Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK Agenda - 2024-06-11Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, June 11, 2024, 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 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 5. 4.1 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-009, 36 10m Lancaster Street East, Demolition and Reconstruction of Rear Addition, DSD -2024- 217 4.2 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-010, 5 m 50 Brookside Crescent, Replacement of Existing Cedar Shingle Roof with New Shingles, DSD -2024-255 4.3 Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) - 236 15 m Gehl Place, DSD -2024-243 4.4 Notice of Intention to Designate- 236 Gehl 20 m Place under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-261 4.5 Notice of Intention to Designate - 56 Duke 10m Street West under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-242 4.6 Notice of Intention to Designate -11-15 Pandora 10m Avenue North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, DSD -2024-247 4.7 Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review - 15 m June 2024 Update, DSD 2024-250 Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet Adjournment Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator 0 C191 C:YA 171 196 221 294 Page 2 of 294 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: May 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 1, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-217 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-009 36 Lancaster Street East Demolition and reconstruction (rear yard addition) RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-009 be approved to permit the demolition of the fire damaged rear addition and reconstruction of the rear addition on the property municipally addressed as 36 Lancaster Street East, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application, subject to the following condition: 1. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of the required building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present Heritage Planning staff's recommendation for the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the addition at the subject property municipally addressed as 36 Lancaster Street East. The key finding of this report is that the demolition of the fire damaged rear addition and the reconstruction to match the original rear addition will not negatively impact the heritage attributes of the subject property, the Lancaster Street East streetscape, or the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage District. Note that according to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the demolition of any building or structure, or part thereof, on the property requires Council approval. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included consultation with the City's 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 3 of 294 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-V-009 seeking permission to demolish and reconstruct the rear addition at the subject property municipally addressed as 36 Lancaster Street East. r x n q LP T4 M Figure 1. Location Map of the subject property municipally addressed as 36 Lancaster Street East (see property highlighted in red box). The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD), which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The CCNHCD Plan indicates that the demolition of a building or a portion of a building that is visible from the street or other public space requires a Heritage Permit Application. The rear yard addition is visible from Lancaster Street East and Mansion Street. Furthermore, Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires a property owner to obtain approval from Council to demolish or remove any building or structure, or part thereof. REPORT: The subject property is located on the east side of Lancaster Street East between Mansion Street and Luella Street, within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD). The building was constructed circa 1910 in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style. The building is identified as Group C in the CCNHCD Plan due to its heritage attributes that contribute to the heritage value of the district. The 1924 Fire Insurance Map shows a 1 storey rear addition. In 1924, this addition was 1 storey in height and flush with the right side of the dwelling but projected out from the left side of the dwelling. The current addition is 1 storey in height and projects out from both the right and left side (with the left projection being like the additions footprint in 1924). Brown & Beattie Ltd., the engineer for the building permit, estimated that the rear yard addition may be 40+ years old. Page 4 of 294 Proposed Demolition Section 3.3.4 of the CCNHCD Plan contains five (5) policies pertaining to proposed demolitions. These policies indicate that: demolition is strongly discouraged; demolition of a building, or part thereof, requires a Heritage Permit Application; the applicant must provide documentation justifying the reasons for demolition; where demolition is approved, written and/or photographic documentation of heritage attributes and construction techniques may be required; and, where demolition is approved, building material reclamation for reuse on site or elsewhere in the district is strongly encouraged. The CCNHCD Plan also recognizes there are situations where demolition may be necessary such as partial destruction due to fire. The applicant is proposing to demolish the rear yard addition that sustained extensive fire damage in 2023. As required by the policies of the CCNHCD Plan, the applicant has provided documentation justifying the reasons for demolition. This documentation includes: (1) A building permit to repair structural damage sustained during a fire; and, (2) A document entitled "Report Regarding Structural Assessment of Fire Damaged Building at 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, Ontario" prepared by Brown & Beattie Building Science Engineering and dated March 21, 2024. Figure 2: Rear Elevation (After Fire) The report indicates that: 'Significant `structural' fire damage to the building appeared to include primarily the rear exterior wall and roof the single -storey rear addition." "The fire resulted in significant charring to almost all of the roof rafters forming the roof above the rear addition." Page 5 of 294 • "Fire damage to the roof extended up and damaged the top of the interior loadbearing wall where the roof of the rear addition meets the original building above..." • "The fire also damaged the majority of the rear exterior wall of the first -floor... within the addition." • "Externally, fire related damages included widespread damage to the exterior wall cladding and roofing of the rear addition." The report concludes that: • "...it is our opinion that the recent fire resulted in significant structural damage to the majority of the rear addition roof and rear exterior wall to the extent that the complete replacement of this roof section and rear exterior wall is warranted. The fire also damaged the rear exterior deck to the extent that its complete replacement is warranted. Localized fire damage was noted to the rear end of the first -floor joists for the rear addition to the extent that the augmentation or replacement of at least some of these joists is warranted, the full extent of which is subject to further review. Localized fire damage was also noted to the interior stud wall supporting the roof of the addition along the rear wall of the original building to the extent that the partial replacement of this wall is also warranted, again the extent of which is subject to further review." Proposed Addition (Reconstruction) Section 3.3.2 of the CCNHCD Plan contains five (5) policies pertaining to additions and alterations to existing buildings. Two (2) of these policies are relevant to the proposed addition (reconstruction): (1) the addition shall be subordinate to the original structure to allow the original heritage features and built form to take visual precedence on the street; and, (2) the design guidelines provided in Section 6.4 and 6.5 of the CCNHCD Plan will be used to review and evaluate applications for additions to ensure that the proposed changes are compatible with the existing dwelling and no not result in irreversible loss of heritage attributes. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the rear addition to match the size and appearance of the rear addition (before the fire). The addition will match the existing footprint, location, and design of the rear addition, including materials and colours. Page 6 of 294 Figure 3: Rear Elevation (East Fagade) Heritage Planning Staff Comments The proposed alterations meet the relevant principles of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' document entitled the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties." • Respect for documentary evidence - Although the rear addition is not original, the reconstruction will be based on photographs (before the fire) and physical evidence. • Respect for original fabric - Although the rear addition is not original, the reconstruction will use the same materials of the rear addition (before the fire). Legibility - The reconstructed rear addition will be recognized as a new addition that is distinct from the original buff (yellow) brick Berlin Vernacular building. The proposed alterations meet the relevant standards of the Parks Canada document entitled "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition. " Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. — The reconstructed rear addition will be recognized as a new addition that is distinct from the original buff (yellow) brick Berlin Vernacular building. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The proposal to demolish the rear addition has been justified in the document entitled "Report Regarding Structural Assessment of Fire Damaged Building at 36 Page 7 of 294 III®■�■�I it II!I!II 1�1�1111111 I I iil�� �ii�li� =ME �i�l Ell ������� ffis ■1®1 E1 iiia minim MIME MI EE NEEM Figure 3: Rear Elevation (East Fagade) Heritage Planning Staff Comments The proposed alterations meet the relevant principles of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' document entitled the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties." • Respect for documentary evidence - Although the rear addition is not original, the reconstruction will be based on photographs (before the fire) and physical evidence. • Respect for original fabric - Although the rear addition is not original, the reconstruction will use the same materials of the rear addition (before the fire). Legibility - The reconstructed rear addition will be recognized as a new addition that is distinct from the original buff (yellow) brick Berlin Vernacular building. The proposed alterations meet the relevant standards of the Parks Canada document entitled "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, 2nd Edition. " Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. — The reconstructed rear addition will be recognized as a new addition that is distinct from the original buff (yellow) brick Berlin Vernacular building. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The proposal to demolish the rear addition has been justified in the document entitled "Report Regarding Structural Assessment of Fire Damaged Building at 36 Page 7 of 294 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, Ontario" prepared by Brown & Beattie Building Science Engineering and dated March 21, 2024; The proposal to reconstruct the rear addition will match the size and appearance of the addition (before the fire); The proposal is in keeping with the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan policies for demolitions and additions, including recommended practices and design guidelines for additions; and, The proposal will not detract from the character of the property, the integrity of the Lancaster Street East streetscape, nor the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. In accordance with the Heritage Permit Application form, the approval of any application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Zoning By-law. In this regard, staff confirm that a Building Permit is required to demolish and reconstruct the rear addition. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener committee has been consulted regarding the 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-V-009 Attachment B — Brown & Beattie Building Science Engineering, Report Regarding Structural Assessment of Fire Damaged Building at 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, March 21, 2024 Page 8 of 294 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals I�ITCHENER 200 King Street West, 61" Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: Aril 22 2024 Michelle Drake HPA- 2024-V-009 PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage @ Demolition @ New Construction ❑ Alteration 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, ON N2H 1 M4 Legal Description (if know): ❑ Relocation 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. PRO Name Addri City/[ Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Stephen MacDougall Company: Brown & Beattie Ltd. Address: 588 Edward Avenue, Unit 49 City/Province/Postal Code: Richmond Hill, ON L4C 9Y6 Phone: 905-464-3650 Email: macdougall@brownbeattie.com Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 8 of 10 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Demolish and rebuild the fire damaged single -storey rear addition above the first floor level to match existing size/appearance. Original two-storey brick masonry section of building is to remain. Fire damaged windows and doors are to be replaced with aluminum clad frames to match existing size/style All interior finishes are to be removed and replaced throughout building due to fire/smoke/water damage 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Structural fire damage Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: All fire damaged exterior elements of the building which are removed are to be replaced to match existing conditions. 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): All fire damaged exterior elements of the building which are removed are to be replaced to match exibiiny cunUitiun5. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: As soon as permit approved Expected completion date: within 1 year of approval b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 8 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Michelle Drake c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? 8 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Dwayne Hordyk & Tara Zhang d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? 8 Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number 2024107488 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 11.4 L,161111114:4 11CIA"T L:4 LIVI 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. Stephen MacDougall 2024.04.17 13 50:13 April 1 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: 0400 Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Ami I LIZ y 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, Jason Gosling owner of the land that is subject of this application, Brown & Beattie Ltd. (Stephen MacDougall, P.Eng.) hereby authorize _ to act on my i our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent Date: A�?- k ZOZL� 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 Page 11 of 294 �,�tiGER nOl� C7 � a N 20 C J= O da��SNdJ11 Q@, >>o00 o o ow9�'OOOLL9000�°a as am � . 05 _ - ° 3m .1 10000° wwwwE_ _K e�-zaaaao�harc� ,y�=aaa o -a o a �o o LLF as 2 a o F z o ° o o o tom 0 �OH- ° o -o= °moo z0oz oaa10 10 °mom �zo �2 o -o aoaaO or O 1BOaa y o Mho g ro �o -S°Eo"' om>F Nor aG�s nom= m� Xa O °gym"' >z�"oo,;°'� amo N-s�zz°o rod,2-E-- Mozz�x��zwo�z�� zoos°= a m =z a °� os 0 -o a °�o no" o �aoLL =w3° aF r° o �o'a 0�ao„�ao'ays �a } o o 2° s om�o° =r� _ro lw,-Folin � z °=o z° z z ° �� Na Fo 0 _ aooos= o° ° o=o ° w F LLa �¢00oo ..0" a m, .0 �o sa= o°gy�_moEe 0 o� °°" mw m -10 0 oo ? wa�3�ag>o�o° ' a°'��� a 'oo °o00�0 o -o=, "1 °° ywM °o° ° °a _ °° o oy = P _ o aso OL o o� 3 z° o 0 o=T �r S s= a _ k w ¢°� ° a� a� °"�' moi z3 - 'd3 °o ��oR2og° xo � poo op, rc° o ° °z N�°o�o�3a 'H a'd sz° H, ° x y _ ° _�-;°oLL-a o 10 �3 0 a=jo om v '_' ° °aw2,19 o o° wo°a� 'no opo -a��'�'_9�x soy°��'��5°000°u° �-° =ooaoaoaoFoaz=a°�zaoO°��,=a >oz>000a.� H a�a��°��o°10-o�ozoo,��=z20 � q w o o a •� S a s O z zz o w Q c2 o pp3�a mm qR w „ _ �,�tiGER nOl� C7 � a N 20 C J= O da��SNdJ11 Q@, >>o00 o o ow9�'OOOLL9000�°a as am � . 05 _ - ° 3m .1 10000° wwwwE_ _K e�-zaaaao�harc� ,y�=aaa o -a o a �o o LLF as 2 a o F z o ° o o o tom 0 �OH- ° o -o= °moo z0oz oaa10 10 °mom �zo �2 o -o aoaaO or O 1BOaa y o Mho g ro �o -S°Eo"' om>F Nor aG�s nom= m� Xa O °gym"' >z�"oo,;°'� amo N-s�zz°o rod,2-E-- Mozz�x��zwo�z�� zoos°= a m =z a °� os 0 -o a °�o no" o �aoLL =w3° aF r° o �o'a 0�ao„�ao'ays �a } o o 2° s om�o° =r� _ro lw,-Folin � z °=o z° z z ° �� Na Fo 0 _ aooos= o° ° o=o ° w F LLa �¢00oo ..0" a m, .0 �o sa= o°gy�_moEe 0 o� °°" mw m -10 0 oo ? wa�3�ag>o�o° ' a°'��� a 'oo °o00�0 o -o=, "1 °° ywM °o° ° °a _ °° o oy = P _ o aso OL o o� 3 z° o 0 o=T �r S s= a _ k w ¢°� ° a� a� °"�' moi z3 - 'd3 °o ��oR2og° xo � poo op, rc° o ° °z N�°o�o�3a 'H a'd sz° H, ° x y _ ° _�-;°oLL-a o 10 �3 0 a=jo om v '_' ° °aw2,19 o o° wo°a� 'no opo -a��'�'_9�x soy°��'��5°000°u° �-° =ooaoaoaoFoaz=a°�zaoO°��,=a >oz>000a.� H a�a��°��o°10-o�ozoo,��=z20 _ Ig w a LLI -9 w � 31g��N�1 o o o ° ° °� "o o°aaz ��o o3°3a'��a�F�-moa a=o�;F opo m °zo�'o, o �3= s �oam�ao�,z° oa�o R, o°m °�� oho zoo�o°a�sa,=woaa ='oho 10 IHE2� mo ° =o w- O° 2. 'o�ao a0' - 8.-o 0 am omEo °FO� Sao o o F,., oGm zas°o 0°my 0z 20m.EzO� °- El 00 _ y a F 0,- ° o a� a o o� > _ K a° ozo d. z _ 'a�>z �'a -? ° ° y w E�!2' w°.�`='oo°� _ozo��'So F 'a"K°z�P-omg��.'��� s _o a°eam� a El _°-- �ozooGo°°o a°�mLL�aamya =°>� m °a _ a_ I—oeI�z �zP _}a- ,o o,o o�° °o�� o- -°o-VNoo m �oP°'�ao a'oa=o °'oot a���°°3ao, E=z"y ° °z mm'o°ora°Y °oo.o�N°�ao-a� oo oooo z NGSa°=a°�� R?°a„z¢�Oaz�zoz '�oo0�0, -,o=9'ooz-E�_Gog°s�oN oFoo°�o _ =y? z -o msoo oo r�o z¢ ���-- 0°o_�yPo aoa , °OOFoF°�F �o -0 °» N 1 0 0am0 s ? 0 s,mo 3a , R0 o o a •� S ow Q c2 o pp3�a mm qR o _ Ig w a LLI -9 w � 31g��N�1 o o o ° ° °� "o o°aaz ��o o3°3a'��a�F�-moa a=o�;F opo m °zo�'o, o �3= s �oam�ao�,z° oa�o R, o°m °�� oho zoo�o°a�sa,=woaa ='oho 10 IHE2� mo ° =o w- O° 2. 'o�ao a0' - 8.-o 0 am omEo °FO� Sao o o F,., oGm zas°o 0°my 0z 20m.EzO� °- El 00 _ y a F 0,- ° o a� a o o� > _ K a° ozo d. z _ 'a�>z �'a -? ° ° y w E�!2' w°.�`='oo°� _ozo��'So F 'a"K°z�P-omg��.'��� s _o a°eam� a El _°-- �ozooGo°°o a°�mLL�aamya =°>� m °a _ a_ I—oeI�z �zP _}a- ,o o,o o�° °o�� o- -°o-VNoo m �oP°'�ao a'oa=o °'oot a���°°3ao, E=z"y ° °z mm'o°ora°Y °oo.o�N°�ao-a� oo oooo z NGSa°=a°�� R?°a„z¢�Oaz�zoz '�oo0�0, -,o=9'ooz-E�_Gog°s�oN oFoo°�o _ =y? z -o msoo oo r�o z¢ ���-- 0°o_�yPo aoa , °OOFoF°�F �o -0 °» N 1 0 0am0 s ? 0 s,mo 3a , R0 do _ w _ a W U X/11 I o 17J \ _ w ow�'z oQ ¢ 4 O 3 w N L off = to I° I" r I I I 0---- I� I I F 71 ----0 ® OZ do _ w _ a W U X/11 I z a z w 2 _ w9 m o 17J \ _ m \/ L 7 L off = to I° I" r I I I 0---- I� I I F 71 ----0 z a z w 2 _ w9 m '- < wo Qv Y cSd = ao w 20 G � o 51 d m ��`� �a Hw '? w ¢Q V 'o' w q =w„ 6 i Iwm ---- 09, 10 10 og om ---- a - 3 - 3 LLLL J 3 3 3 �p� _ a Z � Q /\ J 3 a - Q A. 1=774 m M A m m s = LL = - - goac�soLL S� S� '"'" c�5o� <`a a� SoLL 'K` p�soLL �LL=LL � z��oa � z��spa ,ka poi �3 - w3 3 ��?'� a c�Uz>a oarya �3�zogm �3�zo amm a c�U� 9em�o ry r�m6� _oo>axor � o�>aym6o oho _e5w�<5 M ffl , oo>ay _`~'.33333 _�.�� - - `".333 ':33333¢333 ':_3333^333 ?3a.3 _u6i33333 _u6i333333 ':_3333^3 zzzz z3 wwwzzz 3zzzz zozzz zzwzzz z zzz zzzz zzwz O O O — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — wm === w a' z a YJr a ol I I I z 3= I o a x w It; = w w D O s m o< I I I I m I � I Alm o —h o A3a °o /m - m I I di �o¢ wm === w a' z a YJr a ol I I I z 3= o M o a x w D O °o /m - m I I wm === w a' z YJr I I I z 3 , ol w o w 2 a � 3= M o a - .N, � J m = 06 D O 96 �3a 3 cl LLI C m O 3 , ol o 2 x � 3= M o a w � J m = 06 D O 96 3 , 2 � � � J m = �3a 3 cl LLI 3 O o, o aM cl 3 a LL Z 0 m m (r ))_\ L--� �O cl I - - --- � \~ a ± 2§ / ± } ® � « : � > )(( ; 2\ (( _ §) :§\\ > \ M ^ ■! 2\ §) :§\\ > \ M ^ }/ / / \\// cc ( \ \ § 141 7§ �� CG �_ - ? lm 2 \ > 2 - w I. R y ± ; z \ ;r! _! �! l: Cn ■` § \ / mW & Cd \ 68 92(E -01 9 - 2 � L _ R = \_ \ / : . LLJ Cb > )(( ; ; t\ > \ M f ,\) (!f\ /\)\( !\ _! t\ > \ M N _! of 0 w0 00 ( � \ ! § & § Brown&Beaftie BUILDING SCIENCE ENGINEERING 588 Edward Avenue, Unit 49, Richmond Hill, ON L4C 9Y6 P 905-737-0111 F 905-7374046 (Guelph Region) P 519-827-1757 REPORT REGARDING STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF FIRE DAMAGED BUILDING AT 36 LANCASTER STREET EAST KITCHENER, ONTARIO PREPARED FOR: Levente Toth of Gore Mutual Insurance Company DATE: March 21, 2024 REFERENCE: Lancaster36.adj/r Page 27 of 294 Brown&Beaftie BUILDING SCIENCE ENGINEERING March 21, 2024 Gore Mutual Insurance Company 252 Dundas Street North, P.O. Box 70 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5T3 Attention: Levente Toth 588 Edward Avenue, Unit 49, Richmond Hill, ON L4C 9Y6 P 905-737-0111 F 905-737-4046 (Guelph Region) P 519-827-1757 Ref. Lancaster36.adj/r Re: Structural Assessment of Fire Damaged Building 36 Lancaster Street East Kitchener Ontario Insured: Client Claim Ref.: Date of Claim: August 4, 2023 Itoth(agorem utual.ca As requested, we visited the building at 36 Lancaster Street East in Kitchener to review engineering aspects of the recent structural fire damage. Specifically, we were requested to provide our opinion regarding the appropriate `structural' Scope of Work to return fire - damaged sections of the building to conditions commensurate with that prior to the fire. Please see the attached structural repair drawings for initial budgeting and subsequent Permit Application. We have the following summary comments. 1. INVESTIGATION Mr. Stephen MacDougall P.Eng., from Brown & Beattie visited the subject building on October 20, 2023 to review relevant structural conditions related to the fire damage to the building structure. The photographs included with this report were taken during our site visit unless otherwise noted. Additional photographs can be provided as considered necessary. The interior finishes were in place at the time of our inspection, concealing underlying conditions from ready assessment. Our review was limited to visible building components and we have not completed destructive testing unless otherwise noted. We have not reviewed construction drawings or calculations, environmental or concealed conditions. This is not a full Code, By -Law or Zoning Compliance or Structural Assessment of the entire building nor is it a Cause and Origin type assessment of the fire. This investigation is designed to provide sufficient information for its purpose, while trying to balance the cost of obtaining this information. It is likely that conditions not uncovered by this investigation exist, which may affect the costs or effectiveness of the recommended repairs. Page 28 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 3 2. INTRODUCTION This is a two and a half -storey (+basement) three -unit apartment building. We assume the original front portion of the building is in the order of 100 years old with the rear single -storey addition in the order of 40+ years old. We understand the building is a heritage designated property within the City of Kitchener Civic Centre neighbourhood heritage conservation district. Side Elevation Rear Elevation For the purposes of this report, Lancaster Street runs north -south and the building is on the east side of the street (front facing west). We understand that the fire originated along the rear exterior of the building; however this is not a cause and origin assessment. 3. OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSMENT This building includes three dwelling units with separate units in the basement, first floor and second floor respectively. Access to the basement unit is provided via the rear exterior stairwell, with access to the first and second floor units provided by separate entrances along the front of the building. We understand that this building was registered as a duplex with the City and that the basement apartment was added without a Permit. 2. Relevant 'structural' building components of the original front portion of the building include stone masonry foundation walls around the perimeter of the excavated basement with a concrete slab -on -grade basement floor. It appears that the foundations within the front half of the original building have been previously underpinned in order to lower the basement floor elevation, the details of which are subject to confirmation. Page 29 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 4 Where checked, the exterior wall framing includes 2x4 "balloon framed" studs which are continuous from the top of the foundation wall to the roof level. The first floor includes 2x10 joists spaced at 16" o/c spanning front to back where checked. The second -floor framing was concealed at the time of our review; however, is assumed to be similar to the first. It is unknown if the second floor joists include bearing support (typically with the use of a ribbon joist notched into the studs) or if the joists are simply nailed to the side of the balloon framed studs. The roof framing was mostly concealed at the time of our review; however, appears to include 2x4 rafters supporting plank sheathing. The second floor includes a combination of sloped and horizontal ceilings which are assumed to include concealed collar joists. 3. Relevant 'structural' building components of the rear addition include concrete block masonry foundation walls with assumed concealed footings extending to an unknown depth around the perimeter of an unexcavated crawl space. Where checked, the floor framing includes 2x8 joists spaced at 16" o/c spanning front to back. The exterior walls of the addition include 2x4 studs with OSB sheathing supporting 2x8 rafters spaced at 16" o/c with 1x2 strapping and plywood sheathing. The rear addition includes sloped ceilings (no ceiling joists) except for the hallway which includes 2x4 ceiling joists. 4. Relevant building 'envelope' components of the original building include an asphalt shingled rain barrier roof above a combination of sloped ceilings and a shallow attic space with assumed insulation and plaster or drywall ceiling finishes. It should be noted that based on the limited depth of the roof rafters, the roof likely does not include adequate thermal insulation or ventilation between the insulation and roof sheathing as required by the current Code. The exterior walls of the original building include brick masonry veneer on the exterior and lathe and plaster interior finishes. It is unknown to us if the exterior walls include significant amounts of thermal insulation. The basement of the original building is finished and includes drywall finishes with assumed concealed vapour barrier, strapping, and insulation on the interior side of the foundation walls. 5. Relevant building 'envelope' components of the rear addition include an asphalt shingled rain barrier roof above a sloped ceiling with batt insulation between the rafters, polyethylene vapour barrier and drywall ceiling finishes. The roof includes cross strapping along the top of the rafters intended to facilitate ventilation; however, the functionality of this ventilated space is suspect due to Page 30 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 5 the lack of roof top ventilation where the roof of the addition meets the rear wall of the original building. The exterior walls of the rear addition include board and batten wood siding with batt insulation between the studs, polyethylene vapour barrier and drywall interior finishes. 6. Significant "structural' fire damage to the building appeared to include primarily the rear exterior wall and roof of the single -storey rear addition. The fire resulted in significant charring to almost all of the roof rafters forming the roof above the rear addition. This includes the roof extension above the rear deck and supporting beam which was mostly consumed by the fire. The roof framing above the garage addition was concealed at the time of our review; however, it appears that this roof framing was likely also at least locally damaged by the fire. Page 31 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 6 Fire damage to the roof extended up and damaged the top of the interior loadbearing wall where the roof of the rear addition meets the original building above the laundry room. This wall appears to have been constructed on the exterior side of the original brick masonry and is assumed to provide loadbearing support for the roof of the addition. It is subject to confirmation following the removal of interior finishes if the adjacent wall of the original building was also damaged. The fire also damaged the majority of the rear exterior wall of the first -floor bedroom and bathroom within the addition. The full extent of damage to the wall is subject to confirmation; however, it appears that the exterior edge at the top of the wall studs were damaged along the majority of the rear wall. Page 32 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 7 The fire damaged the rear exterior deck as well as the rear ends of the first - floor joists of the addition. Where checked, the floor does not appear to have included a rim joist along the rear exterior wall, allowing the fire to enter the crawl space. The full extent of damage to the currently concealed floor joists is subject to confirmation and will likely require the removal of the floor sheathing. 7. The following photographs depict the general conditions of the interior finishes of the building noted during our inspection; the full extent of which is beyond our mandate and therefore was not assessed at the time of our inspections (related clean-ups had yet to be completed). It should be noted that the Code required unit fire separations provided by the drywall or plaster ceiling and wall finishes between the units included widespread fire, water, and/or smoke damages. Page 33 of 294 M. Brown & Beattie Ltd. www.brownbeattie.com Mk q ivo Brown & Beattie Ltd. www.brownbeattie.com 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Third Floor 8. The following photographs depict the building noted during our inspection. widespread damage to the exterio r Page 10 general conditions of the exterior of the Externally, fire related damages included wall cladding and roofing of the rear addition. The fire also resulted in at least localized smoke staining of the exterior brick masonry on the original house, the full extent of which is beyond the scope of this report and subject to confirmation. Page 36 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 11 9. Unrelated to the recent fire damage, several issues relating to the building's compliance with the current Building Code were noted during our assessment of the fire -related damages (not meant to be a complete inventory of such issues as many areas remain concealed and may reveal additional issues.) ➢ As previously discussed, the building is registered with the City as a duplex and it appears that the basement unit (making it a triplex) was added without a Permit. The basement ceiling height ranges between 5-11" and 6'-2" where checked within the rear half. The current Code requires a minimum height of 6-11" throughout 75% of the basement with a minimum height of 6'-5" below beams and ducts. Only the front half of the basement which appears to have been previously underpinned to provide a ceiling height of 7'-1" would meet this height requirement. In our opinion, the existing basement window also would not meet current Code requirements for egress and natural lighting. ➢ Unrelated to the recent fire, it should be noted that the original building appears to include stone masonry foundation walls. These walls were mostly concealed at the time of our review; however, in our experience, it is not uncommon for stone masonry foundations of this age to develop voids over the long term, as the grout and mortar between the stones (in the element, not just at the surface) disintegrates and washes out, leaving the element less and less stable as this condition progresses. Due to the age of the stone masonry walls, the deterioration of the mortar within the wall may be significantly greater than what is visible on the above grade exterior portions and as a result may have significantly weakened the wall. ➢ As previously discussed, the original building includes balloon framing where the studs are continuous from the top of the foundation wall tot the roof level. Where checked, the studs do not include Code required fire blocking at the second floor level and it is unknow if they include adequate bearing support for the floor joists. ➢ The third floor joists appear to be secured to sides of roof rafters as the original house includes partially closed ceilings on the second floor level. This framing was concealed at the time of our review; however, in our experience it is unlikely that the third floor joists include adequate bearing support as required by Code. It should also be noted that the third floor may have originally been intended for use as an unconditioned attic space, and as a result the third floor joists may not have been intended to support occupancy loading. Page 37 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 12 ➢ Access to the third floor is provided via very steep, narrow stairs which do not include a handrail. These stairs would evidently not meet current Code requirements and in our opinion are a falling/safety hazard. As previously discussed, it is unclear if the third floor was originally intended as occupied space or if it was converted from an attic sometime since original construction. ➢ As previously discussed, the rear addition does not appear to include a rim joist along the rear exterior end. In our opinion, a rim joist is required at this location in order to adequately transfer the loading from the wall and roof above to the foundation. ➢ The roof of the rear addition appears to be supported in some areas by a ledge board bolted to the rear exterior wall of the original house. The ledger board appears to be located near mid -height of the wall and it is unclear if the ledger board bolts are adequately fastened to the building Page 38 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 13 structure. It should be noted that the ledger board should not be secured to the brick veneer which is not intended to support roof loads. ➢ Where visible, the rear wall of the original building appears to include openings in the brick masonry, while maintaining sections of brick above. It is unclear if the remaining brick above these openings is adequately supported. ➢ As previously discussed, the roofs of the original building and rear addition include sloped ceilings which provide limited space for thermal insulation and Code required ventilation between the insulation and roof sheathing. In our opinion, the existing roof assemblies do not include adequate insulation and ventilation with respect to current Standards and as a result may be susceptible to long-term performance issues such as excessive condensation build-ups during the winter months. ➢ The basement stairs does not include a handrail as required by the current Code. Page 39 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener 4. DISCUSSION Page 14 Part 11 of the Ontario Building Code applies to renovations of existing building systems, assuming related Permits were obtained for their original construction. Renovation of existing buildings can fall within the scope of a "basic renovation" or an "extensive renovation" depending on the extent of the repair work at issue to be carried out (in this case the fire damages). Basic renovations allow the existing systems to be repaired to meet existing conditions and to the same performance levels, while extensive renovations require Upgrades in compliance with Part 11 and the other parts of the Ontario Building Code, again assuming Permits were obtained for the original construction. The Building Code indicates that extensive renovations involve significant changes or substantial removal to the interior walls, layouts, floor assemblies, roof assemblies, or building systems, while basic renovations involve material alterations or repairs to the existing systems. In our opinion, Part 11 does not require sections of a building not undergoing renovation to retroactively meet current Codes. The fire resulted in significant damage to the majority of the rear addition roof and rear exterior wall as discussed in this report. Based on this, it is our opinion that the renovations required due to the fire damage would be considered an "extensive renovation" of the fire -damaged framing systems, requiring the replaced building systems to meet the structural requirements of the current Code. An extensive renovation under Part 11 of the Code requires that the renovated fire - damaged building system which is being substantially replaced meet the requirements of the current Code. Part 11 of the current Code provides compliance alternatives to allow for components that do not meet the current Code to remain in an existing building if they are affected by the construction work and not replaced. It also allows for areas and structures not affected by the construction work to remain in an existing building. Page 40 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 15 In our opinion, all significantly damaged structural and fire rated assemblies that require replacement as discussed in this report should be replaced with new assemblies that meet current Code requirements within the limitations of existing construction. