaining a portion of the existing building.This would also allow for the retention of a design feature which would complement views of the property looking south along Onward Avenue. If this development alternative is selected, it is recommended that the building be appropriately conserved and restored so that original attributes remain. This alternative would result in less impacts to cultural heritage resources given that the portion of the site with its cultural heritage integrity intact could be restored. In order to determine whether or not this alternative was a viable option, a structural assessment was undertaken by Strik, Baldinelli and Monix on in June 22, 2021. A copy of the structural assessment is provided in Appendix C of this report. The structural assessment provided valuable input into determining the preferred alternative going forward. The structural assessment determined that "Due to the age and materials of the tower, it would be incredibly difficult for the existing structure to comply with such [building] codes." This is primarily due to the following: a) Confirmation has been provided in the structural report that the existing tower structure relies on adjacent buildings for structural stability. The structural report states that, "...we are fairly certain that the stair tower framing is supported by the existing building at the foundation, main floor, second floor and roof level". Should this portion of the building be retained in its existing location or re -located on-site, it would need to be altered to comply with current OBC standards. The structural report identifies that "...likely large steel structural steel columns and bracing would be required." Further, that other alterations, including the temporary modification or removal of the existing stairs would also be likely. The structural report identifies that the facade of the tower may be changed after construction resulting from both temporary and permanent bracing. Therefore, the existing components of the tower would likely need to be substantially changed if the building were to be retained. b) The use of hollow clay bocks in the construction of the tower also leads to difficulty in plans for retaining the structure. The structural report identifies that the clay blocks would have been manufactured before current codes which prescribe the compressive strength of masonry units and are likely in a shape/form which is no longer manufactured. The strength of the existing masonry would have to be tested. The structural report concludes that the existing tower is not acceptable as a stand-alone structure as it does not meet key building code and structural requirements. As a result, retaining the tower, or even a portion of the facade of the tower may not be feasible or alternatively, would result in a tower which has been substantially altered. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 155 Page 263 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 8.2 Mitigation Recommendations The following provides a list of mitigation recommendations in regards to the proposed development which includes the demolition of all buildings and structures on the property of cultural heritage value or interest located at 1027 King Street East: • Submission of a Documentation Report which includes: o Photographic descriptions and photo maps of the property and sections'A','B', and 'C' of the building. Further mitigation has also taken place, and a Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Plan has been submitted to the City of Kitchener in 2023. November2022, updotedJanuory2024 MHBC 156 Page 264 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 9. 0 Recommendations and Conclusions The building located on the subject property has historical associations with the Onward Manufacturing Co. and Theodore A. Witzel. While this is true, its historical associations are modest. While the building is associated with a business that operated throughout the 201h century, it is not unlike many manufacturing businesses in the City. Documentation and commemoration measures are incorporated into the development proposal to interpret the historical value of the site to the general public. This Heritage Impact Assessment has determined that the demolition of Sections'A' and 'C' of the building constitute a negligible impact as these portions of the building have lost their design/physical value and heritage integrity due to unsympathetic alterations. The demolition of Section 'B' is considered an adverse impact as it is the only portion of the building which has design/physical value and has retained its heritage integrity. The proposed design of the new building podium includes elements of the "Onward Axis" using positive and negative space, as well as horizontal and vertical lines. The building also includes a Memory Wall and "Eureka" sign at the King Street East frontage. Further, the interior of the building includes commemoration and elements of the original Art Deco tower will be salvaged and interpreted. The building has been identified as part of the Onward Avenue potential Cultural Heritage Landscape' as an example of a 1920s era neighbourhood subdivision designed to co -exist with the automobile. The Onward Manufacturing Co. building is not specifically identified as a heritage attribute or character defining feature of the landscape. However, views of the existing building are provided looking south-east along Onward Avenue and serve as the terminus of the view. The redevelopment of the site will result in changes to this view while ensuring that a terminus continues to be provided along Onward Avenue. The proposed design and siting are appropriate and is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts which require mitigation recommendations. Should the building be removed, the following mitigation measures are recommended: • Submission of a Documentation Report which includes: o Photographic descriptions and photo maps of the property and the various sections of the building. Z City Staff have confirmed that the boundary of the Onward Avenue CHL are likely to be revised, and may result in the exclusion of the subject property. November2022, updatedJanuary2024 MHBC 157 Page 265 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Further mitigation has also taken place, and a Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Plan has been submitted to the City of Kitchener in 2023. No further mitigation recommendations are necessary. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 158 Page 266 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener 10 e 0 Sources Bloomfield, Elizabeth and Linda Foster. Waterloo County Councillors: A Collective Biography. Caribout Imprints, 1995. Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms 1874 to the Present. Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Study, 2006. City of Kitchener. Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan, 2007. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History ofEorlySettlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and Kennedth McLaughlin. Kitchener. -An Illustrated History. Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Government of Canada. Parks Canada. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2010. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County. -An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. Heritage Resources Centre. Ontario Architectural Style Guide. University of Waterloo, 2009. Mills, rych. Kitchener (Berlin) 1880-1960. Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. InfoSheet#5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, 2006 Moyer, Bill. Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd., 1979. n/a. Busy Berlin, Jubilee Souvenir. 1897. Ontario Ministry of Culture. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process, InfoSheet #2, Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Queens Printer for Ontario, 2006. Uttley, W.V. (Ben), A History of Kitchener, Ontario. The Chronicle Press: Kitchener, 1937. November2022, updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 159 Page 267 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener W. V. Uttley and Gerald Noonan. A History of Kitchener., Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1975. November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 160 Page 268 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Appendix A Site Plan, Elevations, Views Analysis (next page) November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 161 Page 269 of 426 i a£i i �i .. .. .,,..,.,. 77 :r---- y o - �.� --------------------------- --- W Q�ZF°� oVarir •� w :- - i + � �n a a — oa¢§W'scr, Oa�M- - M+ Fz„ Q e s i a£i i �i .. .. 77 :r---- y o - �.� --------------------------- --- :- - i �n a — a s e s SIA to O H I h Jwc, -Q�m�3 N 1 d CL Q O pCD cL cE CD CD �� o 1_ i !, i zi xl i a£i i �i .. .. DN J06 0861 ~ 9961 C 61-MLL C 6l 4Z61i 161 4161 11/3^ 61 4061UL 11 t 15 1F l■ 'ib v ■ill' :: ! N § b 1 , : in ly. , Ai | $ |l: \§ kfr 37® ? &I3a! !mak \ \\i - Q),6 - E=)3 - , 0 Et5 \ . .� b+® ° )§;® =oe2 � » \ � .� � : � u I ){\ I I I I I )}\�/ } .