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information available, it is our opinion that the recent fire resulted in significant structural damage to the majority of the rear addition roof and rear exterior wall to the extent that the complete replacement of this roof section and rear exterior wall is warranted. The fire also damaged the rear exterior deck to the extent that its complete replacement is warranted. Localized fire damage was noted to the rear end of the first -floor joists for the rear addition to the extent that the augmentation or replacement of at least some of these joists is warranted, the full extent of which is subject to further review. Localized fire damage was also noted to the interior stud wall supporting the roof of the addition along the rear wall of the original building to the extent that the partial replacement of this wall is also warranted, again the extent of which is subject to further review. Unrelated to the recent fire damage, several issues related to the building's compliance with current Code requirements were identified during our review of the fire damages. As previously discussed, Part 11 of the Code allows for existing building components not affected by the construction work to remain in an existing building; however, several of these items should be addressed as part of the repairs due to potential safety concerns, recognizing these are not a result of the fire. We recommend reviewing issues further following the removal of interior finishes. As we understand the basement dwelling unit was added without a Permit, Part 11 of the Code does not apply to the replacement of that unit. As discussed, the existing basement ceiling height and egress does not meet current Code requirements. Based on our discussions, we have included for the removal of the basement dwelling unit for the purposes of the fire damage repairs. If the Insured wishes, a separate permit application may be submitted to the City to convert the building from a duplex to a triplex. Additional repairs may be necessary around the discussed areas in this report, the full extent of which is subject to confirmation upon interior finish removals and as the Work progresses to expose presently concealed conditions. We recommend we return to site following the removal of the interior finishes to review conditions further. Please see the attached structural repair drawings for budgeting, and Permit Application. As discussed, the full scope of work is subject to confirmation following the removal of interior finishes. Page 41 of 294 36 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener Page 16 Please note this report is based primarily on technical considerations. We recommend final decisions also take into account other considerations such as costs, timings, coverage, desired alterations, Permit implications, etc. We can prepare a further report with additional photographs and comment or drawings as considered necessary. Should you wish to review matters further in the interim, or review additional information that becomes available, please contact us at 905-737-0111. Yours truly, BROWN & BEATTIE LTD. 6'� f Stephen MacDougall, P.Eng. -mak' 01,�'3'�'� Tim Beattie, P.Eng. c. Ben O'Malley, Gore Mutual (bomallevQGoreMutual.ca) Please note this report was based on a visual assessment of the accessible areas only. Unless noted specifically, intrusive or destructive testing was completed during this assessment. Technical specifications should be prepared for any work decided upon as a result of this report. The material in this report reflects best judgement in light of the information available and does not imply fitness for a particular purpose and should not be considered a verification of past or present regulations. Brown & Beattie Ltd. cannot be held responsible for any deficiencies that may be found within inaccessible areas by others, which have not been documented in this report. Copies of this report are subject to authentication from the writer. Brown & Beattie Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Use of this report or any other aspect of our service is not authorized until and unless our account is paid in full and on time. Page 42 of 294 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 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 7 DATE OF REPORT: May 15, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-255 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-010 50 Brookside Crescent Roof Replacement RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-010 be approved to permit the replacement of the existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles on the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present a proposal for the replacement of an existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles as detailed in Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-010 on the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act • The key finding of this report is that the proposed alteration is in keeping with local and provincial standards and guidelines and is not anticipated to negatively impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the property but is necessary for the continued function and maintenance of the dwelling. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included posting this report and associated agenda in advance of the meeting and consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 43 of 294 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-010 seeking permission to replace an existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles on the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent. '34'' " 31 39 8a Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property REPORT: 35 The subject property is located on the north side of Brookside Crescent, which intersects with Ramblewood Way within the Forest Heights Planning Community of the City of Kitchener. The property contains a mid -19th century two-storey single detached dwelling with a summer kitchen wing and detached fieldstone accessory structure in the northwest corner of the rear yard. There is a detached field stone garage on the lot adjacent to the west, municipally addressed as 52 Brookside Crescent, which was severed from the original property as part of a consent application in 2022. Page 44 of 294 Figure 2: Front Fagade of Subject Property 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designing By-law No. 2019-093 and is recognized for its design and contextual values. The house is a notable example of the Georgian architectural style and displays a high degree of craftmanship in its stone masonry and architectural detailing. In addition it contributes to the character of the surround area, being a prominent feature within the neighbourhood and contextually appropriate in its height, setback, and frontage. The heritage attributes identified by the designating by-law are limited to the original house and summer kitchen wing and include the following: • the scale and regular massing of the 2 -storey, 3 -bay front Georgian style building, including the full-length front porch; • the load-bearing, granite fieldstone walls with plastered and whitewashed portion under the front porch; • the three granite fieldstone chimneys; • the gable roof, including the summer kitchen wing, and the porch shed roof, all clad with cedar shingles; • the window openings except the ground floor, east, front facade window opening (the windows are not included; however, the 6/6 and 2/2 style of the current replacement windows should be retained unless evidence of a different, earlier style emerges); and • the front door with transom and sidelights. Page 45 of 294 Roof Replacement The existing black cedar shingle roof has reached the end of its lifecycle and is in poor condition, allowing leaks into the interior of the home in several different locations during weather events. To address this issue the owner/applicant is proposing to replace the existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles, specifically Bundle #1 Grade 18" Perfection Western Red Cedar Shingles from Twin Creeks Log Home Supply in natural cedar colour (Figure 3). Figure 3: Proposed Replacement Cedar Shingles Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of Designing By-law No. 2019-093. • The proposal is for the replacement of the existing cedar shingle roof with new cedar shingles. • The gable roof, including the summer kitchen wing, and the porch shed roof, all clad with cedar shingles, is identified as a heritage attribute in the designating by-law. • The existing cedar shingle roof does not appear to be original to the house. Though no building permits are available indicating if or when such work was done, there are two points of evidence that allow for this assumption. The existing shingles are black in colour, where photos of the farmstead taken c. 1960 display a green cedar shingle roof (Figure 4). Further, cedar shingle roofs typically have a lifecycle of approximately 30 years. • The proposed roofing system will address leaks and prevent further damage to the interior of the home. Page 46 of 294 • The proposed roof replacement is not anticipated to adversely impact the cultural heritage value or interest of the subject property, as the cedar shingle is an appropriate material and in keeping with the character of the subject lands. • The proposed alteration is in keeping 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. Figure 4: Photograph of 50 Brookside Crescent c. 1962 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 47 of 294 Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application Form Attachment B — Designation By-law No. 2019-093 Page 48 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 8"' Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca n - Page 7 of 90 PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY , , Municipal Address: '�) 0 15 CX7�� i Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: 'Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ,KPart IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name Addre City/Pi Phone Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postai Cod Phone: Email: Workingtogether • Growing thoughtfully * Building community Page 49 of 294 2024 Page 8 of 10 S. 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. i� fZz-,ov;� CzE tai Ae-efntR Imo` a. f*T U P-A 11 elf-1pdfv— Clc�,L-" 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: q Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicl2Laces,calen/pages/standards-normes.aspx): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑ Yes ATNo - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes WNo - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes VNO e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number_ Working together * Growing thoughtfully * Building community Page 50 of 294 2©24 Page 9 of 10 U. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 specification approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being impose ent as provided for under the Ontario Herita/g�e, Act. Signature of OwnerfAgent: Date:i UZ� 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, , oJvcniOr-of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my 1 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 Page 51 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete Notice of Receipt:_ Notice of Decision: - 90 -Day Expiry Date:_ PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Working together * Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 10 of 10 Page 52 of 294 2024 Page 1 of 2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY GRANT APPLICATION Development & Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 611 Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca K�Tc'lgilh"' "" STAFF USE ONLY All applicants are required to meet with staff to review the details of their application prior to submission. Please contact heritage planning staff at heritactena kitchener.ca to arrange. Applications are subject to an $80.00 non-refundable administrative fee • Deadline for applications is May 31, 2024 + Deadline for completion of work and submission of final invoices is December 31, 2024 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION (please print) Name of Property Owner: L% Mailing Address:IOE!5� ^fir City/F Phon( Email 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY (for which application is being made) Municipal Address: -*v �i 1 3. UNDER WHICH PART OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT IS THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED? rsall Part IV (individual property) ❑ Part V (heritage conservation district) 4. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY GRANT FOR THIS PROPERTY? ❑ Yes - If yes, please indicate date and amount of grant: Year: Year: Value: $ Value: $ 5. Please attach a description of the of the project proposal and cost breakdown. Include details such as materials to be used, sizes, mortar mixes, etc. Enclose all drawings, photos and/or other material, including at least one written estimate, necessary for a complete understanding of the proposed work. Please include copies of any available historic photographs. I certify that the information provided in this application is accurate & complete to the best of Amy knowledge and I agree to the terms a conditions of the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program as established by the City of Kitche er. Property Owner Sign Date: Working together * Growing thoughtfully * Building community Page 53 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY Project Recommendation ❑ Accepted - Conditions: ❑ Not Accepted _ Reason: Staff Signature: • Is grant amount maximum allowable? ❑ Yes ❑ No • How much is grant? • Date letter sent to property owner confirming grant amount:_ • Deadline for response from owner: • Date letter received from owner confirming action: • Owner to proceed? ❑ Yes ❑ No • Date of receipt of final invoices: • Date of final inspection: • Is owner in compliance with program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments: Date of cheque requisition: Date: Page 2 of 2 Working together + Growing. thoughtfully • Building community Page 54 of 294 VL- Pages %CJp`ro ' — l O e-1 Ala" ' = i.�ia"el't;?C� ' "s �� c f ze Z'30,Z:' • —�, We Propose hereby to furnish material and labour - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: r ), Payment to be ma a as o ows: dollars ($- /I's0-e r^ r [��i% �°'�r�-.� iJ tai. -� � � • A t� ��c.L� �� Authorized All materiaf is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a Signature - workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our Note: This proposal may be control. Owner to carry fire, windstorm and other necessary insurance. Our workers withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. are fully covered by the applicable workplace safety and insurance programs. Acceptance of Proposal The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby Signature accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature Page 55 of 294 CONSUMER RIGHTS - see reverse rua I W� cuut JOB LOCATION _ CONTACT DATE OF PLANS JOB TELEPHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: nA esn ,XL 6a .� ex �4-. eq (9 4 I l p �/eru"� C clfzs-e� -� Ci°'7 %CJp`ro ' — l O e-1 Ala" ' = i.�ia"el't;?C� ' "s �� c f ze Z'30,Z:' • —�, We Propose hereby to furnish material and labour - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: r ), Payment to be ma a as o ows: dollars ($- /I's0-e r^ r [��i% �°'�r�-.� iJ tai. -� � � • A t� ��c.L� �� Authorized All materiaf is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a Signature - workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our Note: This proposal may be control. Owner to carry fire, windstorm and other necessary insurance. Our workers withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. are fully covered by the applicable workplace safety and insurance programs. Acceptance of Proposal The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby Signature accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature Page 55 of 294 CONSUMER RIGHTS - see reverse MRyy X Why Main Street Roofing is the People's Choice. • Our sheet metal shop will make your exact flashing requirements • Heavy 26 gauge metal valley and wall flashings in place of light 28-30 used by other companies • Lomanco rodent proof vents in place of plastic vents • Tremco 830 commercial caulking • Shingles are Hand_ Nailed, no nail guns used • We use our own dump truck, no garbage bins needed • Hourly employees, no sub -contractors or piece workers • No WSIB claims in all 42 years • No court law suits in all 42 years • Perfect BBB score A+ for 42 years Serving satisfied customers for 42 years Page 56 of 294 Nail Guns Verses Mand Nailing Main Street Roofing has been in the industry for over 45 years and has seen many problems with applications of shingled roofing these problems range from small to serious causing leakage and the life span of the new roof installed. The usage of nail guns are responsible for these problems because they do no follow manufactures installation procedures in order to be fully covered under the manufactures guarantee. Asphalt shingles are manufactured using two halves that are joined with a 1" head lap, the bottom being the exposed finished half of the shingle, the upper half is the underlay of the following course of shingles. Under manufactures instructions the nailing must occur on the nail line which is centered on the 1" head lap. If the nail is applied more than Y" above the line both halves of the shingles are not fastened allowing for .wind damage and void of manufacture's guarantee. Nailing below the line W will only penetrate the bottom half of the shingle allowing for wind damage leaving the nail visible causing future leakage and voiding warranty, The use of nail guns make it difficult during installation because the guns are large and conceal the nail lines during application. On roof inspections 1 have noticed a large percent of nails missing the nail lines and causing homeowners problems. Nail guns use air pressure to drive the nails into the shingles if the pressure is to strong the nails go completely threw, if the air pressure is low the nail will be left above the roof level causing a hole in the following course. Nail guns are also not to be used in colder temperatures when materials are brittle shingles will fracture with the force of the nail guns. Main Street Roofing installs every roof by hand using hammers to insure the installation be followed by manufactures guide lines and instructions for warranty purposes. As well as providing a long-term roof for home owners and quality workmanship from Main Street Roofing. This information will benefit home owners in selecting a qualified roofing contractor. Page 57 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 8"' Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca n - Page 7 of 90 PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY , , Municipal Address: '�) 0 15 CX7�� i Legal Description (if know): Building/Structure Type: 'Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ,KPart IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: M ) cwRLL._... k6 -�qu!5c- Address: City/Province/Postal Code:1 NCA-_'Qw.Q�4 Phone: �a'1 CX? Email: l t_-Oc6z� ce, 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postai Cod Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 58 of 294 2024 Page 8 of 10 S. 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. i� fZz-,ov;� CzE tai Ae-efntR Imo` a. f*T U P-A 11 elf-1pdfv— Clc�,L-" 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: q Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicl2Laces,calen/pages/standards-normes.aspx): 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑ Yes ATNo - If yes, who did you speak to? c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes WNo - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes VNO e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number_ Working together * Growing thoughtfully * Building community Page 59 of 294 2©24 Page 9of10 U. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 specificaflonaapproved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed oir im n onment as provided for under the Ontario Herita/g�e, Act. Signature of Owner/Agent:L�#Date:i UZ� 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, , oJvcniOr-of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my 1 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 Page 60 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete Notice of Receipt:_ Notice of Decision: - 90 -Day Expiry Date:_ PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Working together * Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 10 of 10 Page 61 of 294 2024 Page 1 of 2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY GRANT APPLICATION Development & Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 611 Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca K�Tc'lgilh"' "" STAFF USE ONLY All applicants are required to meet with staff to review the details of their application prior to submission. Please contact heritage planning staff at heritactena kitchener.ca to arrange. • Applications are subject to an $80.00 non-refundable administrative fee • Deadline for applications is May 31, 2024 • Deadline for completion of work and submission of final invoices is December 31, 2024 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION (please print) Name of Property Owner: L% Mailing Address:IOE!5� ^fir City/Province/Postal Code:_. Phone: .s79 4 19, V e0 Email: .. ex} 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY (for which application i� being made) Municipal Address: -*v �i 1 3. UNDER WHICH PART OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT IS THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED? rsall Part IV (individual property) ❑ Part V (heritage conservation district) 4. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY GRANT FOR THIS PROPERTY? ❑ Yes - If yes, please indicate date and amount of grant: Year:Value: $ Year: Value: $ 5. Please attach a description of the of the project proposal and cost breakdown. Include details such as materials to be used, sizes, mortar mixes, etc. Enclose all drawings, photos and/or other material, including at least one written estimate, necessary for a complete understanding of the proposed work. Please include copies of any available historic photographs. I certify that the information provided in this application is accurate & complete to the best of Amy knowledge and I agree to the terms a conditions of the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program as established by the City of Kitche er. Property Owner Sign Date: 6 ;r—©;'y- Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 62 of 294 2024 STAFF USE ONLY Project Recommendation ❑ Accepted - Conditions: ❑ Not Accepted _ Reason: Staff Signature: • Is grant amount maximum allowable? ❑ Yes ❑ No • How much is grant? • Date letter sent to property owner confirming grant amount:_ • Deadline for response from owner: • Date letter received from owner confirming action: • Owner to proceed? ❑ Yes ❑ No • Date of receipt of final invoices: • Date of final inspection: • Is owner in compliance with program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments: Date of cheque requisition: Date: Page 2 of 2 Working together + Growing. thoughtfully • Building community Page 63 of 294 VL - MAIN STREET ROOMNG LTD. 976 GARDEN LANE MILLGROVE, ONTARIO 1-813 1 P1 PHONE (905) 689-3957 H.S.T. 13458-9613 RT0001 www. mainstreetroofing.ca TELEPHONE c - We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: cSCe /—/c C-jd J11 'A rJ1 Ctj1110 a. rCe '3 6� Eel. Page No. of Pages 1521.3 l Q 1/�rt1" C'CZe-V— _-z AII C> 11) [�rJ ��/lr �+� 0-I(-A�V O e-1 Ala" ' = i.�ia"el't;?C� ' "s �� c f ze Z'30'Z:' ' —�, We Propose hereby to furnish material and labour - complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: r ). Payment to be ma a as o ows: dollars ($__ CO 17 jnDCe-( 4(6/ Authorized All materiaf is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a Signature— - - workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our Note: This proposal may be control. Owner to carry fire, windstorm and other necessary insurance. Our workers withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. are fully covered by the applicable workplace safety and insurance programs. Acceptance of Proposal The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby Signature accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature Page 64 of 294 CONSUMER RIGHTS - see reverse MRyy X Why Main Street Roofing is the People's Choice. • Our sheet metal shop will make your exact flashing requirements • Heavy 26 gauge metal valley and wall flashings in place of light 28-30 used by other companies • Lomanco rodent proof vents in place of plastic vents • Tremco 830 commercial caulking • Shingles are Hand_ Nailed, no nail guns used • We use our own dump truck, no garbage bins needed • Hourly employees, no sub -contractors or piece workers • No WSIB claims in all 42 years • No court law suits in all 42 years • Perfect BBB score A+ for 42 years Serving satisfied customers for 42 years Page 65 of 294 Nail Guns Verses Mand Nailing Main Street Roofing has been in the industry for over 45 years and has seen many problems with applications of shingled roofing these problems range from small to serious causing leakage and the life span of the new roof installed. The usage of nail guns are responsible for these problems because they do no follow manufactures installation procedures in order to be fully covered under the manufactures guarantee. Asphalt shingles are manufactured using two halves that are joined with a 1" head lap, the bottom being the exposed finished half of the shingle, the upper half is the underlay of the following course of shingles. Under manufactures instructions the nailing must occur on the nail line which is centered on the 1" head lap. If the nail is applied more than Y" above the line both halves of the shingles are not fastened allowing for .wind damage and void of manufacture's guarantee. Nailing below the line W will only penetrate the bottom half of the shingle allowing for wind damage leaving the nail visible causing future leakage and voiding warranty, The use of nail guns make it difficult during installation because the guns are large and conceal the nail lines during application. On roof inspections 1 have noticed a large percent of nails missing the nail lines and causing homeowners problems. Nail guns use air pressure to drive the nails into the shingles if the pressure is to strong the nails go completely threw, if the air pressure is low the nail will be left above the roof level causing a hole in the following course. Nail guns are also not to be used in colder temperatures when materials are brittle shingles will fracture with the force of the nail guns. Main Street Roofing installs every roof by hand using hammers to insure the installation be followed by manufactures guide lines and instructions for warranty purposes. As well as providing a long-term roof for home owners and quality workmanship from Main Street Roofing. This information will benefit home owners in selecting a qualified roofing contractor. Page 66 of 294 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 22, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-243 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) Demolition of Building Additions c. 1860 Log House with c. 1920-1930 Addition & c. 1960 Additions 236 Gehl Place RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Section 27(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) received on April 26, 2024, regarding the circa 1920- 1930 addition and the two circa 1960 additions located on the property municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place, 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 three additions attached to the original circa 1860 log house municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (subject property). The key finding of this report is that the three additions to the log house on the subject property do not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) under the Ontario Heritage Act. As a result, Heritage Planning staff recommend that the Notice of Intention to Designate (Partial) the three additions to the log house on the subject property be received and that the notice period run its course. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included consultation with Heritage Kitchener. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) along with a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) have been submitted for three additions attached to the original circa 1860 log house municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (subject property). The subject property is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 67 of 294 Heritage Register. A Site Alteration Permit has been submitted to facilitate the movement of fill from the subject property to 1873 Bleams Road. The log house and its additions are in an area of high topography where the fill will be cut and removed. As a result, the applicant is proposing to demolish three additions to the log house and, as part of future processes, relocate the log house. The HIA concluded that all three additions do not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, prior to demolition of the building additions, the HIA indicates that a Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan, will be submitted to the City. Heritage Planning staff recommend that the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the three additions be received for information and that the notice period run its course. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the one (1) circa 1920-1930 addition and the two (2) circa 1960 additions to a log house (Attachment A) municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (Figure 1.0) (subject property). The Notice was received along with a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on April 26, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May 14, 2024 (Attachment B). The purpose of the Notice and revised scoped HIA is to facilitate the proposed demolition of three building additions to the log house on the subject property in order to thoroughly document, evaluate and provide conservation recommendations for the original log house in a future HIA. iaLEAMS ROAD Figure 1.0: Location Map of 236 Gehl Place The subject property was evaluated as part of the City's Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study Community Master Planning process. As part of this process, a heritage consultant was retained to identify, evaluate, and provide recommendations for cultural heritage resources within the study area. "The Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky, Heritage Consultant, and dated August 2010 concluded that the subject property is worthy of designation under Part IV of Page 68 of 294 the Ontario Heritage Act, and conservation as it is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. The study provided a preliminary list of heritage attributes. This list did not include the building additions. Council formally "listed" the subject property on the Municipal Heritage Register, as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, on August 29, 2011, based on the City's 4 -Step Listing Process and the evaluation conducted by Nancy Tausky. The listing included a Statement of Significance (SOS) describing the preliminary cultural heritage value or interest and a preliminary list of heritage attributes (Attachment C). The SOS did not include the building additions. The applicant submitted a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) on April 11, 2024. The purpose of the SAP is to facilitate the movement of approximately 300,000 m3 of native fill from the subject property to the lands to the north located at 1873 Bleams Road to raise previously extracted gravel pit lands to improve grading in a new residential subdivision. The log house and its additions are in an area of high topography, whereby the topography is proposed to be cut and moved to the lands to the north. The applicant is proposing to relocate the log house (to be addressed in a future HIA) to allow the fill to be moved. Ontario Heritage Act Part IV, Section 27(3), of the Ontario Heritage Act provides a minimum level of conservation to properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest 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. In accordance with the Act, Council has 60 days as of and including April 26, 2024 (date of receipt of the plans and information required for Heritage Planning staff to make a recommendation to Heritage Kitchener and Council), 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 Designate as a means of preventing the demolition. As noted earlier in this report, the Notice of Intention to Demolish was received along with a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The revised scoped HIA is a draft and has not been approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals; however, the Notice combined with the revised scoped HIA is sufficient for Heritage Planning staff to make a recommendation to Heritage Kitchener and Council. Page 69 of 294 REPORT: The property municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place (Figure 1.0) is located on the south side of Bleams Road between Fischer Hallman Road and Trussler Road and contains a circa 1860 log house (Figure 2.0) with three (3) additions. It is recognized for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values as identified in the Statement of Significance (SOS) associated with it's listing as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). The preliminary list of heritage attributes identified in the SOS include: "All elements related to the construction and Georgian architectural style of the house, including: log construction, side gable roof and roofline, fieldstone foundation, symmetrical window placement; window openings; off-centre front door placement; original exterior door and door opening; original interior doors, original baseboards; original door and window surrounds, original floor joists; and, original floor boards. " Additions to the building were not identified as heritage attributes. The focus of this report is the proposed demolition of the circa 1920-1930 addition and the circa 1960s additions, the potential negative impact of these demolitions on the original log house, and the recommended measures to mitigate negative impacts to the log house (Figure 3.0). Figure 2.0: Front Elevation of Log House (South Elevation) with one -storey building addition on the left Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) enables municipalities to pass designating by-laws for individual properties that have cultural heritage value or interest. Heritage designation is one tool to conserve cultural heritage resources as it provides a mechanism to manage change, such as alterations and demolitions, to ensure that the cultural heritage value and interest along with the heritage attributes of a property are not negatively impacted by proposed changes. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, now amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22, prescribes the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Designation requires a property to meet two (2) or more of nine (9) criteria relating to design/physical, historical/associative, and/or contextual values. Heritage Impact Assessment A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) entitled "236 Gehl Place — Scoped HIA For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" was prepared by Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated dated April 25, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May Page 70 of 294 14, 2024. The revised scoped HIA was submitted as supporting information with the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the three building additions to the log house on the subject property. The purpose of the HIA was to evaluate the three building additions to the log house on the subject property under Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine (1) if the three building additions have cultural heritage value or interest, and (2) mitigate any potential negative impacts resulting from the proposed demolition of the additions. Figure 3.0: Building Additions (North Elevation) with 2 -storey and two 1 -storey buildings additions The revised scoped HIA evaluated the cultural heritage value or interest of the additions to the log house (not the log house itself) on the subject property using Ontario Regulation 9/06. A summary of the evaluation is provided in Table 1.0. Ontario Regulation 9/06 236 Gehl Place (Additions Only) (Comments copied from Revised Scoped HIA) The property has design value or physical Criteria not met. After the 1960 renovation value because it is a rare, unique, by Edward Henhoeffer and his son William representative or early example of a style, (Bill), the additions, including the first type, material, or construction method. addition, are of common construction materials and style. The first addition was once completely clad in stucco on tar paper. This detail helped the author to date the first addition to 1920-1930. As such, it may have been an early example of the use of stucco cladding material; however, the remnant of stucco is a small area in one corner of the east addition. It does not warrant conservation of the complete 1'/2 storey addition. A representative sample of the stucco wall assembly can be carefully removed and kept if a suitable heritage material archive is available to store it and make it available to the public. Page 71 of 294 The property has design value or physical Criteria not met. The additions are of value because it displays a high degree of competent craftsmanship, though the roof craftsmanship or artistic merit. of the 2 -storey addition sags and is not. There are no details or materials of inherent value or artistic merit. The property has design or physical value Criteria are not met. The additions framing because it demonstrates a high degree of and finish are technically vernacular and technical or scientific achievement. have no scientific intent. The property has historical value or Criteria not met. The additions were not associative value because it has direct the site of a unique cultural heritage associations with a theme, event, belief, activity. The Log structure and the land will person, activity, organization, or institution be evaluated separately in the full HIA. that is significant to a community. The property has historical or associative Criteria not met. The generic form, value because it yields, or has the potential technique and use of the additions to yield, information that contributes to an contributes nothing new or unique to this understanding of a community or culture. understanding. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. The property has historical value or Criteria not met. The 2 -storey addition associative value because it demonstrates builder is anonymous, and the recent past or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, owner and his father built the 1 -storey artist, builder, designer or theorist who is addition. There is no significant individual's significant to a community. body of work involved. The property has contextual value because Criteria not met. The additions are isolated it is important in defining, maintaining or from any other built context and the supporting the character of an area. original surrounding farmland forms are changing to suit the proposed new residential use. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. The property has contextual value because Criteria not met. The additions have a it is physically, functionally, visually, or historic link to their surroundings; However, historically linked to its surroundings. the surroundings lands are proposed to change from a farm to a residential subdivision. The context is expected to change substantially. The log structure and the land contextual value will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. The property has contextual value because Criteria not met. it is a landmark. Table 1.0: Evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Building Additions to the Log House at 236 Gehl Drive Page 72 of 294 In summary, the revised scoped HIA concludes that the building additions to the log house on the subject property do not meet the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 and therefore do not warrant designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Although the building additions do not meet the criteria for designation, their proposed demolition may negatively impact the structural integrity and/or the heritage attributes of the original log house on the subject property. The revised scoped HIA provides a basic overview of the measures that should be undertaken to protect the original log house while the building additions are being demolished. These measures include: • temporarily fill openings in the north wall of the log structure with wood frame and sheathing to provide protection to the log structure and to the adjacent cut logs; • retaining a demolition team with a minimum of 5 years of experience with work that involves partial demolition that allows the original structure to remain intact; • demolition by hand of any elements directly in contact with the log structure and its roof to ensure that the forces generated by the removal of these elements do not harm the original structure; • once the additions are detached from the original structure, the removal of the bulk material may continue aided by backhoe machines suited for the purpose; • ground vibration will be monitored during demolition and any vibrations exceeding the maximum permitted vibration will stop the work to notify the owner and heritage consultant; • allow the portion of the gable roof that extends over the log structure to remain in place; and, • enclose the exposed gable with sheathing materials to block the elements and to discourage animal access. Once the building additions have been demolished, the revised scoped HIA provides an overview of basic measures that should be undertaken to protect the original log house on the subject property until such time as the final approved conservation option is implemented. These measures include temporarily blocking all exterior openings and wrapping the house in a vapour permeable membrane, such as Tyvek, to seal the house from rain and snow without trapping humidity in the logs and interior of the house. Prior to demolition of the building additions, the scoped HIA indicates that additional studies will be submitted to the City. These additional studies include: a Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan. Heritage Planning staff will provide a Terms of Reference for these studies and strongly encourage the applicant to submit these studies for review by Heritage Planning staff by Monday, June 3, 2024. This will allow Heritage Planning staff to provide a verbal update to Heritage Kitchener and Council that addresses any outstanding concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the demolition of the additions to the structural integrity and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. The proposed demolition of the building additions will help facilitate a detailed evaluation of the entire log house to provide conservation options (to be addressed in a future HIA) for the Site Alteration Permit process and any future Planning Act applications. A future HIA will be required to identify conservation options and recommend a preferred Page 73 of 294 conservation option based on Federal, Provincial, and Municipal policies, guidelines, and best practices. Site Alteration Permit As noted earlier in this report, a Site Alteration Permit (SAP) was submitted on April 11, 2024, to facilitate the movement of fill from the 236 Gehl Place to the lands to the north located at 1873 Bleams Road. The need to move fill is required to raise previously extracted gravel pit lands to improve grading in a new residential subdivision. As part of the SAP process, Heritage Planning staff have requested the following: 1. A Stage 1-4 Archaeological Assessment (AA) approved by the Ministry; 2. A full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) related to the conservation of the original log house; 3. A Conservation Plan (CP) to: a. To address the demolition of the building additions; b. To address the short-, medium-, and long-term conservation of the original log house; c. To provide a relocation plan with a footings and foundations plan; 4. Additional studies, including: a. Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan, including: i. A Structural Assessment; ii. A Hoarding and Construction Plan; iii. A Vibration Monitoring Plan; iv. A Risk Management Plan; b. Documentation Plan, including: i. Building Elevations; ii. Photographs; c. Cost Estimate(s) and a Letter of Credit for all work identified in the approved HIA, approved CP and approved additional studies; and, 5. That the applicant enters into a Heritage Covenant Agreement under the Ontario Heritage Act to address all matters relating to the approved HIA, the approved CP, the approved Heritage Permit Application (HPA) (if required), and the approved additional studies. These matters may include, but are not limited to, implementation of recommendations, receipt of cost estimate(s) and a letter of credit, certifications from relevant consultants, etc. 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 - 1 . nclude:1. 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. And/Or, 2. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition; however, the owner could appeal Council's decision. Heritage Planning Staff Comments A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) entitled "236 Gehl Place — Scoped HIA For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" was prepared by Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated dated April 25, 2024. A revised scoped HIA was received on May 14, 2024. Page 74 of 294 Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the revised scoped HIA entitled "236 Gehl Place — Scoped HIA For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home" prepared by Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated dated May 14, 2024, and, generally, agree with its conclusions and recommendations. Heritage Planning staff agree that the additions to the log house do not meet Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest) under the Ontario Heritage Act. As such, Heritage Planning staff support the demolition of these additions subject to confirmation, via additional studies, that the demolition/removal of these additions will not negatively impact the structural integrity and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. In this regard, Heritage Planning staff agree with the recommendations in the revised scoped HIA that prior to the demolition of the additions to the log house, a "Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan" is required. With respect to Council's options, Heritage Planning staff offer the following comments: 1. 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: Heritage Planning staff are concerned that allowing the notice period to run its course without an approved "Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan" may result in negative impacts to the structural integrity and/or the heritage attributes of the original log house on the subject property. In this regard, Heritage Planning staff will provide a Terms of Reference for the above -noted study and strongly encourage the applicant to submit the study for review by Heritage Planning staff by Monday, June 3, 2024 at 8:00 am. This will allow Heritage Planning staff to provide a verbal update to Heritage Kitchener and Council that addresses any outstanding concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the demolition of the additions to the structural integrity and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. Assuming Heritage Planning staff have no outstanding concerns upon review of the above -noted study, Heritage Planning staff recommend that the Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the additions to the original log house on the subject property be received for information and that the notice period run its course. 2. Council may issue a Notice of Intention to Designate, at which point Council would have the authority to deny demolition; however, the owner could appeal Council's decision: Heritage Planning staff outlined concerns in item 1 above. Heritage Planning staff are of the opinion that demolition of the three additions to the log house may proceed prior to designation of 236 Gehl Place subject to the submission and approval of the study noted in item 1 above. However, Heritage Planning staff understand that the applicant will need to relocate the original log house to another location on the subject property to facilitate the Site Alteration Permit (SAP), and address the short-, medium- and long-term conservation as part of the SAP and future applications made under the Ontario Planning Act. A recommendation for Council to proceed with a Notice of Intention to Designate under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act will be addressed in a separate report to Heritage Kitchener and Council. Page 75 of 294 Lastly, Heritage Planning staff believe it is important for Heritage Kitchener and Council to understand where there is a difference of opinion between Heritage Planning staff and the revised scoped HIA. Revised Scoped HIA Indicates that the subject property is part of the expanded urban boundary Indicates that a full HIA for the original log house is underway. Indicates that the first addition was clad in stucco and may have been an early example of the use of stucco; however, the remanent stucco is a small area in one corner of the east addition. Heritage Planning Comments/Opinions The lands are not currently within the City Urban Area (CUA). A Bill is under consideration by the Province to bring these lands into the CUA but this decision is not confirmed at this time. Heritage Planning staff have not yet provided the Terms of Reference for the full HIA. Heritage Planning staff recommend that the building floor plans and elevations along with photographs document this early use of stucco. Indicates that the additions are isolated I The contextual value of 236 Gehl Place was from any other built context and the original surrounding farmland forms are changing to suit the proposed new residential use, and that the surrounding lands are proposed to change from a farm to a residential subdivision, and that the context is expected to change substantially. Indicates that the demolition team will have a minimum of 5 years of experience in work where demolition involves parts of the original structure to remain intact and undamaged, and that preference will be given to experience with log structures. Indicates that relocation is necessary to save the heritage building. evaluated and described in The Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Background Study prepared as part of the Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study. Further, the scoped HIA is required to evaluate the current cultural heritage resources (both built and landscape), not the post development cultural heritage resources. This rural property is not isolated from other rural and active farming properties (e.g., lands to the south that are outside of the urban area boundary). Heritage Planning staff are concerned that a minimum of 5 years of experience is not sufficient given the type of construction (rare) and, potentially, the lack of experience that individuals completing the partial demolitions may have with log structures. Heritage Planning staff recommend that the demolition team must have experience with partial demolitions (where additions are removed and a main building is conserved), and that the demolition team must have at least one member with experience with log structures. Heritage Planning staff are familiar with other examples in the City where a built heritage Page 76 of 294 Page 77 of 294 resource was relocated on the same property as part of a draft plan of subdivision. Heritage Planning staff are also familiar with other examples in the Province where a built heritage resource was temporarily relocated to permit site grading and then moved back to its original location post site grading. Heritage Planning staff support relocating the building either temporarily or permanently on the subject property to facilitate site grading. Indicates that the Owner's conservation Heritage Planning staff note that the HIA plan to save the log house by relocating should address a conservation approach it away from the proposed site grading based on policies, guidelines, and best activities to a safe permanent location. practices. Indicates that the author is not a The City's standard Terms of Reference for a member of the Canadian Association of HIA requires that the assessment be Heritage Professionals (CAHP). completed by, or in conjunction with, a member of the CARP. Heritage Planning staff would strongly prefer to see the revised scoped HIA prepared by, or in conjunction with, a member of CAHP. For the purposes of the partial demolition only, Heritage Planning staff will accept the qualifications of the revised scoped RIAs author. Heritage Planning staff note that the full HIA to assess the property and log house must be completed by, or in conjunction with, a member of CAHP. Indicates that the log structure is in fair Heritage Planning staff have experience with condition but then further describes the 5 log houses in Kitchener. Based on our condition in a way that suggests the log experience, the log house on the subject structure is in good condition. property is in good condition. Comments in the Appendix D (Structural Assessment) appear to align with the log house being in good condition. For example, the structural assessment indicates that: • The end grain at corners show minimal signs of rotting or checking. • The chinking around the entire perimeter with few locations showing minor cracking. • Minor re -chinking being the only remedial action required. • The heavy timber elements (beam and column) show no major signs of deterioration or checking. Page 77 of 294 • Minor repairs to the ground floor are required. • No major concerns or comments with the second -floor framing. • The exterior timber walls have been well preserved over time. • Etc. 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act • Ontario Planning Act • CSD -11-080 Listing of Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on the Municipal Heritage Register APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A — Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) • Attachment B —Revised Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment • Attachment C — 236 Gehl Place Statement of Significance (2011) Page 78 of 294 _ b SCHLEGEL URBAN DEVELOPMENTS 325 Max Becker Drive, Suite 201 Kitchener, ON April 26, 2024 Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner City of Kitchener, Planning Department 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Ms. Drake, P: 519-571-1873 F: 519-571-0947 RE: Notice of Intention to Demolish Building Additions on a Listed Property under Part IV, Section 27 (9) of the Ontario Heritage Act — 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener ON The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Kitchener with Notice in writing of the intent to demolish / remove building additions on the listed property located at236 Gehl Place, 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 removing the additions is related to on-going work to assess the original log structure that forms part of the house. Through discussions with City of Kitchener heritage staff, we have been granted permission to remove the interior and exterior finishes. This has now been complete and the majority of the logs have been exposed. The non -original additions form the north facade of the structure and still remain. Removing these would allow the remaining logs to be exposed and assessed. A scoped Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by Anderson Wellsman Architects in support of this notice and has been included with this submission. Page 79 of 294 I thank you for your assistance and expedience in reviewing this submission, please do reach out immediately if there is anything further you require. Sincerely, Alex Robinson Technician — Planning and Urban Design Schlegel Urban Developments Cc: Vaughn Bender, Schlegel Urban Developments Garett Stevenson, City of Kitchener Rob Anderson, Anderson Wellsman Architects Inc. Page 80 of 294 236 Gehl Place - Scoped HIA For Demolition of Additions to the Original Log Home April 25, 2024 1.0 Background The home at 236 Gehl Place is of heritage interest to the City of Kitchener due to the presence of an original 11/2 storey log structure in part of the home c. 1860. The home sits on land that is part of the expanded urban boundary and it is ultimately subject to development as a residential subdivision. Currently there is urgency to review the heritage attributes and complete an HIA because the 236 Gehl Place site can contribute a significant amount of structural soil material to be used in the adjoining Mattamy residential subdivision currently under construction to the north. The Mattamy subdivision was formerly an aggregate extraction site, so the use of neighbouring soils that are excess to the future 236 Gehl Place subdivision, is good engineering practice both economically and environmentally. The grade in the vicinity of the log structure will be lowered approximately 3.5 metres according to analysis prepared by Matt Ninomiya P.Eng of Walterfedy. The first step to facilitate the HIA for the log structure, is to determine if the additions to the log home contribute to its heritage value or not. The Scoped HIA is for this purpose. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements Discussion between the owner and Kitchener Planning and Heritage Planning staff confirms municipal interest in the Log Home at 236 Gehl Place. To further investigate the heritage attributes, and to prepare the way for relocation of the heritage asset, terms of reference for this scoped HIA were provided by Michelle Drake. A full HIA for the original Log Home is underway and will follow this report as more information on the building and its history becomes available. 2.1 Present Owner Schlegel Urban Developments 325 Max Becker Drive, Suite 201 Kitchener, Ontario N2E 4H5 Page 81 of 294 E 2.2 Reserved 2.3 Description of Additions & Statement of Heritage Value The original Log Home c.1860 appears to have had two separate renovations. The first addition is a 11/2 -storey extension to the north side. It is about 2/3 the width of the original building and is aligned with it on the west side. This addition has a basement level. The foundations are cast -in-place concrete using small pea gravel as the primary aggregate. The structure above is a full dimension 2x4 wood frame with wood plank sheathing and evidence of tar paper, sawn lath, and stucco as the exterior finish, though much of the exterior finish appears to have been removed at the second renovation. The floorboards are 5 1/2" x 3/4" tongue & groove planks on 93/4" x 2" joist at 20" on centre at the ground floor. The roof is pitched at approximately 7 in 12 and is shingled. The interior painted drywall finishes are contemporary with the second renovation, as is the exterior aluminum siding. The main floor is used as a kitchen. The second level is a bedroom space. This addition includes the only stairs in the home today. This suggests that the stairway in the original Log Home was removed, and some remodeling of the original Log Home interior occurred at this time. The nature of the concrete with rounded aggregate and remnant stucco suggests a c. 1920-1930 construction. We note a significant swayback at the ridgeline of the addition, suggesting an inadequate roof structure. The second addition is in two parts. Both are 1 -storey and are found to the east and west sides of the first addition. Both are north of the original Log Home. These extensions have no basements. The exterior walls are insulated, nominal 2x4 wood stud framing. The roofs are flat. Interior finishes are painted drywall. The exterior is clad in aluminum siding. To the west the addition was purpose built for a garage and utility room/laundry. This addition replaced a woodshed and outhouse in this area, according to William (Bill) Henhoeffer. To the east the addition served as a family room with a large window facing east and a door to the exterior on the north side. The construction of this addition is confirmed by the past owners, Bill and Marlene Henhoeffer, as c. 1960 shortly after the property was purchased by Bill's father Edward in 1959. Using the 9 criteria listed below, taken from the Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06, we find that the additions to the Log Home (not the Log Home itself) do not meet the test for heritage value or interest and may Page 82 of 294 3 therefore be considered for careful demolition without the loss of heritage attributes. Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 Criteria for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Criteria not met. After the 1960 renovation by Edward Henhoeffer and his son William (Bill), the additions, including the first addition, are of common construction materials and style. The first addition was once completely clad in stucco on tar paper. This detail helped the author to date the first addition to 1920-1930. As such, it may have been an early example of the use of stucco cladding material; however, the remnant of stucco is a small area in one corner of the east addition. It does not warrant conservation of the complete 11/2 storey addition. A representative sample of the stucco wall assembly can be carefully removed and kept if a suitable heritage material archive is available to store it and make it available to the public. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. Criteria not met. The additions are of competent craftsmanship, though the roof of the 2 -storey addition sags and is not. There are no details or materials of inherent value or artistic intent. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Criteria not met. The additions framing and finish are technically vernacular and have no scientific intent. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a community. Criteria not met. The additions were not the site of a unique cultural heritage activity. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. Page 83 of 294 4 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. Criteria not met. The generic form, technique and use of the additions contributes nothing new or unique to this understanding. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. Criteria not met. The 2 -storey addition builder is anonymous, and the recent past owner and his father built the 1 -storey addition. There is no significant individual's body of work involved. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Criteria not met. The additions are isolated from any other built context and the original surrounding farmland forms are changing to suit the proposed new residential use. The Log structure and the land will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. S. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Criteria not met. The additions have a historic link to their surroundings; However, the surroundings lands are proposed to change from a farm to a residential subdivision. The context is expected to change substantially. The log structure and the land contextual value will be evaluated separately in the full HIA. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. O Reg 569/22, s. 1. Criteria not met. 2.4 Documentation See Appendix A for Excerpt from Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study. Page 84 of 294 5 See Appendix B for Photographs See Appendix C for Measured Drawings See Appendix D for Structural Assessment 2.5 Proposed Demolition The current application proposes demolition of the c. 1920-1930 addition, and the c. 1960 additions above the ground level to reveal the original Log Home for full heritage assessment. Structural Engineer David Witzel P.Eng has reviewed the log structure and the additions from this perspective. His full report is found in Appendix D While he concludes that the additions do not provide structural support to the original log building, he states that it is prudent to temporarily fill openings in the north wall of the log structure with wood frame and sheathing to provide protection to the log structure and to the adjacent cut logs. The demolition team will have a minimum of 5 years of experience in work where demolition involves parts of the original structure to remain intact and undamaged. Preference given to experience with heritage log structures. The demolition of any elements directly in contact with the log structure and its roof should be undertaken by hand to ensure that the forces generated by the removal of these elements do not harm the original structure. Once the additions are detached from the original structure, the removal of the bulk material may continue aided by backhoe machines suited for the purpose. This work will be subject to ground vibration limitation and monitoring. A vibration analysis, to establish the maximum permitted vibration in the vicinity of the log structure, will be prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer in collaboration with the structural consultant. The ground will be monitored during the demolition of the additions. Any exceedance of the permitted maximum vibration will stop the work with immediate notification of the owner and heritage consultant. At this stage it is not necessary to excavate and remove the concrete foundation of the additions. They may remain in place. This will substantially reduce the vibration of the ground around the Log Home. To further reduce the impact of the proposed demolition, the part of the gable roof that extends over the log structure shall remain in place. It will be necessary to enclose the exposed gable with sheathing materials to block the elements and to discourage animal access to the original roof area. With this Page 85 of 294 C temporary conservation construction in place, there will be time to plan for the restoration of the roof over the log structure in the full HIA. 2.6 Conservation of the Log House While this Scoped HIA does not deal with the Log House directly, the demolition of the additions for purposes of fully revealing the Log House to facilitate its own HIA does beg the question of interim conservation of the Log House during transition to a final use and location. Once the documentation of the Log House is complete, any exterior opening will be temporarily blocked, and the house will be wrapped in a vapor permeable membrane such as Tyvek. This will seal the exterior from rain and snow without trapping humidity in the wood structure and interior. This installation will not harm the logs and can be maintained periodically by the owner until a permanent exterior cladding is approved and installed. A thorough installation of this barrier will also discourage bats from roosting in the attic through the interim transition. A demolition Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management, hoarding construction plan, and the vibration assessment & monitoring report will be submitted to the City prior to the demolition of the additions. 