-s d d �i1 rs .o ra re ro am mm me .m ms .a ao .o .o _m oo mm mn w w# wx o - T T— — — — — — — 44- 4 -k -T -T -IT -T -I "- L4 TN- - - - - - - - - - - - - TTTT]TTTTT-m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --T P -T-----------T �1fifiTTT-T- - --- ?m ,HHHHHHH- o- jam ------ E.1 = T -Flj --O :1� %li i i i li 41r, F_rill II_ I_ r-1 rll I q11II I z 0 Flo w� 11 11 1 111 lN0 0-2 �i1 rs .o ra re ro am mm me .m ms .a ao .o .o _m oo mm mn w w# wx o - T T— — — — — — — 44- 4 -k -T -T -IT -T -I "- L4 TN- - - - - - - - - - - - - TTTT]TTTTT-m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --T P -T-----------T �1fifiTTT-T- - --- ?m ,HHHHHHH- o- jam ------ E.1 = T -Flj --O :1� %li i i i li 41r, F_rill II_ I_ r-1 rll I q11II I z 0 Flo w� � I � 11 11 1 111 � I � Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Appendix B Terms of Reference and Statement of Significance, City of Kitchener (next page) November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 162 Page 276 of 426 City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division Heritage Impact Assessment Site Specific Terms of Reference 1001-1081 King St E, 14-22 Ottawa St S & 530-564 Charles St E 1.0 Background Subject Property The property municipally addressed as 1027 King Street East is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value and interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. A copy of the Statement of Significance is attached. The subject property is also located within the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood significant cultural heritage landscape (CHL). A data sheet describing this CHL is available online — www. kitchener.ca/cu lturaIheritagelandscapes. Proposed Development The site specific HIA terms of reference was prepared in response to the pre -submission consultation meeting held on January 11, 2018 for the properties municipally addressed as 1001-1081 King Street East, 14-22 Ottawa Street South and 530-564 Charles Street East. The terms of reference was prepared based on the pre -submission consultation application, which proposed the demolition of all buildings in order to construct a multi -phased mixed use development with 12 and 18 storey residential buildings and a 3-6 storey office/retail building. HIA Requirement The City of Kitchener requires the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of a complete Planning Act application (e.g. Site Plan) for the properties municipally addressed as 1001-1081 King Street East, 14-22 Ottawa Street South and 530-564 Charles Street East. The following site specific Terms of Reference shall be used to fulfil the condition regarding completion, approval and implementation of a HIA prior to the consideration of an application made under the Planning Act. A HIA is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within and adjacent to the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as Page 277 of 426 early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -application meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing of owners from the Land Registry Office, and a history of the site use(s). 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. The attached Statement of Significance for 1027 King Street East outlines the cultural heritage value and interest as well as an initial list of heritage attributes. In addition, the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study describes the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood cultural heritage landscape along with its cultural heritage value and heritage attributes. The report shall consider the cultural heritage value and heritage attributes in its evaluation of development options and the recommended appropriate level of conservation. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the properties shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties. In particular, the report shall consider the visual relationship between the Onward Avenue Neighbourhood significant cultural heritage landscape and the listed property at 1027 King Street East, including views down Onward terminating at the original building. Page 278 of 426 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. In particular, the report should consider an option with full retention of the original circa 1914 Industrial Vernacular building and the 1946 Art Deco influenced addition. 2.7 A summary of the heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport); and, the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. Since the preferred proposal is to demolish all existing buildings, the report must evaluate whether demolition is an acceptable level of conservation, and if so, clearly explain why demolition is acceptable based on heritage conservation principles (see 2.7 above). 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: ■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject properties. Based on recent proposals, negative impacts may include changes to the context, partial demolition and/or full demolition. ■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation Page 279 of 426 The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. The City has already confirmed that 1027 King Street East meets the City of Kitchener's criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for designation then it must be clearly stated as to why they do not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? 5.0 Approval Process Three (3) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, three (3) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to City staff. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. The applicant is encouraged to submit the report to Heritage Planning staff for review prior to submission of a complete Planning Act (e.g. Site Plan) application in order to prevent delays that may result due to insufficient review time and the need to consult the City's Heritage Kitchener committee. City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division Page 280 of 426 Conservation Plan - Terms of Reference I ntrnrh irtinn The following Terms of Reference shall be used to fulfill the condition regarding completion and approval of a Conservation Plan prior to the consideration of an application made under the Planning Act. The Conservation Plan shall address how the cultural heritage resources and attributes as identified and described in an approved Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. A Conservation Plan is a document which identifies the conservation principles appropriate for the type of cultural heritage resource/attributes being conserved; provides detailed documentation of the resource and its heritage attributes; includes an assessment of current 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. Policy Context Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement defines a built heritage resource as including resources listed by local jurisdictions. Significant is defined as resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Conserved is defined as meaning the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Conservation Plan Requirements • Present owner contact information for property proposed for development and/or alteration. • Identification of all cultural heritage resource(s) and a clear statement of their cultural heritage value and interest, including a bullet point list of their heritage attributes. • Identification of the conservation principles and guidelines to be applied for the type of heritage resource/attributes being conserved and the specific conservation work to be undertaken in order to repair, maintain and protect the heritage resources and attributes. These conservation principles and guidelines may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Page 281 of 426 Building Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and, the Ontario Ministry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). • An assessment of the current condition of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. The Conservation Plan must identify the physical condition and integrity of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes, with a view toward making recommendations regarding appropriate repair and maintenance, in keeping with good conservation practice. • Identification of the short, medium and long term vision for the conservation of the heritage resources, and of the specific conservation measures to be undertaken in the short, medium, and long-term. Such measures shall describe the documentation, stabilization, repair, monitoring and maintenance strategies required to be undertaken for each phase, and shall reference the qualifications for anyone responsible for undertaking such work. This section may include, but is not be limited to, the following: Short -Term Conservation Work • Documentation (through detailed description and photographs) of heritage attributes proposed to be demolished, removed, salvaged or otherwise irreversibly damaged. • Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to conserve heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further deterioration, damage and the potential loss of such attributes. • monitoring strategy to protect the property from vandalism or fire (e.g. methodology for monitoring; frequency of monitoring; and process to address issues that arise through monitoring). Medium -Term Conservation Work • Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to heritage attributes as part of the proposed development and/or rehabilitation (to include demolition, removal and salvage of heritage attributes; the stabilization, repair and cleaning of heritage attributes; and the reconstruction or replacement of heritage attributes). Such work may be divided into phases. Page 282 of 426 Long -Term Conservation Work • Identification of a monitoring program addressing appropriate measures for the ongoing maintenance of the heritage resources and attributes, post development/rehabilitation. • Provide a recommended schedule for conservation work, inspections, monitoring, maintenances and phases (short, medium, and long-term). • The Conservation Plan must include a cost estimate of the conservation work to be undertaken in the short-term to heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further damage and deterioration. Such cost estimate must be prepared by a qualified individual or consultant. In order to ensure implementation of the Conservation Plan, the City may require the owner to post a Letter of Credit equal to the value of the short-term conservation work as a condition of the approval of the subject application. • The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Conservation Plan shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Approval Process Five hard copies of the Conservation Plan and one electronic pdf format burned on disk shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies will be marked with a DRAFT watermark. The Conservation Plan will be reviewed by Heritage Planning staff and a recommendation will be made to the Director of Planning. Approval of the Conservation Plan by the Director of Planning is required prior to issuance of approval of the application. Approval of the Conservation Plan may result in the establishment of development related legal agreements or conditions of development approval. Statement of Significance 1027 KING STREET EAST Municipal Address: 1027 King Street East, Kitchener Legal Description: Plan 404 Lot 16 to 18 Lot 27 to 29 Part Lot 25 Year Built: 1914 Architectural Style: Art Deco Original Owner: Onward Manufacturing Company Limited Original Use: Institutional 983 991,995, 1001 1007 9015 520 528 530 534 1027 1051 1085 542 1081 ca s9r 584 14 O "V �L 22 1105 k? T� Page 283 of 426 Condition: Good Description of Historic Place 1027 King Street East was originally a two storey early 20th century building built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. Various additions and modifications have occurred to the building resulting in no single distinct architectural style. One interesting addition was the construction of a central tower addition, which is influenced by the Art Deco architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.76 acre parcel of land located on the south side of King Street East between Borden Avenue and Ottawa Street in the King East Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the original building and Art Deco addition. Heritage Value 1027 King Street East is recognized for its contextual, historical and associative values. The original building is representative of industrial vernacular architecture. The building is three bays wide by six bays deep. Three bays face both King Street East and Charles Street East. The main fagade is King Street East. The building features: brick construction; brick pilasters; large window openings; and, concrete headers and sills. The contextual value relates to the buildings location and design. The fagade of the original building is parallel to King Street East and is perpendicular to Onward Avenue. The original building is located directly across from Onward Avenue resulting in a clear view down Onward Avenue towards the front fagade of the original building. It is clear that the original architect and builder considered the importance of siting the building directly across from Onward Avenue. The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the building as well as the architect of the 1946 addition. The original owner was Theodore Adam Witzel of the Onward Manufacturing Company Limited. In 1906, Mr. Witzel's company became the first in Canada to manufacture and sell hand vacuum sweepers and electric vacuum cleaners under the trade names of Onward and Triumph. The company was renamed Onward Manufacturing Company Limited in 1908. In 1908 a second company, The Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Company, was established. The vacuums were manufactured in the US while the Onward Manufacturing Company Limited focused on product distribution throughout Canada. The plant opened at 1027 King Street East, Kitchener, in 1914. The Eureka and Onward companies were amalgamated under the name Onward Manufacturing Company Limited in 1924. After the war, the company expanded to manufacture cabinet and utility hardware in 1946. Mr. Witzel died in 1948 and his son Theodore Andrew Witzel Senior (1918-1995) became the President. The company continued to grow between 1949 and 1960 with the introduction of home appliance distribution. In 1966, National Union Electric Corporation of Stamford, Connecticut purchased 80% of the Eureka vacuum cleaner and appliance distribution division as well as the name Onward Manufacturing Company Limited. T.A. Witzel, Sr. remained President of Onward Manufacturing Limited until his resignation in 1974. He retained ownership and was President of Onward Hardware Limited for the manufacturing and selling of cabinet and general hardware and developed another Company he owned known as Tawco Limited for commercial cleaning equipment distribution and franchising coin operated laundry and dry cleaning stores. Vernon's Directory records suggest that the business operated at 1027 King Street East for approximately 67 years until 1981. Around that time, Onward Hardware began to manufacture fireplace inserts and charcoal water smokers and an appliance retail division (now known as T.A. Appliance Warehouse) was established at 932 Victoria Street North, Kitchener. T.A. Witzel Senior passed away in 1995 and the company is now owned and operated by his three sons. The company Page 284 of 426 was divided into three separate companies in 2000. The barbecue division adopted the original name "Onward Manufacturing Company Limited", the hardware division became "Onward Cluthe Hardware Products Inc.", and the appliance division became "TA Appliance Inc." All three companies continue to operate. The architects of the 1946 addition to the building at 1027 King Street East were William Stuart Jenkins and Sherman W. Wright. Jenkins and Wright were best known for their designs of municipal arena complexes in several Ontario towns and for the restoration in 1952 of `Woodside' the home of William Lyon Mackenzie King. Jenkins and Wright were the architects for the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1027 King Street East resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style of the building, including: o Roof and roofline; o Large window openings, including concrete headers and sills; and, o Brick construction, including brick pilasters; ■ All elements related to the context, including the relationship of the original building to King Street and Onward Avenue. Photo 1027 King Street East (King Street Elevation Page 285 of 426 N 4- 0 co N N O1 rn 0 0 ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ > ❑ } v } v } N w ❑ > E w w w } 0 } u > } v 0 v z o Ll ❑ z oz z Z W O z O z O z cm -I o OV LlLlD ❑ w 0 Z Ll Ll_ 0 Ll Ll Llc o Ln 3 3 ° 3 ° ❑ O Y Y O O Y O O GT O C F Q C = O _ C _ m D Y O O Y O O Y O O D -O 0) D Ll {n D D D Y O w Ll Ll ❑ Q O Ll W z ¢ Ll Ll z z z z z ? Q z LlZ Z Q E ❑ ; Z zLlw ❑ 0 LU w 0 0 0 0 0 0 z ❑ 0 z 0 z 0 ° w ° w O O z z o z O z O z z ❑ w LlLl❑ ❑ O0 0 0 Ll °c° Ll Ll Ll Ll 3 3 3 c 0 p 3 LUc c c c O c w C Y C C Y N 0 0 C 0 C ° Y C D O O Y C D O D w O Y Y C Y C O y Ll LlLlw LlQ ❑ n N bn Ll LlQ o .2 0)Z Q z Q Y Ll Ll Q Z Z z z p Q Q Q z v c w o z Z z V vi LL m m Z Lj bn CL - N Ll E i N Op N+Nu7w+t pp0Np O m 0 E V E -rOLL Q Xw 6 tp wO '6 o L OEl 6mcuoo = iE L C w N O Ep ON V O -0 w N O Obn Op.. O w O w w ° V1 t= t -° V C t is N 27 C T S E > w t p V M1. c T t . i_ n C p O p .bn p O W p —c 0E i O V N t p O in v t V 2 p O w E w° p O_ v E-0 ' . iOai ®co twaoi N tiai m ° im wp w w o 0_ V TV .., rt'v+w t m c v O c ° {/ '6 W� V N tp b0 O ° > C ' VopM ivi o O O ja V N N c i°n t C O- ° w LL c C C V O_ v .++ '� O w -O 7 V1 N V O_ coCL a v '0-^ m- o y4ac ]` a v v O D o coo u o 9 O `o o p `o c D o° "" -" a 0 v 3 c — Y R O p C O m E w ti v 41- o° a+ k .>, Y `m o C Q cn a1 i O O p 2 i+ O C tw y m ti -0 5 o y w c `wv v i c CL E bn U U Q 0 LL 0 {n V S Z LL In U V {n J V LL S N 'IT 0 rl- m N ¢ 2 n � - E ° ` E : 7 E E > > > 3 6 : E E { Ll/ 3 z z Ll[ Ll> % / } : j [ Ll Ll Ll3 \ ` \ 0 0 \ - j / § § 2 § / / / j J % _ : / o : - § : : < \ < / : ) § z z < z 2 : 2 _ E : : E > E E : > > > E E > > : : E 3 z : L Llz \ § \ Ll Ll § z Ll § % % Ll) 0 ; / ) j j % ® - j / a / / / j _ Ll Ll/ ( < } _ Ll < < < z : 7 : )< - 7 < - - 7 3 w- \ \ \ 2\ _ \ \o 1} / " 2 2 f § } { \ & ) Lu _ q a :-))f -{ - 02/ / ® _ ® : k( _ y - - _ \ $ \ -\(\ �\\ / 7 \�) < §ek _ m \\ \ � { - _ /2 / . _0 \ k \ 'm 2 \. \ _ _ \ \ �j 3 \E )§) WZJ °4z 2fe ® , /2 - Eoj c22 / ksn \/ \\ \a \ \�CL /�$k » o ( - ({ Z - ( - - -FCL ({ | | - ,// ,/ { _ /[�01 !/0 !©\ )0> a=' /ƒj § k \ /ƒ \ 3\\ \ 3! 0 Z3 3ƒj / a »�E� Heritage Impact Assessment 1001-1051 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Appendix C Structural Assessment (next page) November202Z updGtedJanuary2024 MHBC 163 Page 288 of 426 I K LONDON LOCATION KITCHENER LOCATION JTR BA L I N E L L I 1599 Adelaide , N., Units 301 & 203 London, ON N5X 4E8 MMONIZ 14Huron , Unit 225 Kitchener, ONN N2R 013 P: 519-471-6667 P: 519-725-8093 www.sbmltd.ca sbm@sbmltd.ca PLANNING • CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL King -Charles Properties (Kitchener) Limited June 22, 2021 c/o VIVE Development Corporation SBMW-20-397 1020 King Street E Kitchener, Ontario N2G 2M9 Attn: Stephen Litt Re: 1027 King Street East, Kitchener, ON Using the front stair tower as a stand-alone structure Stephen; At your request, personnel from SBM attended the site on December 8, 2020, to review the construction of the front stair tower at the subject building. It is our understanding that you are inquiring about the possibility of demolishing the rest of the building and leaving the front stair tower as a stand-alone structure. Please accept this letter as a summary of our observations, recommendations, and conclusions. Our review was a non-invasive visual inspection of the interior and exterior of the front stair tower. The exterior was reviewed from the ground level and the roof of the main building only. We have not performed any detailed calculations or destructive investigations unless specifically noted. OBSERVATIONS 1. Based on the methods of construction and the condition of the building, the building appears to be approximately 90 to 100 years old. The front stair tower is likely connected to adjacent structures on three sides with an approximate building area (footprint) of 13,900 sq.ft. The adjacent buildings vary in height but are 2 to 2.5 storeys high. The building was reportedly constructed in phases. 