2.7 Summary of Applicable Heritage Conservation Principles for the Scoped Work From: Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. This applies to the remaining Log Home during a multistage rehabilitation process. From: Eight Guiding Principles in Conservation of Built Heritage Properties 1. Respect for documentary evidence Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such as historic photographs, drawings and physical evidence. Page 86 of 294 7 The physical evidence investigation applies to the careful documentation of the Log Home and justifies removing the additions. 2. Respect for the original location. Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes cultural heritage value considerably. This applies to the predicament of the site grade alteration to facilitate development of the lands under the Log Home. Relocation is necessary to save the heritage building. The full HIA will address the loss of heritage value and the alternatives for conservation and future context of the heritage asset. 2.8 Proposed Demolition Justification The additions to the Log Home do represent changes to the life of the Log Home over time, which some principles of conservation suggest should not be removed to restore the log structure to a specific single time period. However, the additions themselves are of no heritage value and the owner's conservation plan for the Log Home is not to restore it to an earlier time. Rather it is to save the surviving log structure, it's roof silhouette and patterns of fenestration by relocating them away from the proposed site grading alterations to a safe permanent location and then conserving them within a new exterior envelope. This will protect the heritage attributes in the coming decades and will provide a practical new use that can sustain regular maintenance of the heritage attributes for the long term. The task will best be conducted once the additions are carefully removed and the entire log structure is exposed and available for evaluation, interim preservation and ultimately for transport preparation. 2.9 Recommendations The additions to the log structure do not contribute to heritage interest, consequently: 1. Reinforce the log structure in preparation for demolition of additions per WitzelDyce Engineering Inc. instructions. See Appendix D. Page 87 of 294 N 2. Engage the services of a vibration monitoring company to set maximum vibration tolerance around the log structure and to monitor the demolition activity to ensure the work remains within acceptable limits. 3. Stop work at once and notify the owner and heritage consultant if vibration exceeds tolerance or if any change to the log structure and stone foundation is seen. 4. By hand and without damage to the original log structure, detach all elements of the additions that connect to, or abut the log structure, including the gable roof outside the footprint of the log structure. Be sure to leave intact all the gable roof addition that is within the roof area of the log structure. 5. Similarly, leave intact all remnants of the original roof structure including eaves and facia currently obscured by the addition 6. Once detached, remove the bulk material of the additions to the top of foundations using the smallest machine equipment suitable for the work to limit vibration of the ground. 7. Complete Log Home HIA analysis and documentation 2.10 Qualifications of the Author The author is an architect who has been registered with the Ontario Association of Architects for more than 40 years. From 2018 he is the President of Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated and was formerly the Vice President of Carson Woods Architects Limited. In these roles he has provided Consulting on Kitchener area heritage projects including: 1. The Donnenworth House HIA , including relocation of the stone structure. The project team received the Mike Wagner Heritage Award. 2. The Becker House HIA. In situ rehabilitation at the Wallaceton Estates, including evaluation of two other older homes and barns in the HIA and an assessment of Plains Road leading to memorializing the remnant geometric pattern of Plains Road the Wallaceton Estates subdivision plan. 3. The Henhoeffer House HIA at the Williamsburg Green Subdivision. Ongoing consultation on the heritage precinct and continued conservation of the Heritage Building. also. 4. Humber Heights Consolidated School. Work with heritage colleagues Ian McGillivray and Spencer Higgins preserving and integrating the heritage attributes into a new retirement community. 5. Unionville Town Hall renovations. Page 88 of 294 E 6. Robert studied architectural conservation in the Ontario context, at the U of W, under Peter John Stokes, architect of Niagara on the Lake and Upper Canada Village. 7. Robert is a professional architect with decades of experience in new construction and heritage conservation. He is not a member of CAHP. The structural engineer David Witzel P. Eng is President of WitzelDyce Engineering Inc. with over 15 years of structural engineering experience, including analysis, modelling and design of new structures and renovations to existing structures for municipal, residential, commercial, and heavy industrial clients. He has completed large projects in both Canada and the United States providing him with a thorough knowledge of the key North American design and construction standards. He is adept in using specialized problem -solving techniques such as finite element modeling to solve more difficult problems. Mr. Witzel is a registered Engineer in 9 Canadian provinces plus the Yukon Territory as well as 4 states in the United States Relevant Projects include: 1. The Imperial Renovation and Restoration I Residential Design I New Hamburg, ON A renovation and addition to an existing three storey masonry and wood framed building originally constructed over 120 years ago. The scope involved a full demolition of the interior finishes to accommodate the extensive structural restoration and reinforcing. New vaulted ceilings and floor toppings were added to create modern residential units. The three- storey addition accommodated a ground floor commercial space with two storeys of residential suites above. Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. was retained to provide structural design services. 2. Hanson Heritage Barn Restoration I Residential Design I Kitchener, ON A renovation and addition to an existing bank barn which is on a heritage property in Kitchener, Ontario. The existing bank barn was in poor shape prior to the restoration. Extensive structural rehabilitation and repair was required to preserve and change the use of the barn to a residential unit. 3. Bauer Residence - Law Office I Structural Review and Building Renovation Waterloo, ON This project included the structural review and upgrade of a 604 mz (6,500 sq. ft.) century home that was renovated for a new law office. The work was required as a result of a change in occupancy from residential to commercial. The existing wood structure was analyzed and retrofitted to ensure that it complied with the current building code. Page 89 of 294 10 4. David is a professional engineer with many years of experience in new construction and renovation of heritage buildings. He is not a member of CARP. The following references were consulted: 1. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2. Eight Guiding Principles in Conservation of Built Heritage Properties 3. The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit 4. The Tweedsmuir Archive 5. Former property owners Bill and Marleen Henhoeffer (1966-2019) 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation A draft of the Heritage Attributes of 236 Gehl Place are: 1. The original Log Structure 2. The fieldstone foundation 3. The footprint and silhouette of the original log house 4. The existing fenestration pattern of the log home on the east, west, and south sides and the position of the south door 5. Original interior doors, casing, hardware 6. Original split plank lath and interior partition framing Full list of heritage attributes will be provided in the log structure HIA All are associated with the log structure. None are associated with the additions proposed for removal. The later additions to the house do not contribute to the heritage value and are an obstacle to the full HIA. They should be carefully removed to help the HIA evaluation and to enable the municipally approved next steps in conservation of the heritage asset. Prepared by: ANDERSON-WgLLSMAN ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED l Robert Anderson, O.A.A., B.E.S., B.Arch. President Page 90 of 294 APPENDIX A ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM SOUTHWEST KITCHENER URBAN AREA STUDY Page 91 of 294 orito 0 t4- GO _. �.�� 3x� a a y „ N 0 O UC, 3 E w o G C O= y as 0.g;;;; P.•� � 'bo O 00 eC T 0 U ^,bb.c � v � eta F � .ctl. - o .0 "d � Ej � V � � C4 CU 2443 o 0 t n' ;o N cC w b p N 3m�3��' «'°y'E�o°'� s o aC7 ro v 3 E _ .E o EL:i O 81x tp _;rq o o 0.5 • � °' a 3 .O 4,, o 2 b o g `m v 0 t4- a 4 2 b M tl C 'a7 3 0 O UC, G pNp R .� •Q o P.•� � E O api iC o id "r V.m � N .li P •.{ "d � Ej � V � � �O O O O o o �a. E • � °' a -�,0yt8 O N •y b o `17 .E ,� � o N• g.a •� W o5 � � • fi O ti O O i6 C3 a 4 2 b M tl C BENIN m an v a a F m U U O t b b xepaeaJd�, 1 3 b � O Y G cd a a p� O y en o W v o o m � A 5 o 'o, U .5 � rn C O ob bA q b'5-q�2o�� xO � � � � � � °' ❑ a'T o m � w cau � � u, � a � � • .meq K PA •C .Z5 '49 b y y ti b ti ° moo°°° x j Q. 37 w 0 m O_°.> mow. onw G ° o_o ° ° _w o•C 5 a�i ta.ano r -i o etl O .5 bd0.: O O O 5 5 A 'zi b Q b r 3 U �ybb' o J oww° ani A ji b0 a 5 o b b o 0 � 5 on w k 0� a, 0 5 3 w n o> 3 A n d° U ^y ai O o ,q d R poo •`� P4 p o w � � � o .5 'n❑ rn °' � � p � C �, eu v � ° � � � ° o ,'J p � 16h Q Q BENIN m an v a a F m U U O t b b 1 3 b O G a ro O m � A 5 ° 5 0 > a� O 0 .o '++ o0 O y bre.' K PA •C .Z5 '49 b y y ti b ti ° O_°.> mow. onw G ° o_o ° ° _w o•C 5 a�i ta.ano -0-6 0' ° o etl O .5 bd0.: O O O 5 5 A 'zi b Q b r 3 U �ybb' o J oww° ani ji e 6L _ t d e a PHOTOGRAPHS: - 236 GEHL PLACE Page 94 of 294 LL rn N 4- 0 LO N O1 0 0 LU y W Y Y W •� V N � LL Y m � O ... O t6 V O V O i � a � O - s a� � as � � O M N i N O a Road _ Ha�1m n ,+4 ' �_ >, oher- 1 -. s Gehk place 'f' • �. 1 s G co N V lcmu $ It,l.- r_ �' ■ (D LL CO � 3 1 > as - - Y eh� p1a�e lunPavedl G Iir i'EI'� tl :J Ll rn N O ti , rn N 4- 0 co N O1 ZE rn N 4- 0 N O1 (6 4-1 4+ O � W 41 R V R LL ZE rn N 4- 0 N O1 (6 j R:,,yt 9 s All ti lll., Psic��ft N//ml� Q4 .. - - �".. SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION LOG STRUCTURE Page 102 of 294 WEST ELEVATION GARAGE Page 103 of 294 EAST SIDE JUNCTION OF LOG STRUCTURE TO 1 - STOREY ADDITION UTILITY ROOM Page 104 of 294 UTILITY ROOM GARAGE PARTITION UTILITY ROOM 2 - STOREY WALL Page 105 of 294 GARAGE KITCHEN LOOKING NORTHEAST Page 106 of 294 l� 0 KITCHEN LOOKING SOUTHEAST FAMILY ROOM Page 107 of 294 FAMILY ROOM SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM Page 108 of 294 CUT OUT FOR WASHROOM DOOR OPENING LOOKING NORTH CUT OUT FOR WASHROOM DOOR OPENING LOOKING SOUTH Page 109 of 294 REMNANT OF STUCCO SIDING AT FAMILY ROOM SOUTHWEST DETAIL OF STUCCO SIDING AT FAMILY ROOM SOUTHWEST Page 110 of 294 APPENDIX C MEASURES DRAWINGS: 236 GEHL PLACE Page 111 of 294 9LLZ-M (9Lb 9af OM OuoLuo 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V ^ O�� 01-0101 ZL9 311ns avoa sniw noa 0e0L NVWS113M NOSb3aNV 9 ON Sof asina P b 13V�d �HHH HHH 5 Lto tzoz:a}o4 �� Pa�oa4o :}oafoid I , L «g/L :aIoos :}ndul NV�d dd��113 I � ONf allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON IG9HS 9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV 13V�d CHH HHH :}oafojd 90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab 5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o :Indu Nb'jo I zov 2�00�J aNN02� allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS 9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV 13V�d CHH HHH :}oafojd 90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab 5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o :Indu Nb1S I 4ov �001J aN00� allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS 9LLZ-f 6 (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091VIdOdMO0N1 S10911H021V 90�Z owo,al z�9 mins avoa sniw noa offal NVWS113M NOSb3aNV ON asina qof P b 13V�d �HHH HHH 5 LtO tZOZ:"Joa I d( Pa�oago :}oafoid I , L =,, :a ooS :Indu NV�d A0021 I 'PONf allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS LO O o a L Cc -�Qo N O N N o 0 Z a EEI U U) Q 4 ° Q 3 d � Y U W L U N > N � z � 0 Q w Li O r a, 3 Occ `a Uc <c o _ U AIL W CD Zo W �o /1 ALJ J d J � W O �j U N ON H � LU W= v a 0U Z� ¢a to O CD z a s U L Ln a -�Qo _0N N O N N o o z a NN<5 L�L r d c a Y L U a � N K El] ==HH z o w J W =E EEI I-- cn Q W m rn c 3 a Wo Q _ L � U r W CD Zo W �o C/1 ALJ J d J o WO �j U N � N wLu W W= v a � U Z ¢a M O O z a L CY -�Qo N O N o N 6 z U Q a 4 L�L 3 d � a U W L -o > N - U � z 0 ED Q w w FEFIIz O a O i11 W O O N O I u L M N p� ILIL Q o M Nm J p Z O O O a m CD ZW Ja J W M Z u Vl N Z - O� CS v LU W= Z� 2 ¢a APPENDIX D STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT & RECOMENDATIONS - 236 GEHL PLACE Page 120 of 294 WitzelDyce ENGINEERING INC. May 14, 2024 WDE File No.: 16516-100 Robert Anderson Anderson Wellsman Architects Inc. 1090 Don Mills Road, Suite 612 Toronto, Ontario, M3C 3R6 RE: Structural Heritage Impact Assessment 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener, Ontario Dear Mr. Anderson: Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc has been retained to assess the structural condition of the existing heritage house located at 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener, Ontario. The log house was constructed c. 1860 and had two subsequent additions since then. The first of which was a two-storey addition completed c. 1920-1930s, and a second one -storey addition completed in 1960. Additionally, the basement floor slab was lowered, and the original rubble foundations were underpinned. The exact date of the foundation underpinning is unknown; however, it is estimated to be 1980 by former resident William (Bill) Henhoeffer who dug the basement by hand with the help of his son. As per the schematic architectural drawings as provided by Anderson Wellsman Architects, the basement cellar below the heritage structure is approximately 520 sq.ft, the total ground floor is ±1450 sq.ft (excluding garage) and the total second floor area is approximately 1000 sq.ft. The ground floor area is approximately 530 sq.ft and currently contains a living, dining, bedroom and washroom. The existing structure is stick framed with heavy timber log walls atop rubble foundations. 1.0 Site Reviews and Structural Assessment Site Reviews were conducted by David Witzel, P.Eng on March 5, 12, 25 and April 19, 2024, to review and visually assess the existing structure. Photos of the site review can be found in Appendix A. The goal of the site review was to ascertain the condition of the Page 121 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. heritage log structure. The additions that were constructed later were also reviewed and recommendations for demolition shall be discussed below. At the time of the initial review, the exterior of the log structure was concealed behind aluminum siding, and the interior was concealed behind lathe and plaster. The decision was made to remove the lower four to six feet of siding and cut holes in the lathe and plaster on the interior of the structure to expose the logs. Following the initial review of the exposed log structure, it was determined that that the structure was in fair condition, and it would be worthwhile to expose the entire structure, both externally and internally for a follow up review. Our findings are provided in the following sections: Exterior Log Walls The exterior walls of the log structure were constructed of rectangular logs 12 to 18 inches deep, and approximately 8" wide. The log walls were chinked along the horizontal joints which is typical for log structures of this era. Corners are finished with a finger joint lap with minimal cracking or shrinkage present (Photos 1, 2, 3, 4). The end grain at corners appeared to be in fair condition showing minimal signs of rotting or checking (Photo 9). Minor deterioration was observed specifically around windows which is relatively common, as these areas are typical prone to moisture accumulation, typically as a result of poor sealant around the window frames. The deterioration was less than was expected following the removal of the siding. The chinking appeared to be in fair condition around the entire perimeter with few locations showing minor cracking, in other locations chinking had fallen out completely (Photo 6). This is not uncommon for chinking as the timber logs will expand and contract over time due to expansion and shrinkage caused by changes in moisture content in the timber. It is recommended that chinking be repaired as required to maintain the integrity of the log structure. The logs were covered by aluminum siding which has done an excellent service to the structure by protecting the timber logs from direct weather. The siding was supported by 1x2 vertical strapping which provided good ventilation between the siding and the logs (Photos 5, 6, 7, 8). From the assembly, it appears that the logs have been relatively well protected from excessive weathering but allowed to ventilate and get rid of any excessive moisture. This is consistent with the log condition as observed on site. 2 Page 122 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Overall, the existing exterior face of the log wall appeared to be in generally fair condition with minor re -chinking being the only remediation required. The condition is as expected for the age and type of construction considering it has been well protected and maintained. We would recommend that the log structure be covered in a similar manner to its existing condition to ascertain long-term preservation of the log structure. Rubble Foundations The heritage structure sits on a stone -rubble foundation that is exposed around both the interior and exterior. From the exterior, one corner had parging present, however, in most locations there was no parging visible — it is unclear whether this was a result of the exterior finish demolition, or if the rubble wall has been left unparged (Photos 7, 8). In some locations, it appeared that the mortar which binds the large stones in the foundation together has severely deteriorated such that it appears there are large gaps between individual stones (Photo 11). The condition may be consistent if the exterior rubble wall was left unprotected and allowed to weather over the years. This is not uncommon if vegetation was present in front of the wall which likely accelerated weathering on the rubble wall. From the interior however, this did not appear to be the case. Stones were well embedded into a mortar which appeared to be well maintained showing only minor signs of cracking (Photo 14). From the interior, it is also evident that underpinning was completed at some point to lower the basement slab. The ledge of underpinning is approximately 24" tall with the width unknown, however it is likely that the ledge extends underneath the existing rubble. There are no signs of major disturbances as a result of the underpinning such as slab or rubble wall cracking indicating no structural issues (Photo 13). Overall, the rubble foundation walls appeared to be in fair condition with no further remediations required at this time. Basement Structure and Ground Floor Framing A simplified mark-up of the structural framing for the ground floor, including second and roof framing, are shown in Appendix B. All sizing and dimensions are to be verified. The ground floor framing as viewed from the basement, appeared to be framed with 8"x3" joists at roughly 28" on center (varying ±2-3"). The joists spanned from the exterior walls 3 Page 123 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. to a central 8.5"x11" (depth x width) wood beam. The joist spans either side of the beam are approximately 12'-6". Atop joists appeared to be plank decking in lieu of plywood. Additionally, there is a wood column located at midspan of the center beam and supported by a large pad footing at the base (Photos 13, 14). It was noted that there was a section of infill floor framing near the center of the main floor which was likely where the original stair into the cellar was located. This section of floor infill was poorly constructed, and there is sagging in the floor as a result. We strongly recommend that this section of floor is reinforced as it is currently considered an unsafe condition on the main floor. There was also a modification to the floor framing to accommodate the furnace and duct work on the east side of the structure. Overall, the ground floor framing appeared to be in fair condition other than locations requiring reinforcing. The heavy timber elements (beam and column) appeared to be in fair condition showing no major signs of deterioration or checking. It is recommended that a full structural analysis be conducted to review the overall scope of reinforcing which may be required to certify the floor structure. Reinforcing works may include sistering existing joists, replacing floor sheathing or the removal and replacement of joists in poor condition. This work has not yet been completed, but it is recommended if the building is to be re -occupied. Second Floor Framing and Roof The second -floor framing is similar to the ground floor framing. Spans, beams, joist sizing, and spacings are almost identical with minor differences as shown in the markup in Appendix B. There are no major concerns or comments with the second -floor framing at this time. The roof framing is conventional stick framed rafters with ceiling joists spanning from exterior wall-to-wall. The rafters were found to be approximately 5.5" x 2.5" at what appears to be 30-36" on centers. The size and spacing of the rafters should be confirmed on-site. Collar ties fasten the rafters at approximately midspan of both rafters. (Photos 17, 18) The roof ridge over the additions appears to be sagging significantly more than the roof over the timber log structure. Without removing finishes and conducting a more extensive review of the roof structure, it is not immediately clear what the cause of the sagging is. However, it is not uncommon for older roofs to show large deflections such as those observed here. The cause can vary from general deterioration to extensive shrink and swell cycles experienced over M Page 124 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. many years. It is recommended to monitor the roof to ensure the sagging does not continue to worsen. Ultimately, the roof over the original log structure is in fair condition. Reinforcing the roof sag may require shoring and jacking the existing roof up followed by sistering of existing rafters and/or collar ties. At the time of writing this report, it is difficult to ascertain the overall reinforcing required. A full analysis should be completed to conclude the adequacy of the existing roof and any reinforcing which may be required in due course. It is not recommended to try and remove the permanent deformation of the roof as it is likely the result of wood shrinkage and long duration loading. It may be advisable to sister the roof members if the building is to be re -occupied. Additional rafter thickness would also provide the opportunity for better roof ventilation and insulation. Additions The two additions that have been added over the lifespan of the home. The additions adjacent to the log structure did not appear to affect the original structure. There did not appear to be any major structural elements, such as beams or columns, bearing on the heritage structure which would require conservation. It is likely that the demolition of the additions would not impact the log house structure besides the work required to close in the openings that were added between the log structure and the additions. Reframing and sealing of the roof and second floor walls will be required to close in the portion of roof over the heritage structure where it joins the additions and stairs. Additionally, a new internal stairwell will likely be required to access the second floor from the main floor of the heritage log structure. It is highly recommended that structures be temporarily protected during demolition of the additions to ensure that no damage occurs to the existing heritage structure. The extent of the protection requirements shall be determined upon the removal of finishes and verification of the addition to log structure interface. Potential temporary protection may include sheathing, tarping, or use of ram board to protect vulnerable areas near the demolition from spills, impacts, abrasions, or excessive dust build up. This work is considered to be relatively minor in nature as the additions to be removed are not supporting the heritage log structure. We would expect that the openings would be framed, temporarily or permanently, with infill wood stud framing and sheathing, and then treated with insulation, air barriers, vapour barriers and rain screens as required. 5 Page 125 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. 2.0 Required Reinforcing Minor repairs to the ground floor are required as a result of joists damages. We would recommend sistering damaged floor joists with new 2x8 sawn lumber. The roof will need to be framed, sheathed, and closed in when the additions are removed. Temporary shoring is not anticipated to support the existing structure during removal of the additions. Reinforcing and closure plans will be provided in due course following removal of finishes. It is anticipated that the work will be minor in nature and will not negatively impact the heritage log structure. Additionally, work may be required to create a new opening into the cellar and second floor of the structure. The original stair openings, if re -used, will require minor reinforcing as they do not meet current standards. The cut door opening (Photo #19), as well as other openings, on the North wall of the home shall be blocked and closed in with wood framing prior to the removal of the additions. It is not anticipated that the openings would require additional reinforcing to support gravity loads due to the removal of the additions. Additional plans and details will be provided in due course. This work is expected to be minimal and not affect the heritage log structure. A vibration monitoring program is to be conducted during demolition in order to limit any damages that may occur. A standard range for historic structures based on various standards falls between 0.1 — 0.5 in/sec peak particle velocity for frequencies under 10 Hz. The range above is perceptible but is not likely to cause any damage to the structure. Although it is not anticipated, vibrational mitigation may be required dependent on the results of the vibration monitoring such as restricting machinery use or implementing vibrational damping pads. The basis for the vibration monitoring program shall be determined by a qualified expert with experience in heritage type structures. 3.0 Conclusion The heritage structure at 236 Gehl Place appears to generally be in fair condition. The exterior timber log walls have been well preserved over time, almost certainly as a result of the decision to clad the structure in aluminum siding. The main floor framing required some minor reinforcing to better support the section of floor where the original stairs were likely located. This reinforcing will require the sistering of joists and shall be completed prior to the demolition of the additions. Page 126 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. The second floor and roof appeared to be in fair condition. Minor infill framing shall be completed to the opening in the roof and walls of the heritage structure as required once the demolition of the additions is completed. Sagging of the roof and minor cracking of chinking shall be monitored to ensure the condition is not worsening at an accelerated rate. It is not uncommon that brittle materials such as chinking, gypsum, plaster or any masonry -based materials experience cracking over time. It is difficult to ascertain at this time whether or not the roof must be reinforced however it is expected that any reinforcing or sistering of roof rafters may be completed following the demolition of the additions. The removal of the additions should be completed carefully to ensure the log structure is not damaged during demolition. Temporary protection such as sheathing, tarping, ram board etc. should be used to mitigate any of damages which may occur. The extent of protection shall be finalized upon removal of finishes and verification of the interface between the additions and the heritage structure. The additions near the log structure shall be manually hand demolished with the use of heavy machinery limited to reduce vibrations. Lastly, a vibration monitoring program is to be conducted during demolition. The final range for the monitoring program should be determined by a qualified expert taking into consideration the type of construction, age of the structure, type of tools used, and structure importance. The final vibration criteria should be coordinated and agreed upon with the demolition engineer and contractor to ensure feasibility with continual reviews to ensure that program compliance is achieved. We trust this meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact our office. Hasan Basic Designer David Witzel, P.Eng., P.E. Principal 7 Page 127 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Qualifications of the Author David Witzel, P. Eng has over 15 years of structural engineering experience including the analysis and design of new structures and renovations to existing structures for heritage, residential, commercial, and industrial clients. David has obtained specific heritage experience at local projects including, but not limited to: - The Imperial Renovation & Demolition: a three-storey masonry and wood framed building constructed c. 1890 requiring extensive structural rehabilitation. - St. Jacobs Market - The Mennonite Story: one and a half storey log cabin conversion requiring structural assessment and reinforcing details for exterior rehabilitation. - Hanson Heritage Barn Restoration: stick framed wood barn renovation and extensive structural rehabilitation to preserve and amend the use of the barn. - 19 Regina Building Restoration and Office Conversion: 3 -storey wood and masonry structure with basement preserved and converted from residential to office space, basement lowering, and additional floor added. - B -W Feed Mill: Structural Assessment of a heritage mill constructed of heavy timber and masonry. - 9 Queen Street: A renovation and addition to a historic building in downtown Kitchener, converting the space into Class A office. Additionally, David has completed hundreds of projects on buildings over a century old, many of which do not have heritage designations, but have very similar construction. He has also designed numerous projects with heavy timber construction for various purposes including residential, commercial, institutional, and agricultural. 0 Page 128 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Limitations This report has been prepared by Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. (WDE) at the request of Schlegel Urban Development. The material in it reflects the best judgment of WDE based on the information which was available at the time of its preparation. Any use of this report by a third party or any reliance or decisions made based on this report are the responsibility of that third party. WDE accepts no responsibilities for damages, if any are incurred, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions or actions made based upon this report. WDE accepts no responsibility for any decisions and or actions taken as a result of this report unless WDE is specifically advised of and participates in such actions, in which case WDE's responsibility will be agreed to at that time. Any user of this report denies any right to claim against the Consultant, Sub -consultants, the Officers, Agents and Employee in excess of the fee paid for the professional services. This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No physical or destructive testing and no engineering calculations have been performed unless specifically mentioned in the report. Existing conditions which have not been recorded may not have been apparent given the level of study undertaken. Further investigation on any items of concerns can be undertaken if required. Only specific information that has been identified has been review. The consultant is not obligated to identify any mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtain from various sources, nor is it obligated to verify the accuracy of such information. The consultant is permitted to use the information provided by various sources in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. It is not WDE's responsibility to detect or advice on any pollutants, contaminates or hazardous materials. 0 Page 129 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Appendix A — Site Review Photos Photo #1: North elevation (exterior finishes removed) Photo #2: East elevation (exterior finishes removed) 10 Page 130 of 294 a p. �rAaYy SL 14 LT "Al/moi MEMO a. MASi m+2 s A i �a osw xS 6 A :,-•.d°' ��. ba' � �"' � x .,, � .. _ o �xLi �{.i'.F�,..'