2. A previous inspection by SBM of the building on the right of the stair tower revealed signs of fire damage and deterioration to some of the main structural timber beams. 3. The stair tower was site measured to be approximately 13'-9" wide x 11'-10" deep x 41'-3" high. There appears to be an 8'-10" high attic space over the stair tower. 4. The total percentage of openings in the front elevation is approximately 43%. The front door/window glazing extends the full width of the tower main floor, leaving no available shear walls. The window glazing at the second and third floor is centred in the wall and is approximately 54% of the wall length, leaving only approximately 3'-3" of available shear wall each side of the window. 5. The exterior walls were measured at the second -floor exterior door opening to be approximately 13.5" thick. A %" cementitious parging was locally removed from the interior face of the stair tower to expose a clay brick or block, approximately 8" high. A small hole in the brick indicates the clay block is hollow. 6. The front and sides of the stair tower are clad with a 4" thick concrete panel veneer. The rear elevation has a brick veneer. The concrete panel veneer has localized areas of minor spalling throughout. The concrete veneer is painted. The paint is in poor condition. Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Page 289 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca SBM W-20-397 7. Based on our experience with other low-rise buildings on King Street of similar age and construction, it is likely the exterior walls are constructed of 8" hollow clay block with a 4" concrete panel or brick veneer. AFA 0 Algol Clay block wall at 936 King Street E, is likely the some material utilized to construct the stair tower at 1027 King Street E. 8. The stairs are structural steel with a concrete topping. 9. Visually, the stair tower walls appear plumb and there is little to no cracking, spalling or deterioration in the superstructure indicating that the walls are not currently overstressed. 10. The foundation wall for the stair tower is a cast -in-place concrete wall and is shared with the adjacent three structures. There is no cracking in the foundation walls or evidence of settlement. 11. The footings below the tower and balance of the building are unknown. 12. At the basement level (Car Quest basement), the foundation is a combination of old cast -in-place concrete and rubble stone foundation wall. 2 RECOMMENDAITONS My professional opinion on the tower as a stand-alone entity is as follows: 1. The existing stair tower appears to have been constructed before the Ontario Building Code was enacted into law and would have been constructed in accordance with good building practices at the time of construction. For the existing tower to be modified to a stand alone -structure it would have to be reviewed in accordance with live, snow, wind and seismic loads prescribed by the current Ontario Building Code. The masonry structure would need to be evaluated in accordance with the current masonry design code CSA 5304. Due to the age and materials of the tower, it would be incredibly difficult for the existing structure to comply with such codes. Current engineering standards and best practises have much more rigorous guidelines for earthquake design, allowable deflection tolerances, insulation, reinforcing etc 2. The clay blocks would have been manufactured before the current code prescribed the compressive strength of masonry units. Additionally, the cross section of the block is likely not a shape that is currently manufactured. A localized section of block would have to be removed and tested in accordance with CSA CAN3-A82.2 "Methods of sampling and testing brick" to determine the compressive strength of the existing material. 3. Although the existing building is covered with finishes, we are fairly certain that the stair tower framing is supported by the existing building at the foundation, main floor, second floor and roof level. 4. Given the scope of the site visit, we are uncertain if the concrete panel or brick veneer is supported at the roof level or if the veneer is full height and extends below the roof. The cladding on the sides and rear of the stair 2 Page 290 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca SBM W-20-397 tower below the roof level of the adjacent building should be confirmed before decisions are made to ensure there is cladding present and that the cladding matches the visible cladding above the roof. 5. We have not completed a detailed structural analysis, but a review of CSA 5304 Annex F Empirical Design indicates that the existing tower is not acceptable as a stand-alone structure as it does not meet the following requirements: a. The tower walls require minimum 85% of the wall to remain in order to adequately resist wind loading (to just pick one of many design criteria). The large opening in the front elevation of the tower is approximately 55% of the wall length. b. Also shear wall segments must be minimum 10'-0" long. c. Due to the openings in the front elevation, the front wall does not have an adequate shear wall resulting in the tower being analyzed as a 3 -sided structure. Empirically, the masonry code requires a minimum of 2 noncolinear walls. 3 CONCLUSIONS Due to the age of the building and the fair condition of the structural elements of the existing stair tower, the tower appears structurally adequate to remain in service in the existing capacity while supported by the existing adjacent buildings. Although we have not completed a detailed structural analysis, based on our experience with the inspections of old masonry structures, the analysis and/or design of similar structures, and the number of empirical code requirements that are violated, it is our opinion that the tower is likely not structurally adequate to act as a stand-alone structure without significant reinforcing. Due to the historic nature of the existing building materials, no reinforcing will be able to match the existing construction; likely large structural steel columns and bracing would be required. Construction of the permanent reinforcing will likely require modification or temporary removal of the existing stairs. Construction of the temporary support during construction and construction of the permanent reinforcing required will be extremely difficult and could potentially damage the existing structure. The fagade of the tower may be changed after construction resulting from the connections of the temporary and permanent bracing. From a cost, constructability, and construction safety standpoint, it is our opinion that it is better to carefully remove the tower finishes and reconstruct the tower using modern materials and construction practices. If you would like SBM to complete a further analysis including review of seismic resistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. 3 Page 291 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca 4 LIMITATIONS SBM W-20-397 • This report is intended exclusively for the Client(s) named in the report. The material in it reflects our bestjudgment in light of the information reviewed by Strik Baldinelli Moniz at the time of preparation. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. • Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. • Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. • This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No site inspections, physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. • We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub - Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. We trust this report meets your satisfaction. If you need further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. Planning • Civil • Structural • Mechanical • Electrical Darryl Cowan, P.Eng Associate II 4J. r'F I� Y i�Al�1 '73 -100072514 VCE 0V 4 Page 292 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca APPENDIX A REFERENCE FIGURES SBM W-20-397 Page 293 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca Figure 1— Key Plan of Site —GO Figure 2 —The front elevation of the building, viewed from the north west. SBM W-20-397 6 Page 294 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca i -- If�I A/ 10x7 !_�!_ 14 . II ri Figure 3 — Front elevation of the existing front stair tower. F SBM W-20-397 Figure 4 — East side of the building showing the south-east corner of the stair tower above the building roof line. 7 Page 295 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca a ........ Figure 5 — Rear elevation of the stair tower. Note painted brick veneer. SBM W-20-397 Figure 6 — South-east corner of the stair tower above the building roof. Note the joint between brick veneer (rear) and concrete panel veneer (side). s Page 296 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca Figure 7 — Interior face of stair tower exterior wall showing %" parging and hollow clay block. Figure 8 —Typical steel stairs with concrete topping. SBM W-20-397 Page 297 of 426 www.sbmltd.ca Figure 9 — Interior face of exterior stair tower wall below main floor stair landing. SBM W-20-397 Figure 10 — South-west foundation wall below the stair tower, viewed from the basement of the adjacent building. 10 Page 298 of 426 Heritage Impact Assessment 7007-7057 King Street East and 530-564 Charles Street East, City of Kitchener Appendix D Curriculum Vitae (next page) November2022, updotedJanuory2024 MHBC 164 Page 299 of 426 EDUCATION Masters of Arts (Planning) University of Waterloo Bachelor of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 5760121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the public sector since 1997. Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and plans, heritage master plans, cultural heritage evaluations, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Heritage Conservation District Studies and Plans Streetsville Heritage Conservation District Study (underway) Amherstburg Heritage Conservation District Study (underway) Melville Street Heritage Conservation District Study (underway) Stouffville Heritage Conservation District Study (2022) Alton Heritage Conservation District Study, Caledon (202 1) Port Stanley Heritage Conservation District Plan (2021) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District Plan, Mississauga (2018) Town of Cobourg Heritage Conservation District Plan updates (2016) Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan, Chatham Kent (2016) Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston (2015) Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study, Markham (2015) Bala Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Township of Muskoka Lakes (2015) Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan (2013) Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan, Guelph (2014) Garden District Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, Toronto (2014) Heritage Master Plans and Management Plans City of Guelph Cultural Heritage Action Plan (2020) Town of Cobourg Heritage Master Plan (2016) Page 300 of 426 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 5760121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan (2016) City of London Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan (2014) Cultural Heritage Evaluations Aurora Heritage Register Review (2022) MacDonald Mowatt House, University of Toronto (2020) City of Kitchener Heritage Property Inventory Update (2016) Niagara Parks Commission Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Evaluation (2016) Designation of Main Street Presbyterian Church, Town of Erin (2019) Designation of St. Johns Anglican Church, Norwich (2019) Cultural Heritage Landscape evaluation, former Burlingham Farmstead, Prince Edward County (2018) Heritage Impact Assessments Heritage Impact Assessment for Pier 8, Hamilton (2015) Homer Watson House Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener (2016) Expansion of Schneider Haus National Historic Site, Kitchener (2016) Redevelopment of former industrial facility, 57 Lakeport Road, Port Dalhousie (2018) Redevelopment of former amusement park, Boblo Island (2022) Redevelopment of historic Waterloo Post Office (2019) Redevelopment of former Brick Brewery, Waterloo (2016) Redevelopment of former American Standard factory, Cambridge (2014) Redevelopment of former Goldie and McCullough factory, Cambridge (2019) Mount Pleasant Islamic Centre, Brampton (2020) Demolition of former farmhouse at 10536 McCowan Road, Markham (2020) Heritage Assessments for Infrastructure Projects and Environmental Assessments Heritage Assessment of 10 Bridges within Rockcliffe Special Policy Area, Toronto (2019) Blenheim Road Realignment Collector Road EA, Cambridge (2014) Badley Bridge EA, Elora (2014) Black Bridge Road EA, Cambridge (2013) Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment of Twenty Mile Creek Arch Bridge, Town of Lincoln (202 1) Heritage Evaluation of Deer River, Burnt Dam and Macintosh Bridges, Peterborough County (2021) Page 301 of 426 CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 5760121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Conservation Plans Black Bridge Strategic Conservation Plan, Cambridge (2013) Conservation Plan for Log house, Burgetz Ave., Kitchener (2020) Conservation and Construction Protection Plan - 54 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener (2019) Tribunal Hearinos: Redevelopment 9 Dee Road, Queenston (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 18314 Hurontario Street, Caledon Village (OLT) (2023) Redevelopment 217 King Street S, Waterloo (OLT) (2022) Redevelopment 147 Main Street, Grimsby (OLT) (2022) Redevelopment of 12 Pearl Street, Burlington (OLT) (2021) Designation of 30 Ontario Street, St. Catharines (CRB) (2021) Designation of 27 Prideaux Street, Niagara on the Lake (CRB) (2021) Redevelopment of Langmaids Island, Lake of Bays (LPAT) (2021) Redevelopment of property at 64 Grand Ave., Cambridge (LPAT) (2019) Youngblood subdivision, Elora (LPAT) (2019) Demolition 174 St. Paul Street (Collingwood Heritage District) (LPAT) (2019) Port Credit Heritage Conservation District (LPAT) (2018) Brooklyn and College Hill HCD Plan (OMB) (2015) Rondeau HCD Plan (LPAT) (2015) Designation of 108 Moore Street, Bradford (CRB) (2015) Downtown Meaford HCD Plan (OMB) (2014) Master Plans, Growth Management Strategies and Policy Studies Township of West Lincoln East Smithville Secondary Plan (2022) Town of Frontenac Islands Maryville Secondary Plan (2021) Niagara -on -the -Lake Corridor Design Guidelines (2016) Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (2013) Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan (2011) Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study (2012) Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review (2012) Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study and Employment Land Strategy (2011) Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines (2012) Page 302 of 426 CURRICULUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan (2013) City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy (2010) Development Planning Provide consulting services for municipal and private sector clients for: • Secondary Plans • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 5760121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 4 Page 303 of 426 EDUCATION 2016 Master of Arts in Planning, specializing in Heritage Planning University of Waterloo, School of Planning 2010 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Historical/Industrial Archaeology Wilfrid Laurier University CREDENTIALS 2018 - present Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (full member) CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 5760121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks, M.A., C.A.H.P. Associate & Senior Heritage Planner Vanessa Hicks is a Senior Heritage Planner and Associate with MHBC. Vanessa joined the firm after having gained experience as a Manager of Heritage Planning in the public realm where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events and heritage projects. Vanessa has been a full member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) since 2018 and graduated from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Vanessa provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work, evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including serving as Team Lead for Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs). Vanessa also completes and oversees the completion of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), Conservation Plans (CPS), Documentation and Salvage Reports, and Commemoration Projects (i.e. plaques). PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE June 2016 - Associate and Senior Heritage Planner Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. 2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning 2016 Town of Aurora May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant October 2012 Town of Grimsby 2007- Archaeologist 2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 1 Page 304 of 426 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM III MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT n -E ' A w= s w as ti � '41s , t' Documentation -..."'Salvage Com memoration . is r F 11 Report (revised p g'. + a 1027 King Street East, `k Kitchener ON. �� mss' f y • . eIIrk Date: January, 2024 (original submission October 2023; updated December 2023; and January 2024) Prepared for: VIVE Development - Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) R 200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 - T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 + MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE (image:MHBC, 7.023) AR' H TI!RE TEC 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................3 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Description of Proposed Development...............................................................................................5 1.3 Brief Summary of Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC, 2021)..........................................................6 1.4 Terms of Reference............................................................................................................................. 7 2.0 Property Description...............................................................................................................................8 2.1 Context, Landscape and Setting..........................................................................................................8 2.2 1027 King Street East: Built Features..................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Exterior.......................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2 Interior.......................................................................................................................................13 3.0 Salvage Recommendations...................................................................................................................17 3.1 Methodology.........................................................................................................................................17 3.2 Salvage Recommendations...............................................................................................................18 4.0 Commemoration Recommendations....................................................................................................20 4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Commemoration Recommendation Summary.................................................................................20 5.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................... 26 AppendixA.................................................................................................................................................. 27 Commemorative Display Rendering...........................................................................................................27 AppendixB.................................................................................................................................................. 28 Exterior Commemoration Renderings........................................................................................................ 28 AppendixC.................................................................................................................................................. 29 Termsof Reference..................................................................................................................................... 29 AppendixD..................................................................................................................................................30 Measured Architectural Drawings..............................................................................................................30 AppendixE.................................................................................................................................................. 31 Photo Map and Photo Documentation.......................................................................................................31 AppendixF.................................................................................................................................................. 32 StaffBios..................................................................................................................................................... 32 AppendixG.................................................................................................................................................. 33 Page 1 of 33 Page 307 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Supplementary Digital Photos (USB)..........................................................................................................33 Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Christine Fandrich Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Associate Planning Technician Senior Reviewer Review, Analysis Graphics, Maps, GIS Page 2 of 33 Page 308 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Executive Summary MHBC was retained by Vive Development to complete a Cultural Heritage Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Report as per the request by City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Planning staff as it relates to the subject property located at 1027 King Street East. The Subject property listed on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register or formally designated under the Ontario Heritage Act The purpose of this Report is to describe the subject property and its features in order to supplement the historic record, as per the recommendation provided in the Heritage Impact Assessment for the subject lands completed by MHBC (dated November, 2021; updated in 2022 as well as 2024). This Report also identifies any features of the subject property which may be good candidates for salvage and re -use, as opposed to being deposited as landfill. Summary of Recommendations The contents of this report includes photographs and measured drawings which supplement the historic record and are considered appropriate in terms of documentation of the site. The following provides a list of items recommended for salvage, where possible depending on condition and extraction capabilities: • "Eureka" Terazzo Tile (Section B, ground floor); • Exterior column (Section B, exterior north elevation); • Door/window/frame and cornices (Section B, exterior north elevation); and • Exterior cladding (Section B, exterior front elevation. These items are recommended for salvage and re -use on-site as part of an interior display as per the description and rendering provided in this report. Provided that the recommendations provided in this report are undertaken, the documentation, salvage, and commemoration/interpretation of the site is considered satisfactory and complete. Page 3 of 33 Page 309 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Overview The existing buildings located at 1027 King Street East are proposed for removal in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands (See Figure 1, outlined in red). The purpose of this document is to provide the following for the property at 1027 King Street East: • Photographic documentation of the buildings (interior and exterior) to supplement the historic record; • Measured drawings of the exterior of the building; • Provide recommendations regarding potential items for salvage; and • Provide details regarding commemoration of the site. cygk<E � Figure 1: Aerial photo of subject lands noted with solid red line. Location of 1027 King Street East identified with dotted green line. (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, accessed 2023) Page 4 of 33 Page 310 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 1.2 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development of the subject lands includes the demolition of all buildings and structures to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development. The development includes two ""towers" (those being 11 and 29 storeys) as well as a podium. Page 5 of 33 Page 311 of 426 KING STREET EAST — ;'S A6PWLT 6 pap -1'� STOPl1N1.�. arkAi. z •.,>:+� X4.— '`� ;���b {f PMPERTY NE _ — 4 � WLr1W1Sh FlRE — — — 9ETHM1.CK +• • — uCLL' EywlwO 9 �. k � AEC c A i j i i k.11 'If f. 4i n. .. .. rW n". �"Jir Y..•. I •}. kAi) r �PSl? i i ° sus w'. Also ix ROCMIFREAW7A PANEL JTYR B C, MORS n rAT4lNEy � Paauu I � TPAFR rr; Y ;p �7 1II1I ..i� I'm OW CE I• �• f LL� 293TOREYTUM9R ASPWET r I hip ` cope eawFt: rW r{ Y ARPXALi ^�y k t •�- Io;;a T— wow 'tl I d AT9gET '•kLef l-+' _ '`"� ebb^e' s.:• >.y..�r.. _. ._ %F I .Y, I F�,en. GW fOTdSi14R6 M9:ba1 �L ty r)s I, .. '�o.I. — —ES.&OEi4416 •.—�.... - 1n�vl�: +:rFslrilRE—-x,'AD-iVdn Elr_F+glsv^aTV�G•.7 —5:5— -_ „-R+rl:C i'I•I;A J _ ` 2pN-Is,aki-u_I _ Fl- S&Y gCHWIl55T, CHARLES STREET EAST Figure 2: Site Plan of Proposed Development (Source: Reinders + Law, 2023) Page 5 of 33 Page 311 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON n ' A t % t* As Figure 3: Rendering of Proposed Development (King and Ottawa view) 1.3 Brief Summary of Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC, 2021) MHBC completed a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the subject lands in 2021. This report was updated in 2022 and 2024. The purpose of the HIA was a) to evaluate whether or not the property at 1027 King Street East met the legislated criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and b) determine whether or not Page 6 of 33 Page 312 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON the proposed development results in adverse impacts to cultural heritage resources. The HIA ultimately concluded that only one component of the building has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, that being the Art Deco style tower (noted in this report as Section ""B ii'). The removal of the building was identified as a negligible impact given that the building overall has been unsympathetically altered and no longer communicates its original design. The exception tot his is the removal of the Art Deco Tower, which was identified as an adverse impact. The HIA provided mitigation recommendations as a result of the removal of the building, including the following: • Submission of a Documentation Report which includes photographic descriptions and photo maps of the property and the various sections of the building. The HIA also noted that the proposed development includes appropriate salvage and commemoration. 1.4 Terms of Reference This report has been drafted as per the terms of reference for Documentation and Salvage Reports for the City of Kitchener (See Appendix C). As such, this report contains the following information: • Introduction; • Salvage and Documentation; • Context and Property Description • Documentation of the site; • Salvage Plan (including an inventory); • Methodology; • Reuse Recommendations; and • Qualifications. Page 7 of 33 Page 313 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 2mOProperty Description 2.1 Context, Landscape and Setting The subject property is municipally addressed as 1001, 1007, 1015, 1027, and 1051 King Street East as well as the properties located at 530, 534, 542, and 564 Charles Street East. Together these properties result in a roughly rectangular -shaped area, referred to in this report as the subject lands. Only the property at 1027 King Street East is listed on the City of Kitchener Heritage Register as per Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act The subject lands are situated south of King Street East, east of Borden Avenue South, north of Charles Street East, and west of Ottawa Street South. *t or f Figure 4: Aerial Photo of the broader context of the site. Approximate location of subject lands outlined in red (Source: Google Earth, 2021) Page 8 of 33 Page 314 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 2.2 1027 King Street East: Built Features The building located at 1027 King Street East is comprised of six different parts referred to in this report as Sections A','B (i)','B (ii), T', V, and 'E' (See Figure 5 below). +#` Ari 4 Abho A Figure 5: Aerial photo of the subject lands noting different sections of 1027 King Street East (Source: Kitchener Interactive Maps, 2018) Section Description A 3 storey brick building B (i) 3 storey Art Deco style in -fill B (H) Art Deco "tower" C Single storey addition D Single Storey loading bay E Outbuilding/Garage Approx. Date of Construction Between 1914-1916 Between 1925 and 1947 Between 1925 and 1947 Between 1925 and 1947 2nd half 20th Century 2111 half 201h Century Page 9 of 33 Page 315 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 2.2.1 Exterior The north elevation includes the front fagade of Sections 'A', 'B', and 'C' of the building. Section 'A' (to the west) includes a main floor (slightly below grade), as well as a second and third storey above. The north elevation displays three bays of vertical windows which have been altered from their original appearance to include contemporary windows with dark tinted spandrel glass. The north elevation of Section 'B' is an Art Deco style tower that was the original main entrance and includes a staircase that provides access to the upper floors. This portion of the building has been altered, but retains most of its original features including the staircase and windows. The north elevation of Section 'C' (to the east) has been altered. This building formerly displayed a brick facade with two sets of 8 rectangular - shaped windows across the front of the building. pARTS � * Figures 6 & 7: (left) View of north elevation looking south towards the front elevation of sections "A", "B", and "C", (right) Detail view of the front elevation, looking south towards Section "B", (Source: MHBC, 2023) The east elevation has been significantly altered, where all original industrial -style building windows have been stuccoed or parged over. Page 10 of 33 Page 316 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Figures 8 & 9: (left) View of building looking south-west from King Street East, (right) Secondary view of east elevation of Section "C", looking west from parking lot adjacent to King Street East (Source: MHBC, 2023) The east elevation has been covered with spray foam insulation and stucco. As a result, the windows underneath these materials have been damaged and are no longer salvageable (See Figure 11). Figures 10 & 11: (left) View of east elevation, looking north-west from Charles Street East, (right) Detail view of east elevation (Section "C") and spray foam and stucco over industrial windows, (Source: MHBC, 2023) The south elevation provides views of the rear facades of Sections 'B','C', V, and 'E. The rear of Section 'A' has a small cinder block addition (constructed at some point in the second half of the 20th century) and includes two large loading -bays. Section 'B' (single storey brick structure) includes a flat roof and one boarded -up window opening. Section 'C' has a very shallow pitched gabled roof (which appears almost flat) and Page 11 of 33 Page 317 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON displays two small boarded -up window openings just below the roof, with four large boarded -up rectangular -shaped window openings below. While Section 'D' displays cinder block construction, the rear of Sections 'B' and 'C' appear to include painted red brick. The existing single storey garage/outbuilding constructed of cinder blocks and displays a flat roof and garage door at the south elevation. This structure as well as Section 'D' are 20th century additions to the site and are not of cultural heritage value or interest. Figures 12 & 13: (left) View of south elevation looking north from Charles Street east, (right) View of west and south elevations looking north-east from Charles Street east, (Source: MHBC, 2023) The west elevation is primarily the side facade of Section A'. The building originally displayed 5 bays of very large windows spanning the second and third storeys. These windows have been partially bricked -over and portions of the windows now include contemporary block -style glass. Page 12 of 33 Page 318 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON q Figures 14 & 15: (left) View of west elevation looking north-east, (right) View of west elevation of Section "A" looking east, (Source: MHBC, 2023) 2.2.2 Interior The following provides a description of the interior of Sections A', 'B' and 'C'. Only Section 'A' includes a basement. It is important to note that the floors of Sections 'A', 'B' and 'C' do not match -up. Section 'C' appears to have originally been accessed by Section 'B'. Section 'B' of the building (ground floor portion running north -south towards Charles Street) appears to be part of Section 'C'. Section "A'— Basement The basement of Section 'A' is currently used as a staff room and storage. The basement includes remnants of original heating/cooling components such as the boiler and coal oven. A ramp is provided in the basement of Section 'A' providing access to Section 'C'. Page 13 of 33 Page 319 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Figures 16 & 17: (left) View of staff area and storage rooms, (right) View of basement and utility components (Source: MHBC, 2023) Section W— Main Floor The main floor of Section 'A' is not at ground level. Instead, it is elevated above the ground level above the basement. The second floor of Section 'A' has been altered to include partitioned walls to function as office space. The building has been carpeted and re -finished with 20th century materials. It is important to note that the ceiling provides evidence of considerable fire damage, where the ceiling in several places has been scorched black. Figures 18 & 19: (left) View of open area, looking south-west, (right) Detail view of ceiling noting fire damage, (Source: MHBC, 2023) Section "A'— Second Floor The third floor provides views of rooms which have been partitioned for office space. The rooms have been re -finished and original finished have been removed. Page 14 of 33 Page 320 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Figures 20 & 21: (left) View of lobby area, looking east (right) View of kitchen area, looking east, (Source: MHBC, 2023) Section "B'— Ground Floor The ground floor of Section 'B' is the main entrance and access to the staircase. The floor is tile with the Eureka' brand name in the tile. Figures 22 & 23: (left) View of entrance to Section "B", looking north (right) Detail of "Eureka" terrazzo floor tile, (Source: MHBC, 2023) Section "B'— Second and Third Floor This portion of Section 'B' facilitates as a staircase only and provides access to the roof. This portion of the building provides evidence of water damage, including peeling paint, mold and rot. Page 15 of 33 Page 321 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Figures 24 & 25: (left) View of staircase and entrance to the main floor of Section "C", (right) View of roof entrance from Section "B", looking south-east, (Source: MHBC, 2023) Section 'C' Section 'C' is one room used as a retail area, with open concept storage areas towards the rear. The interior of the building has been altered and provides little evidence of its construction date. The roof may have been altered as it now appears to be contemporary metal roofing. All original windows have either been removed and replaced with contemporary windows or been covered. Figures 26 & 27: (left) View of store front, Section "C", looking north-east, (right) View of Section "C", rear storage area, (Source: MHBC, 2023) Page 16 of 33 Page 322 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 3mOSalvage Recommendations 3.1 Methodology The following sub -sections of this report provide recommendations as it relates to salvaging items on-site. Items can be salvaged for a range of purposes. In order to provide clarification regarding the items chosen for salvage, the following provides a criteria for items as it relates to a) their cultural heritage value, and b) their intended purpose. These recommendations include three separate categories of salvaged items as follows: A. Heritage Value - Items which are determined to be of significant cultural heritage value and should be retained for purposes related to commemoration/interpretation; and • The item/materia//element has design1physical value as being either rare, unique, or representative of a style, expression, or construction method, • Element or feature displays a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or scientific achievement, • Is a featur%lement or sample of a featur%lement which may form a part of the commemoration of the structures or properties. B. Modest Heritage Value - Items which are representative of an architectural style or period, which would be best suited for re -use in the same or similar capacity; • Does not demonstrate significant cultural heritage value • The item/material/element is of a fair/good condition which may be reasonably extracted for re -use; • The item/material element is not significant in relation to the future commemoration/interpretation of the house. C. No Heritage Value - Items which do not have design/physical value or are not associated with a style of architecture or period, but could be salvaged and made available for re -use as opposed to being deposited as landfill. Page 17 of 33 Page 323 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 3.2 Salvage Recommendations The following provides a list of items which are proposed to be salvaged. The following list indicates the category and criteria Item Quantity Category Location Interior (Section Eureka Terazzo Tile 1 A B) Ground floor Exterior Column 1 B Exterior (front, Section B) Door/Window Entry 1 B Exterior (front, Frame and Cornice Section B) Exterior Cladding (selection in Exterior (front, concrete) cogd tion) ood B Section B) Photo The items noted above are considered good candidates for salvage in terms of their ability to be used for commemoration/interpretation purposes on-site. Note that the use of these items is contingent on a) their condition, and b) successful extraction. No other features on-site are considered of cultural heritage value and/or good candidates for salvage on-site. Sections ""A" and ""B" have been vacant for several years and do not contain other notable features which would be considered elements for potential salvage as opposed to being deposited as landfill. While Section ""C is not currently vacant (at the time of writing this document), there are likely to be few materials of value which could be salvaged and donated to the public. However, where there are opportunities to salvage materials and donating them to the general public, this is Page 18 of 33 Page 324 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON supported as a general recommendation in order to deter construction & demolition materials as being deposited as landfill. Items proposed for salvage will be removed with hand tools. Large construction equipment will not be used in order to avoid damage to these items. The items will be stored indoors off-site. All items will be wrapped with tarps and are recommended to be stored off the ground on wood pallets. Page 19 of 33 Page 325 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 4mOCommemoration Recommendations 4.1 Introduction The following sub -sections of this report provide recommendations regarding appropriate commemoration/interpretation of the site. This includes the use of items recommended for salvage in Section 4.2 of this report. 4.2 Commemoration Recommendation Summary The site is recommended to be interpreted through an interior display of the proposed new building (See Figure 28). The items recommended to be salvaged in this report (See Section 4.2) includes the column, door and windows (including trim), and the "Eureka" tile. If exterior cornice materials can be removed, these would be displayed and incorporated on an interior wall. EI ME Repurpme ExlstIng [umern sllrcr eal�mn Hhtork.il rervL— t)—fWlndows as rend.l.ne decortart Plecea OrlglnMl Ewka'tile ­r"'wed t_______________________________,-_________________________________________ Into lobbyfloor�_, 7 ti r Figure 28: Rendering of proposed Commemorative Display at the interior of the proposed new building. Page 20 of 33 Page 326 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON The proposed design includes text on the salvaged window (See Figure 28, outlined in red). The following provides the recommended text for this feature: The property on which you stand is the former location of the Onward Manufacturing Company. The Onward Manufacturing Company was started by Theodore Adam "Ted" Witzel (b. 1875). The company became the first in Canada to manufacture Onward and Triumph brand vacuums. Ted Witzel obtained exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the "Eureka "brand vacuum cleaner in 1909. The features of this display, Inclualng the "Eureka "tile were extracted from the building formerly in this location. During World War II, the Onward Manufacturing Company shifted production to manufacture arms and ammunition. After the war, the company expanded again to manufacture barbeques and developed brands such as Broil King. The transparent glass of the proposed commemorative display should also display the following photograph of the building and an image of the brand name (See Figures 29 & 30). Figure 29: Original building at 1027 King Street East (Onward Manufacturing Company) Page 21 of 33 Page 327 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON A rJ HAF(ir GTLIR90 Or �%/i MfryRL.H tg suoCb Figure 30: Onward Manufacturing Co omcbbq . com/o nwa rd -story. htm I ) .1 %." it ) - i•"R B R�IL MI I1Mi 4 iAMC logo (source: accessed online at It is also recommended that the wall proposed to incorporate materials from the exterior of Section ""B" of the building include a commemorative plaque in order to communicate where the materials came from, as follows: These wall materials were extracted from the Onward Manufacturing Company building which formerly stood in this location, at 1027 King Street East The proposed development will include two commemorative features at the exterior of the building (north elevation). This includes a) an "ONWARD" timeline and commemorative feature with dates and text communicating the story of the Onward Manufacturing Company, and b) an Art Deco style mural/decorative feature to commemorate the Art deco feature of the building (Section "B') to be removed (See figures below). The art deco style feature is designed within a tall/rectangular portion of the building which is reminiscent of that of the portion to be removed and includes a series of concentric circles/geometric shapes which are indicative of art and design movements of the Art Deco period. Page 22 of 33 Page 328 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON :- Figure 31: Rendering of north elevation noting "ONWARD" timeline commemorative feature and Art Deco style design feature (outlined in red) (source: Reinders+Law, 2023) Page 23 of 33 Page 329 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON on � n r in Figure 32: Secondary rendering of north elevation noting "ONWARD" timeline commemorative feature and Art Deco style design feature (outlined in red) (source: Reinders+Law, 2023) Figure 33: Detail of north elevation noting "ONWARD" timeline commemorative feature, (source: Reinders+Law, 2023) Page 24 of 33 Page 330 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON The following text will be displayed on the Onward Memory Wall as per Figure 33 of this report. The proposed dates and text of the Onward timeline and commemorative feature tell the story of the Onward Manufacturing Company started by Theodore Witzel over time from 1904 to the early 20th century. The proposed text noted in Figure 33 (above) is as follows: 1904-1909; The Rite Away Pen Company, which manufactured fountain pens, is founded by Theodore Adam Witzel. At this time the company is located at 143 King Street West, Berlin (now the City of Kitchener). The company became the "Onward Manufacturing Company"" In 1908 and soon atter the company obtained exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the 'Eureka ""brand vacuum cleaner. 1914-1916; Between 1914 and 1916, the building formerly located at 1027 King Street was constructed and became the new location of the Onward Manufacturing Company. 1924-1945; Prior to WWII, the company expanded to manufacture Onward brand sliding furniture shoes, Eureka vacuum cleaners, Domestic vacuum cleaners, and Eden electric washing machines and wringing machines During the Second World War, the company shitted production from housewares to manufacture arms and ammunition. 1946-1960: Following WWII, the company expanded again to manufacture Onward brand quality cabinet hardware as well as barbeques, now known as Broil King and Stirling. Theodore Adam Witzel died in 1948. The company expanded to include other home appliances, including refrigerators by 1960. 1964; A fire occurred in the building 1027 King Street East Evidence of the fire was still present via charred roof ratters at the interior of the building prior to its demolition. 1980 - 2000; In 1980 a second location was constructed on Victoria Street in Kitchener which sold Barbecues, appliances, and fireplaces In the late 20th century, the company became known as OMC (Onward Multi -Corp Inc.). During this time, the company became associated with other barbecue brand names such as Arklamatic, Weber, BroilKing, Broil -mate, Barbecue Genius, Shepherd, and Sterling. By the early 21St century the company expanded to include other businesses under Onward Multi -Corp Inc, umbrella, including Onward Cluthe, and TA. The information above was confirmed using both primary and secondary sources and provides an accurate and informative description of the important events of the company/property over time. The timelines were grouped into date ranges in order to a) fit the story into the design at the north elevation in a way which is aesthetically pleasing, b) focus on dates which could be confirmed in the historic record and are significant/impactful to the evolution of the company over time. Page 25 of 33 Page 331 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON 5nOCondusions Provided that the recommendations provided in this report are undertaken, we consider the documentation, salvage, and commemoration/interpretation recommendations provided in the HIA completed by MHBC (dated 2021) complete. Note that we are able to make recommendations regarding salvage of elements. However, our recommendations are contingent upon a) the condition of the materials, and b) the feasibility of their extraction. Should any materials not be able to be salvaged which are part of the planned commemoration piece, it is recommended that the commemorative display include additional images and text in order to communicate the features of the building that have been removed. Respecifu//y submitted, MHBC Vanessa Hicks, MA, CARP cc. Dan Currie, MHBC cc. Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Page 26 of 33 Page 332 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Appendix A Commemorative Display Rendering Page 27 of 33 Page 333 of 426 1027 King Street E., Kitchener ON Appendix B Exterior Commemoration Renderings Page 28 of 33 Page 335 of 426 DN J06 0861 ~ 9961 C 61-MLL C 6l 4Z61i 161 4161 11/3^ 61 4061UL 11 t 15 1F l■ 'ib v ■ill' ::