... ^k_' � . �ld.,.....m -F..S. �' ...a 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #5: Exterior log wall and dutchman / finger joint corner from east elevation 12 Page 132 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment U", Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #6: South elevation, crumbling chinking, exposed rubble wall Photo #7: South elevation, partial parging at corner 13 Page 133 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #8: West elevation, partially parged foundation, exposed wall with chinking 14 Page 134 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #9: Corner log measurement Photo #10: Wall log depth measurement 15 Page 135 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #11: East elevation, exposed rubble foundation, crumbling mortar and chinking 16 Page 136 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #12- Exposed portion of wall from interior 17 Page 137 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #13: Basement, underpinning, rubble foundation wall Photo #14: Basement, joists cracking and notching. Plank decking spanning over joists. `E, Page 138 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #15: Central column on pad footing 19 Page 139 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #16: End bearing condition over rubble wall. 20 Page 140 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #17: Roof framing finishes removed. Photo #18: Roof framing finishes removed. 21 Page 141 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Photo #19: Northwest corner washroom door opening. 22 Page 142 of 294 236 Gehl Place Structural Assessment Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. Appendix B — Architectural Plans with Structural Markups 23 Page 143 of 294 9LLZ-M (9Lb 9af OCH ouoluo o}uaol 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V 90tz 01-0101 ZL9 311ns avoa SIIIW Noa offal NVWS113M NOSb3aNV ON Sof asina P b 13V� d HIS 9 � Z5 to tzoz:a,oa d(� :Pa�oaHo :}oafojd I L 41W :aIooS :Indus NV�d dd��113 I � ONf allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON IG9HS 9LLZ-M (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V oWo,al ZL9 311ns avoN SIIIW Noa afial NVWS113M NOSb3aNV 13V�d CHH HHH :}oafojd 90tZ ON Qof I :pasinab 5 Lt0 tZOZ:a}oa I V( Pa�oa4o :Indu Nb'jo I zov 2�00�J aNN02� allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS 9LLZ-f 6 (9lb gdl OM 0u0110 0110101 091V'd0dM00N1 S10911H021V 9��Z 0110,011 Zl9 311ns avoa SIIIW Noa offal NVWS113M NOSN3aNV 'ON qofasina p a bbd d H I S 9 b b 9 l �O/�zoz.a,oa d� :Pa�oago :}oafojd «g/l :a ops :1ndu Nb1S I 4ov �001J aN00� allll 6uiMoaQ I 'ON 499gS c c 21 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance 236 Gehl Place Municipal Address: 236 Gehl Place, Kitchener Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 142 & 144 Year Built: c. 1860 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: William Gehl Original Use: Farm Condition: Description of Historic Place _..�. eLEAM51Z� f 1� �A Ward 5 236 236 Gehl Place is a mid 19th century building built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 142.57 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Bleams Road between Trussler Road and Fischer Hallman Road in the Trussler Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the farmhouse and barn. Heritage Value 236 Gehl Road is recognized for its design, physical, contextual, historical and associative values. The design and physical values relate to the Georgian architectural style of the building. The building is an early and representative example of a substantial log building. The building has undergone relatively few changes. The original log building exists under layers of cladding, including stucco and aluminum siding. The building features: log construction; side gable roof; fieldstone foundation; symmetrical window placements; off-centre front door placement; original exterior door; original interior floor plan; plaster walls; original interior doors; original baseboards; original door and window surrounds; original floor joists; and, original floor boards. The contextual value relates to the location of the house and barn at the end of the lane looking south over the farm fields. The historic and associative values relate to the original and existing owners of the farm. Preliminary research suggests that the farm was established by William Gehl around 1860. The lane from Bleams Road leading to the farm is named Gehl Place. The 1851 Census reports identify Edward Henhoeffer as the owner of the farm. The farm is still owned by the Henhoeffer family. Page 147 of 294 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 236 Gehl Place resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Georgian architectural style of the house, including: o Log construction; o Side gable roof and roofline; o Fieldstone foundation; o Symmetrical window placements; o Window openings; o Off-centre front door placement; o Original exterior door and door opening; o Original interior doors; o Original baseboards; o Original door and window surrounds; o Original floor joists; and, o Original floor boards. Photos Page 148 of 294 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE Excerpt from "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study" prepared by Nancy Z. Tausky dated August 2010 6,21.2 136 Gehl Place Legal descripffo?; G.C.T. Pali Lot 142. Part Lot 144 Types ofHenrage Resonire: Faynihouse and barn BUILT HERITAGE AND CUL TUF- L LAJVDSC.4PF BACKGROLND STUDY 55 Son thwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study Historic/Associative Value; The farmstead at 236 Gehl Place was probably established by William Gehl, who acquired G.C.T. Lot 142 after the death of the previous owner William Meyer. in 1860.. and gave his name to the lane leading from Bleams Road to his farm. (Meyer had purchased G.S.T. Lot 142 in 1847, when he already owned G.S.T. Lot 141). Gehl must have died soon after, however. because both the Tremaine map of 1861 shows his wife Margaret as the owner of the property mid the 1861 Census report does not list William among the seven family members. the children ranging in age from 10 to 26. His mill suggests that William placed a great deal of faith in his wife's abilities: he leaves her 166 acres on G.S.T. Lots 141 and 142. "to youse [sic] and manage as she thinks proper and also all the stock and fanning materials [?] and house fhniiture." In 1861 Margaret and her family were living in what was described as a two-storey log house (figure 41). Margaret retained the property for only a brief period.however. In 1868, it was sold to George Israel. and it remained in the Israel family until 1866. In recent decades it has been owned by Edward Heiihoeffer (Land records, 1841 and 1861 Census reports). Figure 42: The house at 236 Gehl Place, 2410 Figure 41: historical photograph of log house at 336 Gehl Place. (From the architectural analysis by Don Ryan, where the photograph was included courtesy of Mrs. Genevieve Henhoeffer) Page 149 of 294 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND STUDY 56 Southwest atiitcheng?r Urban Areas Studd DesignlPiatsical Value: The horse has value as an enduring pioneer dwelling that has undergone relatively few changes to its physical structure. The original log house still exists under layers of later cladding: it was covered in stucco, then insul-brick, and then. in 1966, aluminum siding which was added after the insul-brick was removed, Additions have been added to the west and north, but the original fenestration pattern remains on the south facade and on the east and west sides. In the Georgian tradition. the windows are all placed symmetrically, but the front door is off-centre in order to allose entry directly into the maim living area. Inside, much of the original floor plan remains, and the 'walls have a plaster finish as did the original log Fps house. A verandah that once stretched along all of the south facade has been replaced by a one bay porch l(Ryan 1991). The front shed -roofed dormer is a later addition. t i- Figui'e 43: The barn at 336 Gehl Place C'ontectriallc-tltural Landscaape Value: The house still sits at the end of the long road that traditionally led from Bleams Road. and It looks south os er acres of tilled fields as it has throughout its hist 42), though its roof has naturally had to be farmstead are relatively intact. ory. The original barn still stands (figure replaced, so the spaces defined for the Prehnnp aiyListofHeritageAtP,butes: The original log structure The fieldstone foundation The footprint and silhouette of the original house The existing fenestration pattern on the east, west, and south sides, and the position of the front door Original interior and exterior doors Original baseboards and door and window surrounds Original floor joists Original floor boards Evaluation. This site merits listing in the Alunicipal Hentage Register,. Designation under the Ontcano Hentage Act, and conservation as it is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. Reasons for Evaluation: The property has design and physical value as a early, representative example of a substantial log dwelling. It has historical value because of its associations with a pioneer family, with an important family in the community. and with the development and Nancy Z. Tausky Heritage Consultant Page 150 of 294 APPENDIX `A': STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE B UILT ERITA GE A!M CULYURAL L.,LND 't .-1PE B.3 C1L'G�R 0 U.VD STUDY 57 Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study practice of agriculture in the area. It therefore also has contextual value in defini4 maintaining, and supporting the character of the area. and in its physical. finnctional. visual, and historic links to its surromdings.j Page 151 of 294 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 22, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-261 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 236 Gehl Place under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 236 Gehl Place as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 236 Gehl Place Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 236 Gehl Place has been drafted by Heritage Planning staff. • The key finding of this report is that 236 Gehl Place meets five (5) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting with Heritage Kitchener at their June 11, 2024 committee meeting. Should Council choose to give Notice of Intention to Designate, such notice shall be served to the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust. This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 152 of 294 BACKGROUND: 236 Gehl Place is a two-storey mid 19th century log structure built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 142.15 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Bleams Road between Trussler Road and Fischer Hallman Road in the Rosenberg Community Plan of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the log farmhouse. T BLFAMS R0A4 n ys^ r Z .a r r p� �O Figure 1.0: Location Map of Subject Property (236 Gehl Place) An assessment of 236 Gehl Place has been completed. The findings concluded that the subject property meets five (5) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). An updated Statement of Significance describing the property's cultural heritage value or interest has been drafted and will be presented to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee on June 11, 2024. This work was undertaken for two reasons: (i) as a response to a Site Alteration Permit that requests permission to grade the subject property, which will require the log house to be relocated elsewhere on the subject property; and, (ii) as part of the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. Heritage Planning staff visited the site on March 27, 2024 with representatives from Schlegel Urban Developments (property owner), GSP group (planning consultant), and Anderson Wellsman Architects Incorporated (heritage architect). During the site visit, Heritage Planning staff had the opportunity to walk around the exterior of the building and enter the interior of the building, including the additions but excluding the attic. The purpose of the site visit was to confirm the City's interest in this built heritage resource and to scope a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Terms of Reference for the Site Alteration Permit. Development Services Department report DSD -2024-243 responded to a Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) the three additions to the log house and, in summary, recommended that the notice be allowed to run its course to permit the demolition of the additions. However, Heritage Planning staff raised concerns that allowing the notice period to run its course without an approved "Demolition, Stabilization and Temporary Protection Plan including a structural assessment, risk management plan, a hoarding and construction plan, and a vibration monitoring plan" may result in negative impacts to the Page 153 of 294 structural integrity and/or the heritage attributes of the original log house. As a result, Heritage Planning staff plan to continue working with the property up until the June 11, 2024 Heritage Kitchener committee meeting with the hope being that Heritage Planning staff will be able to provide a verbal update to Heritage Kitchener that addresses any outstanding concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of the demolition of the additions to the structural integrity and/or heritage attributes of the original log house. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. As part of this process, Heritage Planning staff had intended to bring forward a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) the subject property before December 31, 2024. Due to the submission of the Site Alteration Permit (SAP), Heritage Planning staff believe that it is necessary to move forward with a NOID. The NOID will provide Heritage Planning staff, Heritage Kitchener and Council with the standard tools to address the relocation of the log house elsewhere on the subject property to facilitate the SAP, and address the short-, medium-, and long-term conservation of the log house as part of the SAP and future applications made under the Ontario Planning Act. Should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID), the property owner will be contacted a second time through a letter advising of the City's NOID. In addition, an ad for the NOID will be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the newspaper ad is posted, there will be a 30 - day appeal period in which the property owner may object to the designation. REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term conservation of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value or interest; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, but it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value or interest. 236 Gehl Place is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies five (5) of nine (9) criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is or is not met is provided in the table below. Page 154 of 294 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it No displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it Yes yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it No demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Table 1: Criteria for Designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) Figure 2.0: Front (South Elevation) Facade of 236 Gehl Place Design/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the architectural style, building materials, and construction methods. The structure is a substantial two-storey log farmhouse built in the Georgian architectural style (see Figure 2.0). The use of logs is a rare and early example Page 155 of 294 of a building material and construction method. The original log house generally depicts a rectangular plan with a side gable roofline. The principal building material is the logs with chinking up to the roofline and then vertical plank boards in the gable ends. The log house is in good condition. According to an Architectural Analysis (Ryan, 1991): • The facades are very simple and unadorned: only brown painted eave lines and window trim provide decorative emphasis. • There was once a veranda with shed roof spanning the entire south side of the house. • The original windows were 6/6 double hung sash. • Originally the house had return eaves. Front (South Elevation) Fagade The front fagade displays a slightly off-centre (towards the right/east) front door with wood trim. A 2/2 flat headed double hung wood window with a wood sill is located on each side of the front door. A two-storey basic porch was a later addition. The shed roof dormer was added to facilitate access to the upper porch. Side (East Elevation) Fagade The side fagade displays a symmetrical fagade with a central chimney built of yellow brick flanked by windows on both sides at the basement level and on the first- and second storey. The basement windows are flat headed rectangular windows with wood sills. Some of the basement windows, which may be original, feature three-lites. The first storey features two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. The second - storey window openings are slightly smaller given the gable roof design and appear to be original; however, the one opening contains a flat -headed 1/1 hung window with wood sill, while the other opening is missing the window and currently covered by plywood. Side (West Elevation) Fagade The side fagade displays a symmetrical fagade. The two basement windows are flat headed rectangular windows with wood trim and sills. Some of the basement windows, which may be original, feature three-lites. The first -storey features two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. The second -storey window openings are slightly smaller given the gable roof design and appear to be original; however, the two openings contain a flat -headed 1/1 hung window with wood sill. Rear (North Elevation) Fagade The rear fagade is obstructed by three later additions. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the direct association with agricultural, early pioneers, the original and later property owners, and the properties contribution to the understanding of the pioneer settlers. The historical/associative value of 236 Gehl Place was evaluated and described in The Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Background Study prepared as part of the Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study. This study concluded that: Page 156 of 294 The log house was likely built by William Gehl, who acquired G.C.T. Lot 142 after the death of the previous owner, William Meyer, in 1860. Meyer had purchased G.C.T. Lot 142 in 1847 and at the time already owned G.C.T. Lot 141. Gehl gave his surname to the lane leading from Bleams Road to his farm. Based on the 1861 Tremaine Map and the 1861 Census, it is believed that William Gehl died soon after acquiring the land and building the log house because the map shows Margaret Gehl, William Gehl's wife, as the owner of the property, and the census omits William Gehl among the seven family members with children ranging in age from 10 to 26. William Gehl's will suggests that William placed a great deal of faith in his wife's abilities as he left her 166 acres on G.C.T. Lots 141 and 142 to use and manage as she thinks proper and all the stock and farming materials and house furniture. In 1861, Margaret and her family were living in what was described as a two-storey log house. Margaret retained the property for only a brief period and then sold to George Israel, and it remained in the Israel family until 1966. The property was owned by the Henhoeffer family circa 1974 for several decades (at least until 2011) before it was bought by the current owner. Contextual Value The subject property has contextual value because it maintains and supports the rural character of the area, especially the rural lands to the south located outside of the City Urban Area. In addition, the subject property is physically, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. 236 Gehl Place was the first of three farms that existed along Gehl Place. It is the only remaining farm on Gehl Place. The log house sits at the end of Gehl Place and looks south over acres of agricultural fields. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 236 Gehl Place resides in the following heritage attributes: • a substantial two-storey log farmhouse built in the Georgian architectural style; • the original log house generally depicts a rectangular plan with a side gable roofline; • the principal building material is the logs with chinking up to the roofline and then vertical plank boards in the gable ends; o Front (South Elevation) Fagade: ■ all door and window openings; ■ a slightly off-centre (towards the right/east) front door with wood trim; ■ 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with a wood sills located on each side of the front door; o Side (East Elevation) Fagade: ■ a symmetrical fagade with a central chimney built of yellow brick flanked by windows on both sides at the basement level and on the first- and second storey; ■ all window openings; ■ the three -lite rectangular basement windows with flat heads and wood sills; ■ the two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. o Side (West Elevation) Fagade: ■ a symmetrical fagade; ■ all window openings; ■ the three -lite rectangular basement windows with flat heads and wood sills; Page 157 of 294 ■ the two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills; o Rear (North Elevation) Fagade: ■ to be included once the building additions have been removed and the fagade is visible. 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— Property owners were invited to consult via a letter dated May 23, 2023. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. Should Council choose to proceed with a NOID, such notice will be served on the property owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the property owner has the right of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Should Council decide not to proceed with a NOID then the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 23. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2030). PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review (DSD -2023-225) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2023 Update (DSD -2023-309) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024-022) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — February 2024 Update (DSD -2024-056) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — March 2024 Update (DSD -2024-093) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — April 2024 Update (DSD -2024-131 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — May 2024 Update (DSD -2024-194) Page 158 of 294 • Notice of Intention to Demolish (Partial) — Demolition of Building Additions c. 1860 Log House with c. 1920-1930 Addition and c. 1960 Additions 236 Gehl Place — DSD -2024- 243 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Statement of Significance for 236 Gehl Place Page 159 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 236 Gehl Place AREGLEAMS a(jAD �r Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address- 236 Gehl Place Legal Description- GCT Part Lot 142 & 144 Year Built- circa 1860 Architectural Style- Georgian Original Owner- William Gehl Original Use- Farmhouse/Agricultural Condition- Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource r TQ -P ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value 236 Gehl Place is a two-storey mid 19th century log structure built in the Georgian architectural style. The building is situated on a 142.15 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Bleams Road between Trussler Road and Fischer Hallman Road in the Rosenberg Community Plan of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the log farmhouse. Heritage Value 236 Gehl Place is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Page 160 of 294 Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the architectural style, building materials, and construction methods. The structure is a substantial two-storey log farmhouse built in the Georgian architectural style (see Figure 2.0). The use of logs is a rare and early example of a building material and construction method. The original log house generally depicts a rectangular plan with a side gable roofline. The principal building material is the logs with chinking up to the roofline and then vertical plank boards in the gable ends. The log house is in good condition. According to an Architectural Analysis (Ryan, 1991): • The facades are very simple and unadorned: only brown painted eave lines and window trim provide decorative emphasis. • There was once a veranda with shed roof spanning the entire south side of the house. • The original windows were 6/6 double hung sash. • Originally the house had return eaves. Front (South Elevation) FaQade The front fagade displays a slightly off-centre (towards the right/east) front door with wood trim. A 2/2 flat headed double hung wood window with a wood sill is located on each side of the front door. A two-storey basic porch was a later addition. The shed roof dormer was added to facilitate access to the upper porch. Side (East Elevation) FaQade The side fagade displays a symmetrical facade with a central chimney built of yellow brick flanked by windows on both sides at the basement level and on the first- and second storey. The basement windows are flat headed rectangular windows with wood sills. Some of the basement windows, which may be original, feature three-lites. The first storey features two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. The second -storey window openings are slightly smaller given the gable roof design and appear to be original; however, the one opening contains a flat -headed 1/1 hung window with wood sill, while the other opening is missing the window and currently covered by plywood. Side (West Elevation) Facade The side fagade displays a symmetrical fagade. The two basement windows are flat headed rectangular windows with wood trim and sills. Some of the basement windows, which may be original, feature three-lites. The first -storey features two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. The second -storey window openings are slightly smaller given the gable roof design and appear to be original; however, the two openings contain a flat -headed 1/1 hung window with wood sill. Rear (North Elevation) FaQade The rear fagade is obstructed by three later additions. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the direct association with agricultural, early pioneers, the original and later property owners, and the properties contribution to the understanding of the pioneer settlers. The historical/associative value of 236 Gehl Place was evaluated and described in The Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Background Study prepared as part of the Southwest Kitchener Urban Areas Study. This study concluded that: Page 161 of 294 The log house was likely built by William Gehl, who acquired G.C.T. Lot 142 after the death of the previous owner, William Meyer, in 1860. Meyer had purchased G.C.T. Lot 142 in 1847 and at the time already owned G.C.T. Lot 141. Gehl gave his surname to the lane leading from Bleams Road to his farm. Based on the 1861 Tremaine Map and the 1861 Census, it is believed that William Gehl died soon after acquiring the land and building the log house because the map shows Margaret Gehl, William Gehl's wife, as the owner of the property, and the census omits William Gehl among the seven family members with children ranging in age from 10 to 26. William Gehl's will suggests that William placed a great deal of faith in his wife's abilities as he left her 166 acres on G.C.T. Lots 141 and 142 to use and manage as she thinks proper and all the stock and farming materials and house furniture. In 1861, Margaret and her family were living in what was described as a two-storey log house. Margaret retained the property for only a brief period and then sold to George Israel, and it remained in the Israel family until 1966. The property was owned by the Henhoeffer family circa 1974 for several decades (at least until 2011) before it was bought by the current owner. Contextual Value The subject property has contextual value because it maintains and supports the rural character of the area, especially the rural lands to the south located outside of the City Urban Area. In addition, the subject property is physically, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. 236 Gehl Place was the first of three farms that existed along Gehl Place. It is the only remaining farm on Gehl Place. The log house sits at the end of Gehl Place and looks south over acres of agricultural fields. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 236 Gehl Place resides in the following heritage attributes: • a substantial two-storey log farmhouse built in the Georgian architectural style; • the original log house generally depicts a rectangular plan with a side gable roofline; • the principal building material is the logs with chinking up to the roofline and then vertical plank boards in the gable ends; o Front (South Elevation) Fagade: ■ all door and window openings; ■ a slightly off-centre (towards the right/east) front door with wood trim; ■ 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with a wood sills located on each side of the front door; o Side (East Elevation) Fagade: ■ a symmetrical fagade with a central chimney built of yellow brick flanked by windows on both sides at the basement level and on the first- and second storey; ■ all window openings; ■ the three -lite rectangular basement windows with flat heads and wood sills; ■ the two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills. o Side (West Elevation) Fagade: ■ a symmetrical fagade; ■ all window openings; ■ the three -lite rectangular basement windows with flat heads and wood sills; ■ the two 2/2 flat headed double hung wood windows with wood sills, o Rear (North Elevation) Fagade: ■ to be included once the building additions have been removed and the fagade is visible. Page 162 of 294 References Tausky, N.Z. (2010). "Cultural Heritage Background Study. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study." City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Photographs IM .- Elevation (East Fagade) Page 163 of 294 Side Elevation (West Fagade) Page 164 of 294 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 236 Gehl Place Address: c. 1860 Log Home, William Gehl Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Michelle Drake Recorder: May 22, 2024 — Date: ❑X Front Facade ❑X Left Fagade ❑X Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 165 of 294 1 KrTcNER * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑x because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Page 166 of 294 designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Page 167 of 294 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑X noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes ❑x * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑ Yes ❑x Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x features that should be added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑x *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes Yes ❑ ❑ Page 168 of 294 1 KrTcNER Indigenous heritage and ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required history? Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes Indigenous history associated N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ with the property? Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research * Additional archival work may be Required required. Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑x Co function of the subject Commercial ❑ mmercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes the subject property Yes ❑ ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ specific community of people? Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington Required Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Page 169 of 294 1 KIR Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 170 of 294 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-242 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 56 Duke Street West under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 56 Duke Street West as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council direct the Clerk to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 56 Duke Street West under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on April 2, 2024. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 56 Duke Street West be recognized and designation pursued. • The key finding of this report is that the property municipally addressed as 56 Duke Street West meets the criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource. The property is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. • There are no financial implications with this recommendation. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting with Heritage Kitchener. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served to the Owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust. • This report supports the delivery of core services *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 171 of 294 BACKGROUND: 56 Duke Street West is a two-storey early 20th century building constructed in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.34 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Duke Street between Young Street and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo (Figure 1). The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the presbytery. II,,,hur h F / 41 28 �f Church Sculpture 22 14 96 66 StMa Y S i A 35 chord v 73 Downtown Community C ntre� X 21/A rY COMMERCIAL CORE [' '�� 15th/ 149: 11 One 85 / ; r 180 48 Figure 1. Location Map — 56 Duke Street West 141 50 � ,LP eosin ,6 i p�ner,t 46/42 �104 O� S rvice Ontano�� B I�OfC ada OU 32 30 6 Gd 1172 o 10 o-J� A full assessment of 56 Duke Street West has been completed and included a field evaluation and detailed archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets the criteria for designation. An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on April 2, 2024. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 on the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest value of 56 Duke Street West by recognized and designation pursued. This work was undertaken as part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments of the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation at the April 2, 2024 meeting were contacted via a second letter dated April 3, 2024, and invited to contact the City's Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. No response from the property owners was received by Heritage Planning Staff. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate, Owners will be contacted a third time through a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) Letter. An ad for the NOID will also be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served and the ad posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which Owners may object to the designation. Page 172 of 294 -/ P,gion 111 Sr SII eu in s Cen O'e Kitchener Ciry *hall 200 Berlin Tower / 220 * Artspace �ti, 198 QJ� 31 1 II,,,hur h F / 41 28 �f Church Sculpture 22 14 96 66 StMa Y S i A 35 chord v 73 Downtown Community C ntre� X 21/A rY COMMERCIAL CORE [' '�� 15th/ 149: 11 One 85 / ; r 180 48 Figure 1. Location Map — 56 Duke Street West 141 50 � ,LP eosin ,6 i p�ner,t 46/42 �104 O� S rvice Ontano�� B I�OfC ada OU 32 30 6 Gd 1172 o 10 o-J� A full assessment of 56 Duke Street West has been completed and included a field evaluation and detailed archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets the criteria for designation. An updated Statement of Significance on the property's cultural heritage value was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on April 2, 2024. On this meeting date, the Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 on the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest value of 56 Duke Street West by recognized and designation pursued. This work was undertaken as part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments of the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation at the April 2, 2024 meeting were contacted via a second letter dated April 3, 2024, and invited to contact the City's Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. No response from the property owners was received by Heritage Planning Staff. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate, Owners will be contacted a third time through a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) Letter. An ad for the NOID will also be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is served and the ad posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which Owners may object to the designation. Page 172 of 294 REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within the City of Kitchener is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term protection of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, but it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value and interest. Figure 2. Facade fronting onto 56 Duke Street West. 56 Duke Street West is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values (Fig. 2). It satisfies five (5) of the nine criteria for designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is met or not met is provided in the table below. Page 173 of 294 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it No displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it No yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in Yes defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, Yes functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Design/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the notable, rare, and unique Gothic architectural style of the building. Construction of the building was completed in October 1922 at the cost of $46,000 (Fig. 3). The building is two -and -a -half storeys in height, in good condition with many intact elements including but not limited to: flattened gothic arch windows openings, gothic pointed arch windows openings with tracery; round windows with quatrefoils; projecting porticos on two elevations of the building, and red brick construction. It is likely that the windows and roof of the building have been replaced. However, the original window openings remain. Furthermore, the round windows with quatrefoils and gothic pointed arch windows with tracery also maintain their original design. Page 174 of 294 e I Ni I 'g � la ROA -1 CAiHCJL/G I E-11 d 1s Figure 3. 1924 Fire Insurance Maps showing the Presbytery. Historic/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin (now Kitchener). The original owner of the property was St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church and the original use of the property was a presbytery.The building also has associative value for being designed by Charles Knechtel, a prominent architect in Berlin (now Kitchener) for more than 40 years. Charles Knechtel was a prominent architect in the Region of Waterloo at the turn of the 20th century, having worked on more than 100 buildings including commercial offices, factories, and private residences as far away as Galt. Contextual Value The contextual value of 56 Duke Street West relates to the physical, historical, functional and visual links to the building's surroundings. The building is located on the block bounded by Duke Street West, Young Street, Weber Street West and Ontario Street, and is related to the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. Page 175 of 294 Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of 56 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the building, including: o The location, massing and scale of the building; o all elevations of the building; o The roofline, including wall dormers; o red brick construction; o paired two storey projecting bays on front elevation; o all windows openings and decorative details, including: ■ flattened gothic arch windows; ■ segmental window openings with false wood shaping; ■ gothic pointed arch windows with tracery; ■ round windows with quatrefoils; o dentils on the dropped cornice; and, o all door openings, including transom and sidelights All elements related to the contextual value of the building; o The original location of the building on Duke Street West and its contribution to the Duke Street West Streetscape. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT— Heritage Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and January 16, 2024. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving notice of its intention to designate a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. In addition, should Council choose to give notice of its intention to designate, such notice will be served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the owner has the right of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. It should be noted that should Council decide not to proceed with a Notice of Intention to Designate, that the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed according to the Page 176 of 294 changes enacted by Bill 23. Once removed, it cannot re -listed on the Register again for five (5) years, i.e. January 1, 2030. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Municipal Heritage Register Review Project —April 2024 Update (DSD -2024-131) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Updated Statement of Significance for 56 Duke Street West Page 177 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 56 Duke Street West Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ®Social Value ® Historical Value ❑ Economic Value ® Contextual Value ❑ Environmental Value Municipal Address: 56 Duke Street West Legal Description: Plan 399 Lot 7 Year Built: 1922 Architectural Styles: Gothic Original Owner: St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Original Use: Rectory Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 56 Duke Street West is an early 20th century building built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.34 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Duke Street between Young Street and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the presbytery. Page 178 of 294 2 54 52 5250 41 a as � civic CFI1 ��GJpNe�� al l✓ 1,� ST i 11j� (.y 27 45 77 2 ° 4Q H 150 --$ 41 24 _ <L� t Marys -- _ - -120 ChurM Sculpture fib: �StA -. 22 IH v0 -. ,� --- 96 MaryA 35 * .Church _ B Downtown Community B -- - Cm trd 21 C"COMMERCIAL CORE ( � 151- 17 .' . -� 14'0 �-� i1 WdFgrlao Regan 111 Small Nun— CenKe x,72 ` 54 Kith-4 Ly l� all G'Berlf 0 T wer Artspace CityOC a tre 52 ... ,. \Q'~' 85 - log, 141 50 220tri �,�.- - �P 4&,42 104 Service Ontario fius�nessDevelopmet5f @ank of Conaria a= \. 148 A. 32 y 30 2� J 31.... 45 S y6 55 W 10 o -J 1213�— Sri?/ .,... ...... 48 Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ®Social Value ® Historical Value ❑ Economic Value ® Contextual Value ❑ Environmental Value Municipal Address: 56 Duke Street West Legal Description: Plan 399 Lot 7 Year Built: 1922 Architectural Styles: Gothic Original Owner: St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Original Use: Rectory Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 56 Duke Street West is an early 20th century building built in the Gothic architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.34 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Duke Street between Young Street and Ontario Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the presbytery. Page 178 of 294 Heritage Value 56 Duke Street West is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical values relate to the notable, rare and unique Gothic architectural style of the building. The building is two -and -a -half -storeys in height and features: hip roof with wall dormers; red brick; paired two storey projecting bays on front elevation; flattened gothic arch windows; segmental window openings with false wood shaping around the windows; gothic pointed arch windows with tracery; round windows with quatrefoils; dentils on the dropped cornice; and, wood doors with transom and sidelights. Front Facade (South Elevation) The front fagade of the building has a brick portico with voussoirs, and two projecting bays with gothic arched windows and voussoirs on either side on each storey with decorative dentil moulding. The projecting entrance has brick pillars on each side with steps leading down to the main street. There are three gabled parapet dormers above the second storey, with arched windows with tracery and voussoirs. Side Elevation (East Elevation) The side fagade also has a brick portico and voussoirs, and decorative dentil moulding. The first and second storey of the building has 6 gothic arched double windows with voussoirs, 4 on the left side of the entrance and 2 on the right side of the entrance. There is an additional tripartite window above the main entrance on with tracery. All the windows have voussoirs and sills. There is also decorative dentil moulding with a dropped cornice on the upper storey and 4 gabled parapet dormers, with gothic arched windows and voussoirs and tracery, a round window with tracery, and a double window with tracery. Due to the topography of the hill the building is located on, part of the stone foundation can be seen with double windows on the lower level. Rear Elevation (North Elevation) The rear elevation of the building has an irregular fenestration pattern, with arched windows and voussoirs. There are also projecting entrances on the fagade that provide an alternate entrance to the building, as well as connect it to the church. Side Elevation (West Elevation) The side fagade also has a brick portico and voussoirs, and decorative dentil moulding. The first and second storey of the building has 6 gothic arched double windows with voussoirs, 4 on the left side of the entrance and 2 on the right side of the entrance. There is additional tripartite window above the main entrance with tracery. All the windows have voussoirs and sills. There is also decorative dentil moulding with a dropped cornice on the upper storey and 4 gabled parapet dormers, with gothic arched windows and voussoirs and tracery, a round window with tracery, and a double window with tracery. Due to the topography of the hill the building is located on, part of the stone foundation can be seen with double windows on the lower level. Page 179 of 294 Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings and the contribution they made to the history of Berlin (now Kitchener). The original owner of the property was St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church and the original use of the property was a presbytery. The building also has associative value for being designed by Charles Knetchel, a prominent architect in Berlin (now Kitchener) for more than 40 years. St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church The historic and associative values of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church (municipallu addressed as 73 Young Street) relate to the original owner and use of the property and buildings, and the contributions they made to Kitchener's history. This land has always been used a church and contains one of the oldest churches in Kitchener. The church today sits on land that was purchased on August 16, 1854 from David Weber for $200.00. Prior to the formation of St. Mary's Parish, the few Catholic families travelled to St. Agatha Church to attend mass. In 1852, Kitchener (Berlin) was chosen to be the county seat. Since this was chosen to be the leading community, the Jesuits chose the this area to make a community centre. Father Rupert Ebner S.J., who was the spiritual leader from 1848 to 1856, encouraged the Catholics of Strassburg Williamsburg, Bridgeport, and Lexington to unite with those of Berlin to build a church, and the group agreed. On September 17, 1854, the cornerstone was laid by Bishop DeCharbonnel of the Toronto Diocese. The church was completed in 1856, blessed by Bishop Farell, the first Bishop of Hamilton, and was given the title of St. Mary of the Seven Dolors. The original church measured 80 by 40 feet with additions being constructed in the next few years. On June 26, 1892, a meeting held in the church resulted in a discussion for funding the construction of a new church because of crowding and it was decided that the church would collect monthly funding to fund the new church. By 1899, the church had sufficient funds to purchase the adjoining land from John Fennell for $7,500.00. On September 30, 1900, Bishop T. J. Downing laid the cornerstone and in the late autumn of 1903, the church was completed. It had been planned by Arthur William Holmes of Toronto. It's date of construction, having been built at a time when Kitchener was Berlin, makes this church one of the oldest churches and buildings in Kitchener, thus having significant historical and associative value. The Rectory Father Laufhuber S. J. began a house-to-house canvass for funds to build a sacristy and rectory shortly after his arrival as a pastor in 1857. The sacristy was built first, and he lived there until the rectory was completed, and took an active role in planning and directing the construction of the building. The first floor became the first separate school and the rooms on the second floor became the rectory and the teacher's quarters. This building was situated immediately infront of where the present church stands, and was torn down in 1897. In 1899, the "John Motz" house at 64 Young Street was purchased by the Fathers at St. Jerome's College, and was rented to the parish priests. Since the rectory was urgently needed to keep the school functioning, the Fathers immediately took up residence in the new rectory. Page 180 of 294 A parish meeting was called on March 14, 1915 to discuss a new rectory, with a delegation being sent to the Bishop to enquire about placing a mortgage on the church for this purpose. It took until August 22, 1921 to release the contract to build the new rectory. The Rectory (located at 56 Duke Street West) was completed in October 1922, at the cost of $46,000. The Fathers moved into the rectory on from 19 -21St of October. The new rectory was designed by Charles Knetchel and Reitzel Brothers from Waterloo were the builders. The Rectory was equipped by the Catholic Women's League, The Christian Mother's Society, the Holy name Society and the Young Ladies Society. Mr. and Mrs. Hartman Krug, owner of the prominent Krug Furniture Company, presented the furniture for the office and waiting rooms. In 1939, the exterior of the rectory was painted, and in 1944 repairs were made to the interior and exterior of the rectory. In 1956, the Church briefly hosted a distinguished visitor at the rectory, His Excellency Archbishop Giovanni Panico, D.D. representative of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, and head of the Apostolic Delegation to Canada on October 25, 1956. Today, the building is still used as a residence and an office. Charles Knetchel Charles Knetchel was born in Mannheim, Waterloo County, Ontario on November 22, 1869. He never formally studied architecture but instead received much of his knowledge of design and construction from his father, Jonas Knetchel, who he worked with from 1886 until his father's death in 1894. Knetchel then opened his own office in Kitchener (then Berlin) in 1895 and continued to practice until after 1930. He has worked on more than a 100 buildings in the Waterloo Region, including churches, schools, commercial offices, factories, and private residences as far away as Galt and Durham in Ontario. He remained active in the profession for nearly 40 years until 1928, and later died in Kitchener on October 5, 1951. Contextual Value The contextual value of 56 Duke Street West relates to the physical, historical, functional and visual links to the building's surroundings. The building is located on the block bounded by Duke Street West, Young Street, Weber Street West and Ontario Street, and is related to the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church. The west portion of this block has been historically owned by the church. Historic buildings still present on the block include: the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church; the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Presbytery; and, the Lutherwood's Betty Thompson Youth Centre (historically known as the Notre Dame Convent). In addition, the Presbytery has a strong visual presence, including important views, on Duke Street as the building occupies a large site slightly elevated on a hill. Other Values Social Value St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church has significant social value as a place of worship that has been in Kitchener for over a century. This building has been supporting these services for over 100 years and has become a landmark and a place of importance in the community. Places of worship often provide intangible community value as a place where people gather and are often a central piece of a community. Page 181 of 294 Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of 56 Duke Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and architectural style of the building, including: o The location, massing and scale of the building; o all elevations of the building; o The roofline, including wall dormers; o red brick construction; o paired two storey projecting bays on front elevation; o all windows openings and decorative details, including: ■ flattened gothic arch windows; ■ segmental window openings with false wood shaping; ■ gothic pointed arch windows with tracery; ■ round windows with quatrefoils; o dentils on the dropped cornice; and, o all door openings, including transom and sidelights ■ All elements related to the contextual value of the building; o The original location of the building on Duke Street West and its contribution to the Duke Street West Streetscape. Page 182 of 294 R. �r RM �M- ------------ f s -a TT 1-41 r' `R LotF$ w :rte- .a.� .�� ,a��spa•1 -:ars ,4 --- - '— — - ..,. , i r r4 J 3 LAI_ y 3; �1 References Vernon, H. & Son. (1910). Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport. Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory. For the Years 1910-1911 (81" Ed.). Hamiltion, ON: Griffen & Richmond. St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Centennial 1857-7957Issue, accessed from The Kitchener Public Library Archives, pp. 9-34 Town of Berlin Fire Insurance Maps — 1904 City of Kitchener Fire Insurance Maps - 1925 N/A, Some Facts about St. Mary's Parish, accessed via Kitchener Public Library Archives Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada — 1800-1950 (N/A), Knechtel, Charles, accessed via http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/223 Page 186 of 294 View of Young and Duke Street. 56 Duke Street highlighted by red arrow. (Kitchener Public Library, date unknown) i Page 187 of 294 View of Young and Duke Street. 56 Duke Street highlighted by red arrow. (Kitchener Public Library, date unknown) Gin .�I (^�1 Approximate Location of 56 Duke Street highlighted in red box - 1904 Fire Insurance Maps Page 188 of 294 1924 Fire Insurance Map — Location of 56 Duke Street West highlighted by red arrow. Page 189 of 294 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 56 Duke Street West Address: Description: Photographs Attached: Deeksha Choudhry Recorder: March 1, 2024 Date: OFront Facade ❑ Left Fagade 0 Right Fagade 0 Rear Facade 0 Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 190 of 294 4. The property has historical value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes 0 important in defining, maintaining or Page 191 of 294 supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior 8. The property has arrangement, finish, N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail contextual value N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes 0 physically, outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external functionally, visually features that complete the or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the site? Page 192 of 294 Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes 0 * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑ Yes 0 Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 features that should be added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes 0 *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous heritage and es ❑ 0 Additional Research Required history? ❑ Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous history associated 0 Additional Research Required with the property? N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y * Additional archival work may be es ❑ required. ❑ Additional Research Required Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Com function of the subject Commercial ❑ mercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ Church Office ❑ Other 0 - Page 193 of 294 * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ the subject property es ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y specific community of people? es ❑ ❑Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington Required Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General/ Additional Notes Page 194 of 294 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 195 of 294 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-247 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 11-15 Pandora Avenue North under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally addressed as 11- 15 Pandora Avenue North as being of cultural heritage value or interest. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to request that Council publish a Notice of Intention to Designate 11-15 Pandora Avenue North Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North was taken to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on April 2, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North should be confirmed by pursuing designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • The key finding of this report is that 11-15 Pandora Avenue North meets three (3) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) and has been confirmed to be a significant cultural heritage resource recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative values. • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included informing residents by posting this report with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting, providing written correspondence to the property owner, and consulting with Heritage Kitchener. Should Council choose to give Notice of Intention to Designate, such notice shall be served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 196 of 294 BACKGROUND: 11-15 Pandora Avenue North is a two-storey 19th century building constructed in the Italianate architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.18 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Pandora Avenue North between Duke Street East and King Street East 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 residential building. Figure 1.0: Location Map of Subject Property (11-15 Pandora Avenue North) A full assessment of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North has been completed, including: field evaluation and archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets three (3) of nine (9) criteria for designation under Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). An updated Statement of Significance describing the property's cultural heritage value or interest was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on April 2, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North should be confirmed by pursuing designation of the subject property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This work was undertaken as part of the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) Review, initiated in February of 2023. The MHR Review is the City's response to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act introduced in January of 2023 through Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act. The City contacted owners of listed properties through an initial letter dated May 23, 2023, to inform them of this undertaking. Owners of properties recommended for designation were contacted via a second letter. The property owner for 11-15 Pandora Avenue North was contacted via second letter sent by mail dated April 9, 2024. This letter was accompanied by the updated Statement of Significance and a "Guide to Heritage Designation for Property Owners" prepared in June 2023. The letter invited property owners to contact the City's Senior Heritage Planner with any comments, questions, or concerns. Per standard procedure, should Council support the Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID), the property owner will be contacted a third time through a letter advising of the City's NOID. An ad for the NOID will be published in a newspaper. Once the letter is Page 197 of 294 served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and the newspaper ad is posted, there will be a 30 -day appeal period in which the property owner may object to the designation. Figure 2.0: Current Front (West Fagade) Elevation REPORT: Identifying and protecting cultural heritage resources within our City is an important part of planning for the future, and helping to guide change while conserving the buildings, structures, and landscapes that give the City of Kitchener its unique identity. The City plays a critical role in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The designation of property under the Ontario Heritage Act is the main tool to provide long-term conservation of cultural heritage resources for future generations. Designation recognizes the importance of a property to the local community; protects the property's cultural heritage value or interest; encourages good stewardship and conservation; and, promotes knowledge and understanding about the property. Designation not only publicly recognizes and promotes awareness, but it also provides a process for ensuring that changes to a property are appropriately managed and that these changes respect the property's cultural heritage value or interest. 11-15 Pandora Avenue North is recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative, values. It satisfies three (3) of nine (9) criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 (amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22). A summary of the criteria that is or is not met is provided in the table below. Page 198 of 294 Table 1: Criteria for Designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) Design/Physical Value The design and physical value relate to the building and the Italianate architectural style. The building has many intact original elements in good condition. Front (West) Fagade The current front of the building faces Pandora Avenue North. The building generally depicts an asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape. The truncated hip roof features cross gables that contribute to the modified L -shape plan. The central hip roof leads to the rooftop clerestory windows. The roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The front gable projects out and features a one -storey bay window on the main floor. The bay window displays a hip roof with decorative brackets and panelled frieze. Each bay contains an 8 -pane segmentally arched wood window with brick voussoirs and stone sills. A group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey. A circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end. The corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins. Page 199 of 294 Criteria Criteria Met (Yes/No) 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a Yes rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, material, or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it Yes displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design or physical value because it No demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it Yes has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it No yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it No demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in No defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, No functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No Table 1: Criteria for Designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) Design/Physical Value The design and physical value relate to the building and the Italianate architectural style. The building has many intact original elements in good condition. Front (West) Fagade The current front of the building faces Pandora Avenue North. The building generally depicts an asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape. The truncated hip roof features cross gables that contribute to the modified L -shape plan. The central hip roof leads to the rooftop clerestory windows. The roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The front gable projects out and features a one -storey bay window on the main floor. The bay window displays a hip roof with decorative brackets and panelled frieze. Each bay contains an 8 -pane segmentally arched wood window with brick voussoirs and stone sills. A group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey. A circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end. The corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins. Page 199 of 294 The modified L -shape features one bay with a hipped roof with a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The first storey contains a wraparound porch constructed circa 2009-2011, which does not detract from the Italianate architectural style. The 1924 Fire Insurance Plan shows that the original porch was confined to the original front (south) facade. Both the first storey and the second storey display a segmentally arched 4/4 wood window with decorative hood crown and stone sill. The third storey is comprised of the hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows. The third storey was rebuilt in 2022. The corners of this bay display brick quoins. The side elevation of the cross gable features a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The corners of this bay display brick quoins. There are no doors or windows on this elevation. A 1.5 -storey side -gable addition, originally the `servant's quarters' is located on the north side of the projecting front gable. This addition was built as early as 1924. The yellow brick elevation facing Pandora Avenue North is setback approximately 3 metres from the projecting front gable. This elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details. One four -pane segmentally arched wood window with stone sill is located on the upper half storey. A 1 -storey addition, in front of the 1.5 -storey side -gable addition, features a simple design with a shed roof, painted vertical board siding (possibly board and batten), a new front door, and three 1/1 windows. rt ti Mir- Ml• 11 IL Figure 3.0: Detailing of truncated hip roof with cross gables; central hip roof that leads to the clerestory windows; moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with paired brackets; projecting centre bay on west elevation with bay window; double (suspected) yellow brick construction; corner brick quoins; segmentally hung wood windows with decorative hood crowns, and stone sills. (Google Streetview, 2020) Page 200 of 294 Side (North) Fagade The north fagade was originally the rear of the house. This elevation features the 1.5 storey side gable addition that originally served as the `servant's quarters.' This addition was built as early as 1924. This elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details. A chimney stack is visible on the hip roof of the main building. Side (South) Fagade The original front of the building faced King Street East. At present, this fagade faces a vacant lot municipally addressed as 656 King Street East. The building's roof is cross gabled with a central hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows. The roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and paneled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The side gable projects out and features a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills on both the first and second storey. A circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end. The corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins. The recessed bay to the left of the projecting side gable features the main entrance to the building with a wraparound porch constructed circa 2009-2011, which does not detract from the Italianate architectural style. The single segmentally arched door with decorative hood crown features two elongated windows with etched and bevelled lite and wood paneling below on the first storey. A group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey. The corners of the projecting side gable display brick quoins. r - - IOF- Figure 4.0: Side Elevation (South Detailing of original front entrance (City Fa(;ade) (originally the front elevation of Kitchener, 2024) off of King Street East) (City of Kitchener, 2024) Page 201 of 294 Rear (East) Facade The current rear elevation was originally the east side elevation. At present, the east elevation is not visible from the public realm. According to a 1996 Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee Heritage Property Report (Bensason, 1996), this elevation consisted of three bays. The left bay contained a bricked -in segmentally arched window opening. Dividing the left and centre bay was a chimney projection that ended at the fascia. The centre bay displayed a segmentally arched 1/1 wood window followed by a pair of segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows on the first storey. The second storey displayed a segmentally arched 1/1 wood window followed by a pair of segmentally arched 1/1 wood windows. The third bay contained an entrance porch with door that projects from the main structure, and a 4/4 wood window. The upper half storey contained a 1/1 segmentally arched wood window. These heritage attributes may still exist. Bensason (1996) also identified notable interior heritage attributes including: a flying wood (probably pine) staircase which winds from the main floor to the attic; the original main front entrance carved wood doors with original hardware, etched and bevelled glass lites; original bay window on Pandora Avenue North elevation; pine board floors; and, 12- and 14 -foot ceilings with detailed plaster work and centrepiece in the living room. These heritage attributes may still exist. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 11-15 Pandora Avenue North has historical/associative value due to history and association with early settlement; prominent pioneer Mennonite families — the Ebys and the Erbs — including Bishop Benjamin Eby, Rev. Moses Erb, and Menno Erb; and early industries including Erb & Co. Glove Works, Brown & Erb, and the Huck Glove Company Limited (Bensason, 1996). Bishop Benjamin Eby and his wife Marie (nee Brubacher) bought Lot 2, G.C.T. when they came to Canada in 1807. The first building on the property was a log house that stood west of the First Mennonite Church where Bishop Eby was a spiritual leader, teacher and first preacher. By 1830, he had built a frame house. A fine lawn surrounded the frame house with a spacious verandah between the house and King Street. There was also a large barn and a cider mill operated by Ely Eby, son of Bishop Eby (Stroh, 1931). Over the years, Bishop Eby and his descendants sold off parcels of Lot 2. One parcel of Lot 2 was purchased by Rev. Moses Erb in 1862 from the executors of Rev. Christian Erb, son of Bishop Eby. Moses Erb was born in Waterloo County in 1821. He was an ordained Mennonite minister for the Martin and Bloomingdale fields of labour. He married Susannah Rosenberger in 1841 and they moved to the "Bishop Eby Farm" in 1860 when he was placed on the Berlin Circuit. They moved along with their children Menno, Aaron, and Moses. The oldest son of Rev. Erb and Susannah was Menno Erb (b. 1842, d. 1906). He married Lydia Bricker and together they had four children — Malinda, Ephraim, Maggie and Edward. Menno became a large landowner when he bought the "Bishiop Eby Farm" from his father in 1867. He continued to operate the cider mill, with a large orchard being located between the farm buildings and the Mennonite Meeting House and cemetery (Stroh, 1931). The Berliner Journal of October 31, 1878 noted that "Menno Erb had built Page 202 of 294 for $2500 on King Street end of town, a two storey brick house in the Italianate style." The house originally faced King Street (264 King Street). Menno Erb was the head of M. Erb & Co. Glove Works on King Street and the largest shareholder in Erb Glove. He was also in partnership with C.F. Brown —'Brown & Erb' — one of the finest and most prominent furniture houses in the country. In the 1860s, Brown & Erb commenced the manufacture of gloves. Menno Erb was a member of the Town Council in 1868 and 1871. Menno Erb and his family sold the building in 1881 when they moved to the corner of Foundry (Ontario) and Weber Streets. After his death in 1906 a foreman, Joseph Huck, bought Brown & Erb and established the Huck Glove Company Limited. And the furniture business became Quality Mattress located at 87 King Street West. Over the years the house was owned by various families including, but not limited to, Moses Betzner, Samuel Brubacher, Bennie Persin, Henry Knell William Smyth, Carl Pritschau, Christian Huehn, James Bowers, Joseph Payne, Charles Miehm, Milton Huehn, and Ivan & Doris Gascho. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes: • asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape; • two storey height plus attic; • truncated hip roof with cross gables; • central hip roof that leads to the clerestory windows; • moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with paired brackets; • segmentally arched door features two elongated windows with etched bevelled lites and wood panelling as well as a decorative hood crown; • projecting centre bay on west elevation with bay window; • 1.5 storey addition (original use was the servant quarters); • double (suspected) yellow brick construction; • corner brick quoins; • segmentally hung wood windows with decorative hood crowns, or brick voussoirs, and stone sills; and, • rubble stone foundation. • the current front fagade faces Pandora Avenue North and features four irregular bays: o an asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape; o a truncated hip roof with cross gables that contribute to the modified L -shape plan; o a central hip roof that leads to the rooftop clerestory windows; o the roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the front gable projects out and features a one -storey bay window on the main floor; Page 203 of 294 ■ the bay window displays a hip roof with decorative brackets and panelled frieze; ■ each bay contains an 8 -pane segmentally arched wood window with brick voussoirs and stone sills; ■ a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills are featured on the second storey; ■ a circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end; ■ the corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins; o the modified L -shape features one bay with a hipped roof with a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; ■ the first storey contains a wraparound porch (c. 2009-2011); ■ both the first storey and the second storey display a segmentally arched 4/4 wood window with decorative hood crown and stone sill; ■ the third storey is comprised of the hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows; ■ the corners of this bay display brick quoins; o the side elevation of the cross gable features a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the corners of this bay display brick quoins; o a 1.5 -storey side -gable addition; ■ the yellow brick elevation facing Pandora Avenue North is setback approximately 3 metres from the projecting front gable; ■ this elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details; ■ one four -pane segmentally arched wood window with stone sill is located on the upper half storey; o a 1 -storey addition, in front of the 1.5 -storey side -gable addition, features a simple design with a shed roof, painted vertical board siding (possibly board and batten), a new front door, and three 1/1 windows. the north fagade features a 1.5 storey side gable addition; o this elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details; o a chimney stack is visible on the hip roof of the main building; the south fagade was once the original front of the building and it features: o a cross -gabled roof with a central hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows; o moulded fascia, plain cornice, and paneled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the side gable projects out and features: ■ a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills on both the first and second storey; ■ a circular wood window with a decorative hood crown in the upper gable end; ■ the corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins; o a recessed bay to the left of the projecting side gable features the main entrance to the building with a wraparound porch (c. 2009-2011); Page 204 of 294 o the single segmentally arched door with decorative hood crown features two elongated windows with etched and bevelled lite and wood paneling below on the first storey; o a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey; o the corners of the projecting side gable display brick quoins. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT— Heritage Planning staff have consulted with the Heritage Kitchener committee regarding designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Property owners were invited to consult via two separate letters dated May 23, 2023 and April 9, 2024. Section 29(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act requires Council to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) before giving Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property. Heritage Kitchener will be consulted via circulation and consideration of this report (see INFORM above). Members of the community will be informed via circulation of this report to Heritage Kitchener and via formal consideration by Council. Should Council choose to proceed with a NOID, such notice will be served on the property owner, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published in the local newspaper (The Record). Once notice has been served, the property owner has the right of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Should Council decide not to proceed with a NOID then the building will remain on the City's Municipal Heritage Register (MHR) until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 23. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2030). PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 • Ontario Regulation 9/06 (Amended by Ontario Regulation 569/22) • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review (DSD -2023-225) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2023 Update (DSD -2023-309) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update (DSD -2024-022) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — February 2024 Update (DSD -2024-056) Page 205 of 294 • Municipal Heritage Register Review • Municipal Heritage Register Review • Municipal Heritage Register Review March 2024 Update (DSD -2024-093) April 2024 Update (DSD -2024-131 May 2024 Update (DSD -2024-194) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 11-15 Pandora Avenue North Page 206 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 11-15 Pandora Avenue North Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ❑Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 11-15 Pandora Avenue North Legal Description: GCT Sub of Lot 2 Lot 74 Year Built: 1878 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Menno Erb Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 11-15 Pandora Avenue North is a two-storey 19th-cenutry building. The building is constructed in the Italianate architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.18 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Pandora Avenue North between Duke Street East and King Street East 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 residential building. Page 207 of 294 Heritage Value 11-15 Pandora Avenue North is recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative values. Desipn/Physical Value The design and physical value relate to the building and the Italianate architectural style. The building has many intact original elements in good condition. Features that represent the Italianate architectural style include: asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape; two storey height plus attic; truncated hip roof with cross gables; central hip roof that leads to the clerestory windows; moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with paired brackets; a segmentally arched door on the south elevation features two elongated windows with etched bevelled Iites and wood panelling as well as a decorative hood crown; projecting centre bay on west elevation with bay window; 1.5 storey addition (original use was the servant quarters); double (suspected) yellow brick construction; corner brick quoins; segmentally hung wood windows with decorative hood crowns, or brick voussoirs, and stone sills; and, rubble stone foundation. Front (West) FaQade The current front of the building faces Pandora Avenue North. The building generally depicts an asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape. The truncated hip roof features cross gables that contribute to the modified L -shape plan. The central hip roof leads to the rooftop clerestory windows. The roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The front gable projects out and features a one -storey bay window on the main floor. The bay window displays a hip roof with decorative brackets and panelled frieze. Each bay contains an 8 -pane segmentally arched wood window with brick voussoirs and stone sills. A group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey. A circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end. The corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins. The modified L -shape features one bay with a hipped roof with a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The first storey contains a wraparound porch constructed circa 2009-2011, which does not detract from the Italianate architectural style. The 1924 Fire Insurance Plan shows that the original porch was confined to the original front (south) facade. Both the first storey and the second storey display a segmentally arched 4/4 wood window with decorative hood crown and stone sill. The third storey is comprised of the hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows. The third storey was rebuilt in 2022. The corners of this bay display brick quoins. The side elevation of the cross gable features a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The corners of this bay display brick quoins. There are no doors or windows on this elevation. A 1.5 -storey side -gable addition, originally the `servants quarters' is located on the north side of the projecting front gable. This addition was built as early as 1924. The yellow brick elevation facing Pandora Avenue North is setback approximately 3 metres from the projecting front gable. This elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details. One four -pane segmentally arched wood window with stone sill is located on the upper half storey. A 1 -storey addition, in front of the 1.5 -storey side - gable addition, features a simple design with a shed roof, painted vertical board siding (possibly board and batten), a new front door, and three 1/1 windows. Page 208 of 294 Side (North) FaQade The north facade was originally the rear of the house. This elevation features the 1.5 storey side gable addition that originally served as the `servant's quarters.' This addition was built as early as 1924. This elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details. A chimney stack is visible on the hip roof of the main building. Side (South) FaQade The original front of the building faced King Street East. At present, this fagade faces a vacant lot municipally addressed as 656 King Street East. The building's roof is cross gabled with a central hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows. The roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and paneled frieze with decorative paired brackets. The side gable projects out and features a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills on both the first and second storey. A circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end. The corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins. The recessed bay to the left of the projecting side gable features the main entrance to the building with a wraparound porch constructed circa 2009-2011, which does not detract from the Italianate architectural style. The single segmentally arched door with decorative hood crown features two elongated windows with etched and bevelled lite and wood paneling below on the first storey. A group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey. The corners of the projecting side gable display brick quoins. Rear (East) Facade The current rear elevation was originally the east side elevation. At present, the east elevation is not visible from the public realm. According to a 1996 Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee Heritage Property Report (Bensason, 1996), this elevation consisted of three bays. The left bay contained a bricked -in segmentally arched window opening. Dividing the left and centre bay was a chimney projection that ended at the fascia. The centre bay displayed a segmentally arched 1/1 wood window followed by a pair of segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows on the first storey. The second storey displayed a segmentally arched 1/1 wood window followed by a pair of segmentally arched 1/1 wood windows. The third bay contained an entrance porch with door that projects from the main structure, and a 4/4 wood window. The upper half storey contained a 1/1 segmentally arched wood window. These heritage attributes may still exist. Bensason (1996) also identified notable interior heritage attributes including: a flying wood (probably pine) staircase which winds from the main floor to the attic; the original main front entrance carved wood doors with original hardware, etched and bevelled glass lites; original bay window on Pandora Avenue North elevation; pine board floors; and, 12- and 14 -foot ceilings with detailed plaster work and centrepiece in the living room. These heritage attributes may still exist. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 11-15 Pandora Avenue North has historical/associative value due to history and association with early settlement; prominent pioneer Mennonite families — the Ebys and the Erbs — including Bishop Benjamin Eby, Rev. Moses Erb, and Menno Erb; and early industries including Erb & Co. Glove Works, Brown & Erb, and the Huck Glove Company Limited (Bensason, 1996). Page 209 of 294 Bishop Benjamin Eby and his wife Marie (nee Brubacher) bought Lot 2, G.C.T. when they came to Canada in 1807. The first building on the property was a log house that stood west of the First Mennonite Church where Bishop Eby was a spiritual leader, teacher and first preacher. By 1830, he had built a frame house. A fine lawn surrounded the frame house with a spacious verandah between the house and King Street. There was also a large barn and a cider mill operated by Ely Eby, son of Bishop Eby (Stroh, 1931). Over the years, Bishop Eby and his descendants sold off parcels of Lot 2. One parcel of Lot 2 was purchased by Rev. Moses Erb in 1862 from the executors of Rev. Christian Erb, son of Bishop Eby. Moses Erb was born in Waterloo County in 1821. He was an ordained Mennonite minister for the Martin and Bloomingdale fields of labour. He married Susannah Rosenberger in 1841 and they moved to the "Bishop Eby Farm" in 1860 when he was placed on the Berlin Circuit. They moved along with their children Menno, Aaron, and Moses. The oldest son of Rev. Erb and Susannah was Menno Erb (b. 1842, d. 1906). He married Lydia Bricker and together they had four children — Malinda, Ephraim, Maggie and Edward. Menno became a large landowner when he bought the "Bishiop Eby Farm" from his father in 1867. He continued to operate the cider mill, with a large orchard being located between the farm buildings and the Mennonite Meeting House and cemetery (Stroh, 1931). The Berliner Journal of October 31, 1878 noted that "Merano Erb had built for $2500 on King Street end of town, a two storey brick house in the Italianate style." The house originally faced King Street (264 King Street). Menno Erb was the head of M. Erb & Co. Glove Works on King Street and the largest shareholder in Erb Glove. He was also in partnership with C.F. Brown — `Brown & Erb' — one of the finest and most prominent furniture houses in the country. In the 1860s, Brown & Erb commenced the manufacture of gloves. Menno Erb was a member of the Town Council in 1868 and 1871. Menno Erb and his family sold the building in 1881 when they moved to the corner of Foundry (Ontario) and Weber Streets. After his death in 1906 a foreman, Joseph Huck, bought Brown & Erb and established the Huck Glove Company Limited. And the furniture business became Quality Mattress located at 87 King Street West. Over the years the house was owned by various families including, but not limited to, Moses Betzner, Samuel Brubacher, Bennie Persin, Henry Knell William Smyth, Carl Pritschau, Christian Huehn, James Bowers, Joseph Payne, Charles Miehm, Milton Huehn, and Ivan & Doris Gascho. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 11-15 Pandora Avenue North resides in the following heritage attributes: • asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape; • two storey height plus attic; • truncated hip roof with cross gables; • central hip roof that leads to the clerestory windows; • moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with paired brackets; • segmentally arched door features two elongated windows with etched bevelled lites and wood panelling as well as a decorative hood crown; • projecting centre bay on west elevation with bay window; • 1.5 storey addition (original use was the servant quarters); Page 210 of 294 • double (suspected) yellow brick construction; • corner brick quoins; • segmentally hung wood windows with decorative hood crowns, or brick voussoirs, and stone sills; and, • rubble stone foundation. • the current front fagade faces Pandora Avenue North and features four irregular bays: o an asymmetrical plan in a modified L -shape; o a truncated hip roof with cross gables that contribute to the modified L -shape plan; o a central hip roof that leads to the rooftop clerestory windows; o the roofline features moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the front gable projects out and features a one -storey bay window on the main floor; ■ the bay window displays a hip roof with decorative brackets and panelled frieze; ■ each bay contains an 8 -pane segmentally arched wood window with brick voussoirs and stone sills; ■ a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills are featured on the second storey; ■ a circular wood window with a decorative hood crown is in the upper gable end; ■ the corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins; o the modified L -shape features one bay with a hipped roof with a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; ■ the first storey contains a wraparound porch (c. 2009-2011); ■ both the first storey and the second storey display a segmentally arched 4/4 wood window with decorative hood crown and stone sill; ■ the third storey is comprised of the hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows; ■ the corners of this bay display brick quoins; o the side elevation of the cross gable features a moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the corners of this bay display brick quoins; o a 1.5 -storey side -gable addition; ■ the yellow brick elevation facing Pandora Avenue North is setback approximately 3 metres from the projecting front gable; ■ this elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details; ■ one four -pane segmentally arched wood window with stone sill is located on the upper half storey; o a 1 -storey addition, in front of the 1.5 -storey side -gable addition, features a simple design with a shed roof, painted vertical board siding (possibly board and batten), a new front door, and three 1/1 windows. • the north fagade features a 1.5 storey side gable addition; o this elevation demonstrates a simple design with no ornate details; o a chimney stack is visible on the hip roof of the main building; • the south fagade was once the original front of the building and it features: o a cross -gabled roof with a central hip roof leading to the rooftop clerestory windows; Page 211 of 294 o moulded fascia, plain cornice, and paneled frieze with decorative paired brackets; o the side gable projects out and features: ■ a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills on both the first and second storey; ■ a circular wood window with a decorative hood crown in the upper gable end; ■ the corners of the projecting front gable display brick quoins; o a recessed bay to the left of the projecting side gable features the main entrance to the building with a wraparound porch (c. 2009-2011); o the single segmentally arched door with decorative hood crown features two elongated windows with etched and bevelled lite and wood paneling below on the first storey; o a group of two segmentally arched 4/4 wood windows with decorative hood crowns and stone sills is featured on the second storey; o the corners of the projecting side gable display brick quoins. Rnfnrnnrnc Bensason, L. (1996). 11-15 Pandora Avenue — Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) Heritage Property Report. LACAC: Kitchener, Ontario. Stroh, J. (1931). Reminiscences of Berlin (now Kitchener). Waterloo Historical Society: Volume 19 Photographs .i 3 Front Elevation (West Fagade) (originally a side elevation) (Google Streetview, 2020) Page 212 of 294 f r t a< tE z r �J' �7— -,— of Kitchener, 2024 Page 213 of 294 --- S{ swIjlt; � y Side Elevation (South Fagade) (originally Side Elevation (South Fagade) (originally the front elevation off of King Street East) the front elevation off of King Street East) (Google Streetview, 2023) (City of Kitchener, 2024 Page 213 of 294 V a �• F TW t Detailing of truncated hip roof with cross gables; central hip roof that leads to the clerestory windows; moulded fascia, plain cornice, and panelled frieze with paired brackets; projecting centre bay on west elevation with bay window; double (suspected) yellow brick construction; corner brick quoins; segmentally hung wood windows with decorative hood crowns, and stone sills. (Google Streetview, 2020 z -- f Detailing of original front entrance (City of Kitchener, 2024 Page 214 of 294 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 11-15 Pandora Avenue North Address: 1878 home of Merano Erb Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: P. Ciuciura Recorder: Aug. 1/23 — Date: NFront Facade ❑ Left Fagade N Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder –Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑x Yes N because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes N Yes N because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. Page 215 of 294 1 KrTcNER * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑x Yes ❑x because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical o r N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Page 216 of 294 designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑ important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑ physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Page 217 of 294 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A ❑x Unknown ❑x No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑x Yes ❑x * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑x Yes ❑x Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑x features that should be added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑x Yes ❑x *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes Yes ❑ ❑ Page 218 of 294 1 KrTcNER Indigenous heritage and ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required history? Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes Indigenous history associated N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ with the property? Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research * Additional archival work may be Required required. Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑x Unknown ❑ Residential ❑x Co function of the subject Commercial ❑ mmercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ - Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes the subject property Yes ❑ ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑x No ❑ Yes have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ ❑ specific community of people? Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington Required Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Building is located within 180 metres of a cemetery, and within 480 metres of a source of water Page 219 of 294 1 KIR Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes Exterior paint on brick has been removed; extensive renovations underway TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 220 of 294 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: June 11, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-250 SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review June 2024 Update RECOMMENDATION: The pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized, and designation be pursued for the following properties: • 51 Breithaupt Street • Huron Road (bank barn, drive shed and agricultural fields once associated with the Ontario Gothic Revival farmhouse municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road) • 1478 Trussler Road • 1738 Trussler Road • 103-109 King Street West • 709 King Street West REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend pursuing designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for nine properties that are currently listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. • The key finding of this report is that the properties possess design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value and meet the criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 (amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22). • There are no financial implications. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: On January 1St, 2023 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) came into effect through Bill 23, the More Homes Build Faster Act. One of the primary changes introduced was the imposition of a new timeline which requires "listed" properties on the Municipal Heritage Register to be evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria for heritage designation before January 1St, 2025. Listed properties are properties that have not been designated, but that the municipal Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 221 of 294 interest. The criteria for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario Regulation 9/06, which has now been amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22) and a minimum of two must be met for a property to be eligible for designation. A work plan to address these changes has been developed by Heritage Planning Staff with consultation from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on February 7t", 2023. Implementation of the work plan has now commenced. This report contains a summary of the findings for the properties recently reviewed, and recommendations for next steps. Progress on Work Plan Implementation As part of the work plan proposed in February 2023, Heritage Planning Staff committed to the review of 80 properties listed on the Municipal Heritage Register prior to January 1, 2025. As of the date of this report, a review has been complete for 64 properties. 6 properties are before the Committee as of the date of this report to be considered for designation. 22 properties have fully undergone the designation process. 17 properties are currently undergoing the designation process and are at various stages of completion. 15 properties have been reviewed and determined that no action should be taken at this time. REPORT: Ontario Regulation 569/22 (Amended from Ontario Regulation 9/06) Among the changes that were implemented through Bill 23, the Ontario Regulation 9/06 — which is a regulation used to determine the cultural heritage value or interest of a property, was amended through Ontario Regulation 569/22 (O. Reg. 569/22). Where the original regulation had three main categories — design/physical, historical/associative and contextual - with three (3) sub -categories for determining cultural heritage value, the amended regulation now lists all nine (9) criteria independently. The new regulation has been amended to the following: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Page 222 of 294 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Also, among the changes brought about by Bill 23 are how properties can now be listed or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They include: • Properties would warrant being listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register if they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). The following 6 properties were reviewed and meet the following criteria: 51 Breithaupt Street The subject property municipally addressed as 51 Breithaupt Street meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Ref. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significance to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Huron Road (Legally Described as LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER) The subject property on Huron Road adjacent to 1738 Trussler Road meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Page 223 of 294 • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 1478 Trussler Road The subject property municipally addressed 1478 Trussler Road meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 1738 Trussler Road The subject property municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 103-109 King Street West The subject property municipally addressed as 107-109 King Street West meets four (4) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Page 224 of 294 • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 709 King Street West The subject property municipally addressed as 709 King Street West meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22): • The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. • The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. • The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. • The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. Heritage Kitchener Committee Options Option 1 — Pursuing Designation for this property Should Heritage Kitchener committee vote to start pursuing designation for these properties, staff will then contact the respective property owners to inform them and to start working with them towards designation. Staff will then bring a Notice of Intention to Designate back to the Committee to initiate the designation process. Should a property owner object to their property being designated, they can submit an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) to rule on the decision. If the OLT determines that the property should not be designated but remain listed, it will be removed from the Municipal Heritage Register on January 1, 2025. Option 2 — Deferring the Designation Process Should Heritage Kitchener vote to defer the designation process for these properties, they will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will have to be removed. The process of designating these properties can be started at any time until January 1, 2025. Option 3 — Not Pursuing Designation for these properties Should Heritage Kitchener vote not to pursue the designation of these properties, they will remain listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register until January 1, 2025, after which it will be removed. Once removed, these properties will not be able to be re -listed for the next five (5) years i.e. — January 1, 2030. Page 225 of 294 It should be noted that, per the endorsed work plan, staff are currently undertaking evaluations for high priority properties that are in located in areas of the City that are experiencing significant redevelopment. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT AND COLLABORATE — The Municipal Heritage Committee (Heritage Kitchener) have been consulted at previous meetings regarding the proposed strategy to review the Municipal Heritage Register of Non -designated Properties and participated in the assessment of the properties subject to this report. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Heritage Kitchener Committee Work Plan 2022-2024 — DSD -2023-053 • Bill 23 — Municipal Heritage Register Review — DSD -2023-225 • Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Review — August Update — DSD -2023-309 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update — DSD -202-022 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — March 2024 Update — DSD -2024-093 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — April 2024 Update — DSD -2024-131 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — May 2024 Update — DSD -2024-194 • Ontario Heritage Act, 2022 REVIEWED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Updated Statement of Significance — 51 Breithaupt Street Attachment B — Updated Statement of Significance - Huron Road (bank barn, drive shed and agricultural fields once associated with the Ontario Gothic Revival farmhouse municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road) Attachment C - Updated Statement of Significance — 1478 Trussler Road Attachment D - Updated Statement of Significance — 1738 Trussler Road Attachment E — Updated Statement of Significance — 103-109 King Street West Attachment F — Updated Statement of Significance — 709 King Street West Page 226 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 51 Breithaupt Street 37 44 ' N i 4549 \ 43 28 �+ 5 67 O 41 36 �E� \taG� �. 59 6 j '\\_`✓\ 41 Y 32 ` 26 n� 22 24 0� 20�:c` 5 OU y 7 �G 25 = C 23 4 A7 V -11 'W HOSPITAL 600 `` Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ® Historical Value ® Contextual Value 35 as MT. HOPE HURON PARK 30 44 20 e� s Municipal Address: 51 Breithaupt Street Legal Description: Plan 376 Lots 205-212 Part Lot 204 STS & LNS Part Lot 33 RP 58R-3538 Part 1 \� A� 763 38 A 64 72 74 46 ' 34 68 62 � 60 O 28 283 ❑Social Value ® Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value Year Built: Original Building — c. 1903 Additions — c. 1907, 1919, 1946, 1955, 1966 and 1972 Architectural Styles: Industrial Vernacular Original Owner: The Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd. Original Use: Industrial Condition: Good 57 53 Page 227 of 294 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 51 Breithaupt Street consists of a series of buildings built between 1903 and 1977. The buildings range in height from one to four storeys. The original building and early additions were built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with later additions being more modern in appearance. The buildings are situated on a 2.18 acre parcel of land located on the north side of King Street West between Victoria Street North and Breithaupt Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park planning community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the original building and early additions. Heritage Value 51 Breithaupt Street is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value 51 Breithaupt Street is recognized for its design, physical, historical and contextual values. The original buildings and early additions are representative of the Industrial Vernacular architectural style. The buildings were likely built in a series of six stages with architectural details that vary with the age of the buildings. The original building is a four -storey yellow brick building in the middle of the current complex of buildings on Breithaupt Street, with additions and renovations being made in 1908, 1909, 1912, 1918, 1929-30, 1953, 1955, 1966, 1969, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Furthermore, there have been numerous internal modifications as well. The additions could be described as buildings with their distinctive architectural style, however they were still built with an industrial function in mind. Certain architectural features of the site include but are not limited to: brick buttresses, stone sills and headers on windows and brick parapet with decorative brick detailing. Historical/Associative Value The site has historical and associative value for its original use and owner of the property — Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd, Jacob Kaufman, and Talmon Henry Reider. This site also has historical and associative value due to its contribution to the economic development of Kitchener (then Berlin) at the start of the 20th century. The property was the site of the Berlin Piano and Organ Co. building that was erected in 1891, which was later taken over by Foster -Armstrong and Co to manufacture Haines Brothers and, Marshall and Wendell pianos. This original three storey building no longer remains as it was demolished in 1955 in order to construct a new modern addition. The oldest building that remains on site was constructed in 1903 and housed the Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd., which was founded by Jacob Kaufman and T.H. Rieder. Jacob Kaufman sold out to T.H. Rieder in 1906 and, along with the Berlin Rubber Co., became part of the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. in 1907. During WWI, the company employed as many as 526 people and produced approximately 15000 shoes a day. In 1926, the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. became the Dominion Rubber Co. Ltd. Until 1969, these companies primarily produced footwear. In 1969, Dominion Rubber Co. Ltd. began to produce automobile parts. Page 228 of 294 This building was constructed at a time when Berlin was experiencing exponential economic growth, and has the potential the yield an understanding of the economic development of Berlin at the turn of the 20th century. Today, this site is used by Google as their main headquarters in the Kitchener -Waterloo Area. As part of this adaptive re -use, certain changes were made to building along with a new building on the neighboring property connecting with the existing buildings at 51 Breithaupt. However, this site still maintains its overall integrity and cultural heritage value. Jacob S. Kaufman Jacob S. Kaufman was born on July 15, 1847 on a farm near New Hamburg, Ontario. He was a prominent and influential businessman in Kitchener (then Berlin) who started his career in the lumber industry in Gadshill. He married Mary Ratz in 1877 and moved to Berlin where the larger community offered more economic opportunity. He built a mill manufacturing doors and window sashes, eventually incorporating his company as Jacob Kaufman Limited. In 1899, he encouraged George Schlee to organize The Berlin Rubber Company and was heavily involved financially. In 1903, Kaufman was also involved in the organization of the Merchants Rubber Company and was assisted in this venture by Talmon Henry Reider. Kaufman died in Kitchener on April 20, 1920. Talmon Henry Reider Talmon Henry Reider was born in New Hamburg, Ontario on August 10, 1878. In 1899, he was the bookkeeper and minor shareholder of the newly formed Berlin Rubber Company, and in 1903, was appointed as the general manager by Jacob Kaufman for the newly formed Merchants Rubber Company. In 1907, these two companies merged with the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, leading to Reider, who was then the vice-president and director, to control five (5) rubber footwear factories. IN 1912-1913, he negotiated the purchase of the property and the building of the Dominion Tire Company (later Uniroyal), and in 1917, he became the president of the largest rubber company in Canada. However, he would only work there for 2 years, resigning in 1919 and accepting the position of president for Ames -Holden -McCready Ltd. Reider died on April 15, 1922. Contextual Value 51 Breithaupt Street has contextual value because it is important in maintaining and supporting the character of the area. The site is located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape, and near other industrial buildings that were built parallel to the Canadian National Railways tracks. The buildings remain in their original locations, along with many of the original industrial sites nearby. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 51 Breithaupt Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the construction and Industrial Vernacular architectural style, including: o Location, massing and orientation of the existing buildings; o Yellow brick construction, including brick pilasters and decorative brick details; o Window openings, stone headers and stone sills; o Doors and door openings; o Brick parapet with decorative brick detailing; and o Roof and rooflines. ■ All elements related to the contextual value of the buildings, including: Page 229 of 294 o Original location on Breithaupt Street and its contribution to the landscape of Breithaupt Street. Page 230 of 294 Photos 1 151 Breithaupt Street — front and side elevation Page 231 of 294 �o- �tl9F PRO .Ili �o- �tl9F \ \ / t- �. ~ Akio, �- � � ©- /� -: l«.w,,..:w�®«w « z . - :�� »� . \. . .,.a .. ..,. ., . - <� s I ,r- CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 51 Breithaupt Street Address: Office Use Description: Photographs Attached: OFront Facade Deeksha Choudhry Recorder: May 15, 2024 — Date: ❑ Left Fagade 0 Right Fagade 0 Rear Facade 0 Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material Page 235 of 294 Page 236 of 294 combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes 0 because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value Page 236 of 294 because it is N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ important in defining, Yes ❑ Yes 0 maintaining or Yes ❑ noteworthy? supporting the structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 character of an area. outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes 0 physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ craftsmanship and/or detail Yes ❑ Yes ❑ noteworthy? Completeness: Does this structure have other original N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 outbuildings, notable Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landscaping or external Page 237 of 294 features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ site? Yes ❑ Yes 0 * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this building retain most of its original N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ materials and design features? Yes ❑ Yes 0 Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 features that should be added Yes ❑ Yes ❑ to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in good condition? N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes 0 *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re -use if possible and contribute towards equity -building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could this site be of importance to N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous heritage and es ❑ 0 Additional Research Required history? ❑ Additional Research Required *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous history associated 0 Additional Research Required with the property? N/A 0 Unknown ❑ No ❑ Y * Additional archival work may be es ❑ required. ❑ Additional Research Required Page 238 of 294 Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Com function of the subject Commercial ❑ mercial ❑ property? Office ❑ Other ❑ Church Office 0 Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ the subject property es ❑ contribute to the cultural ❑ Additional Research ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of Required people? Does the subject property N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ have intangible value to a N/A ❑ Unknown 0 No ❑ Y specific community of people? es ❑ ❑Additional Research Required * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim ❑ Additional Research Society of Waterloo & Wellington Required Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: Page 239 of 294 General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 240 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER 1738 Trussler Road, GCT Pt Lt 149 RP 58R8498 Part 1 ❑ LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: No Municipal Address Legal Description: LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER Page 241 of 294 Year Built: c. 1879 Architectural Style: Original Owner: John Chapman Jr. Original Use: Farm Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource The subject property is legally described as LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER (referred to as "the subject property"). The subject property contains a bank barn, drive shed, and agricultural fields once associated with the Ontario Gothic Revival farmhouse municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road. The subject property is situated on a 62.36 -acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Trussler Road and Huron Road while the farmhouse is situated on a 0.92 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Trussler Road between Huron Road and Plains Road. Both properties are in the South Plains Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principle resources that contribute to the heritage value of the subject property are the bank barn, drive shed, and agricultural fields as well as the adjacent farmhouse municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road. Heritage Value The subject property is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The subject property demonstrates design/physical value as a representative example of a late -19th century bank barn and drive shed. The buildings have many intact heritage attributes in good condition. The bank barn features: L -shape plan; gable rooflines; tin roof; three cupolas; vertical board siding; 6/6 hung window and window opening; man door and door opening; sliding doors and door openings; hardware; silo; and, field stone foundation. The drive shed features: gable roofline; tin roof; vertical board siding; sliding doors and door openings; and, field stone foundation. Other Buildings The original farmhouse is located north of the bank barn and drive shed on a separate parcel of land (1738 Trussler Road). Historical/Associative Value The subject property has historical/associative value due to its history and association with early settlement, Daniel and Jacob Erb, Joseph Bamburger, John Chapman, Reuben Eby, Simon Hallman, Ida Hallman, and the Trussler family. Daniel and Jacob Erb sold the land to Joseph Bamburger in 1805 who then sold to John Chapman in 1848. John Chapman Sr., born in 1811, came to Canada from England in the mid -1840's with his wife Lydia and his two children. A third child, John Jr., was born in Upper Canada in 1846. The 1851 Page 242 of 294 manuscript census indicates that the Chapman family resided in a one -storey log structure. It is assumed that the brick structure either replaced or covered the log structure. John Chapman sold the land to Reuben Eby in 1907 who then sold the land to Simon Hallman (b. August 28, 1886, d. May 21, 1976) in 1930. Simon married his wife, Ida Hallman (b. October 24, 1902, d. May 25, 1991), on December 18, 1923. The lands passed to Ida in 1955 and were sold to Trussler Farms in 1977. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to how the property helps to maintain and support the rural character of the area. The lands continue to be cultivated. Other heritage attributes that contribute to the contextual value are: the cluster of built features, including the farmhouse (1738 Trussler Road), the bank barn and the drive shed (c. 1879); the windbreak adjacent to the property municipally addressed as 2006 Huron Road; the cultivated fields and their topography; the mature woodlot; and, the spatial organization and visual/historic relationship between buildings and landscape elements. Specifically, the bank barn and drive shed are visually and historically linked to their surroundings, especially the farmhouse (1738 Trussler Road). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of the subject property resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the design/physical value of the bank barn, including: o L -shape plan; o gable rooflines; o tin roof; o lightning rod balls; o three cupolas; o vertical board siding; 0 6/6 hung window and window opening; o man door and door opening; o sliding doors and door openings; o door and window hardware; o silo; and, o field stone foundation. • All elements related to the design/physical value of the drive shed, including: o gable roofline; o tin roof; o lightning rod balls; o vertical board siding; o sliding doors and door openings; and, o field stone foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value of the subject property, including: o the cluster of built features, including the farmhouse (1738 Trussler Road), the bank barn and the drive shed (c. 1879); o the windbreak adjacent to the property municipally addressed as 2006 Huron Road; o the cultivated fields and their topography; o the mature woodlot; and, Page 243 of 294 o the spatial organization and visual/historic relationship between buildings and landscape elements. Specifically, the bank barn and drive shed are visually and historically linked to their surroundings, especially the farmhouse (1738 Trussler Road). References Burmaster, G. (2008). Municipal Heritage Register— Written Response Form. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Google Earth (10.49.0.0 Multi -threaded) (2024). 1738 Trussler Road. [online]. Available from: https://earth.google.com/web/search/1738+Trussler+Road,+Kitchener,+ON/(a)43.37547624,- 80.51422149, 338.67885546x, 51.50655924d , 35y, - 86.22925247h,52.68870417t,360r/data=CowBGm ISXAolMHg4ODJiMGEOMiRiMm UzYWM5OiB4Zm MwMzQ5ZWZmMGI0MiU2YxnpMYCmFLBFQCFfoFoz6CBUwCohMTczOCBUcnVzc2xlciBSb2FkLC BLaXRiaGVuZXIsIE9OGAIgASImCiQJzSfvEzgxRUAR1ArBVcuwRUAZxz6yPdEgVMAh4TOPa3AhVM A [Accessed 2024, April 5). Hallman, J. (1991). Hallman Family History in Canada. Mrs. Joan Hallman: Kitchener, ON. Shantz, C. (1980). 1738 Trussler Road. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Simpson, S. (1981). 1738 Trussler Road. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Photographs Front Elevation (West Fagade faces Trussler Road) V Front and Side Elevation (West and South Fagade) Page 244 of 294 7 -X6 View on Trussler Road Looking Northeast Over the Agricultural Fields with the Drive Shed and Barn in the Background Barn View on Huron Road Looking Southwest Over the Agricultural Fields with the Barn in the Background HEDGEROW AGRICULTURAL FIELDS E 3LER ROAD) BARN AND SILO SHED MY1118111011 Aerial View Showing Property Boundaries (Green) and Locations of Barn, Silo, Driveshed, Woodlot, Hedgerow and Agricultural Fields Page 245 of 294 1 KrT HENv R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM Huron Road (Barn & driveshed adjacent to 1738 Trussler Road) Address: Gothic Revival, rural small house Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Michelle Drake Recorder: — Date: April 5, 2024 El Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details ❑ Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 246 of 294 1 KrT HEr ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or Page 247 of 294 1 KrT HES ER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes M. Drake: see "Address: 1738 Trussler Road" written by Cameron Shantz in July 1980; see "Ward 6, 1738 Trussler Road*" written by Shirley Simpson in 1981; see "Architectural Analysis -1738 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 75, 1991 Page 248 of 294 1 KrTMh,!R Additional Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Criteria Interior: Is the interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ arrangement, Yes ❑ finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure have Yes ❑ other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure Yes ❑ occupy its original site? * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X building retain Yes ❑ most of its original materials and design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Page 249 of 294 1 KrT HEN�R Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ additional Yes ❑ elements or features that should be added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X good Yes ❑ condition? *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re- use if possible and contribute towards equity - building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ this site be of ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Page 250 of 294 1 KrTCHEN�R topographical ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: Unknown ❑ Residential X Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other X Agricultural present Office ❑ Other ❑ - function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Inclusion: ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required Does the subject property contribute to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? Page 11 of 13 Page 251 of 294 1 KrTcHEN�R Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined M. Drake: see "Address: 1738 Trussler Road" written by Cameron Shantz in July 1980; see "Ward 6, 1738 Trussler Road*" written by Shirley Simpson in 1981; see "Architectural Analysis -1738 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 75, 1991 Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Page 12 of 13 Page 252 of 294 1 KrT HENER Other: General / Additional Notes M. Drake: see "Address: 1738 Trussler Road" written by Cameron Shantz in July 1980; see "Ward 6, 1738 Trussler Road*" written by Shirley Simpson in 1981; see "Architectural Analysis -1738 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 75, 1991 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 13 of 13 Page 253 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 1478 Trussler Road � r Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Municipal Address: 1478 Trussler Road Legal Description: GCT Part Lot 145 Year Built: c. 1861 Architectural Style: Georgian Original Owner: Thomas Trussler Original Use: Farm Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value „t1 WE in The property municipally addressed as 1478 Trussler Road is a mid -19th century log house originally built in the Georgian architectural style with later additions featuring minor influences from the Gothic Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 87.59 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Trussler Road between Bleams Road and Huron Road in the Rosenberg planning community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value are the log house, the smoke house, the laneway and surrounding agricultural fields. Page 254 of 294 Heritage Value 1478 Trussler Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The property demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and early example of a mid -19t" century log house built in the Georgian architectural style with later additions featuring minor influences from the Gothic Revival architectural style. These values were described in a document entitled "Cultural Heritage Background Study. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study' written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 and based on this research are further described below. The exterior appearance of the house has undergone many changes since the 1880. It was probably in the late nineteenth century that a front gable with a lancet window was added. In 1949 the verandah was removed, the present sun porch added, and the entire house covered with insulbrick. The house has since been covered with grey aluminum siding and the lancet window in the gable replaced by a rectangular sash window. At some point, an additional room was built south of the back kitchen, and a back extension was built to the north. A garage and sitting room were built onto the east side of the house. The property also demonstrates design/physical value as a rare and well conserved example of a smoke house. The smoke house features: brick construction; front gable roof; and, interior slats of ceiling and attached hooks. Further, the design/physical values were originally described in a document entitled "Architectural Analysis — 1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991, and based on this research are further described below. The house has a new roof with grey asphalt shingles. The Front (South) Facade features the central gable dormer influenced by the Gothic Revival architectural style. The windows are new, but the window openings retain the symmetry of the original windows. The Rear (North) Fagade features two kitchen annexes: one built shortly after the log house, and the other about 1900. The Side (East) Fagade features a contemporary front porch and deck that wraps around the east elevation, and a garage and sitting room have also been built off the east elevation. Don Ryan (1991) goes on to describe changes to the log house. In 1949 the original roofed verandah, which spanned the front elevation, was removed and the present asymmetric porch was built. The return eaves and the pointed Gothic window were lost when the roof was rebuilt in 1938. All the windows and exterior doors are new. Two chimneys have been removed. The garage and sitting room were built in 1988. Interior Value These values were described in a document entitled "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study' written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 and based on this research are further described below. Inside, however, the house retains almost all of its original features and much of its original character. The fireplace wall of the old kitchen is largely intact, with its original mantelpiece, bake oven, warming oven with cabinet above the warming oven. The house retains its simple, single board door and window surrounds, its chair and picture rails, the wainscot in the present dining room, its wide floorboards, and Page 255 of 294 its original doors (some of which are panelled and some of which, in less public areas, are formed of vertical planks). Further, these design/physical values were originally described in a document entitled "Architectural Analysis — 1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991, and based on this research are further described below. Inside one finds the original panelled doors, door hardware, and wainscotting. Upstairs, one room remains in its original condition with exposed plaster walls and ceiling. The enclosed staircase rises from the rear through the centre of the house. There are presently ten rooms inside. In the first (northeast) kitchen stands a large brick fireplace where maple syrup was once boiled. This room retains much of its original character. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 1478 Trussler Road has historical/associative value due to its history and association with early settlement, and the Trussler family. Thomas George Trussler was born on December 10, 1831 in Fernhurst, Sussex, England (Waterloo Region Generations, 2001-2024). His obituary from the Waterloo Chronicle dated February 18, 1897 reads "Mr. Thomas Trussler, a highly esteemed citizen of our town, died at his home on Scott Street on Friday last after a prolonged illness, at the age of 66 years, 2 months and 2 days. Mr. Trussler emigrated with his parents to Canada in 1833, where they took up residence on the town line between Wilmot and Waterloo. In 1860 he was married to Miss Hannah Townsend. They then lived on a farm adjoining his father's until about 6 years ago when they moved to Berlin. His widow and five children, one son and four daughters, remain to mourn his death." (Waterloo Region Generations, 2001-2024). These values were described in a document entitled "Cultural Heritage Background Study. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study' written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 and based on this research are further described below. Thomas Trussler, a son of George Trussler and a brother of George Gilbert, purchased Lot 145 of the German Company Tract from his father in 1861 and replaced the small log house where he had lived at the corner of Huron and Trussler Roads (later moved and inhabited by George G.) with a larger log building on his new property. A family photograph shows that by circa 1880 the house had been covered with wood or brick siding (characteristically stuccoed under the front verandah, behind the house one can just glimpse a back kitchen wing. Thomas's daughter, Alicia bought the farm from her father in 1891, and she and her sister Minnie lived there and managed the farm until 1899, racking up a toll of notorious rumours in the process: racing a sulky up and down the lane, holding dances in the implement shed, and smacking the lazy hired man while he was still in bed. Alicia sold the farm in 1899, for the next couple of decades it was tenanted or owned by a number of different persons. In 1917, Oscar Trussler bought the farm, and in 1934, Oscar's son Robert and his wife moved into his great-uncle's house. It stayed in the Trussler family until recently sold to the Karen and Gordon Doehn. An indenture (an agreement of purchase and sale) dated March 9, 1841 confirms that George Trussler purchased Lot 145 in 1841 and an indenture dated February 15, 1861 confirms that George Trussler sold some of his lands to his sons. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to physical, functional, visual and historic links between the log house, the smoke house and surrounding farmland. Although the barn and most outbuildings connected with the Page 256 of 294 farming operations are gone, the log house is still situated in its original location. The log house faces south and is setback from Trussler Road on a slight incline. The surrounding lands were traditionally used for mixed farmland and two apple orchards. The original smoke house is located adjacent to the east fagade of the house and was once used to smoke ham and sausages. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1478 Trussler Road resides in the following heritage attributes: • All elements related to the design/physical value of the log house built in the Georgian architectural style with later additions featuring minor influences from the Gothic Revival architectural style, including: o One -and -one-half storey height; o Irregular plan due to the presence of additions; o The original side gable roofline with Gothic dormer; o Log construction; o Door and window openings; and, o The two kitchen annexes. • All elements related to the design/physical value of the smoke house, including: o brick construction; o front gable roof; and, o interior slats of ceiling and attached hooks. • All elements related to the design/physical value of the interior of the log house, including: o The enclosed staircase that rises from the rear through the centre of the house; o The fireplace wall of the old kitchen with its original mantelpiece, bake oven, and warming oven with cabinet above; o Single board door and window surrounds; o Chair and picture rails; o Wainscotting in the present dining room; o Wide floorboards; and, o Original doors (some of which are panelled and some of which, in less public areas, are formed of vertical planks), and door hardware. • All elements related to the contextual value of the property, including: o Original location of the log house; o Orientation of the log house with the front elevation facing south; o Setback of the log house from Trussler Road on a slight incline; o Location of the smoke house; and, o Surrounding farmlands. RPfPrPnr_Pc Google Earth (10.49.0.0 Multi -threaded) (2024). 1478 Trussler Road. [online]. Available from: https://earth.google.com/web/search/1478+Trussler+Road,+Kitchener,+ON/(a)43.3827299,- 80.5175805,368.49006258x,594.1928504d,34.99999875y,Oh,Ot,Or/data=CowBGm ISXAolM Hg4ODJi Page 257 of 294 MGE2YihhOTQVOTJkOOB4NTRmMigOMThINDMwY2Q1ZhnG2RIL bBFQCEHI YJICFUwCohMTQ3 OCBUcnVzc2xlciBSb2FkLCBLaXRiaGVuZXIsIE9OGAIgASImCiQJcmH7DdHcRUARNTEhsAyrRUAZ YaXekYz7U8AhY4o f31 DVMA [Accessed 2024, April 5). Ryan, D. (1991). "Architectural Analysis — 1478 Trussler Road." City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Tausky, N.Z. (2010). "Cultural Heritage Background Study. Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study." City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Waterloo Region Generations (2001-2024). Thomas George Trussler. [online]. Available from: https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=1146455&tree=qenerations (Accessed 2024, April 8). Photographs FM oil oil �Al Historic Front Elevation (South Fagade): The house at 1478 Trussler Road c. 1880, viewed from the southwest. On the porch are Hannah and Thomas Trussler and their daughters Lizzie and Emmeline. (Source: Tausky, 2010) Page 258 of 294 i ' � t 4N_ N ■ _I An Front Elevation (South Fagade) — 1478 Trussler Road j' i rr View Looking South East Over the Farm Fields to the Farmhouse — 1478 Trussler Road Page 259 of 294 , 71 M Y �s/rf Interior (Mantle and ovens) — 1478 Trussler Interior (Door, door casing, and wainscot in the Road dining room) — 1478 Trussler Road , 71 M Y �s/rf • . a --. .. Smoke house — 1478 Trussler Road Interior view of smoke house — 1478 Trussler Road Page 260 of 294 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 1478 Trussler Road Address: Gothic Revival, rural small house Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Jean Haalboom Recorder: — Date: March 21, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details X Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 261 of 294 1 KrT HEr ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or Page 262 of 294 1 KrT HES ER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes J. Haalboom: main house, blue siding, windows modern, landscape, trees M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 Page 263 of 294 1 KrTMh,!R Additional Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Criteria Interior: Is the interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X arrangement, Yes ❑ finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure have Yes ❑ other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure Yes ❑X occupy its original site? * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X building retain Yes ❑X most of its original materials and design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Page 11 of 15 Page 264 of 294 1 KrT HEN�R Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ additional Yes ❑ elements or features that should be added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X good Yes ❑X condition? *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re- use if possible and contribute towards equity - building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ this site be of ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Page 12 of 15 Page 265 of 294 1 KrTCHEN�R topographical ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: Unknown ❑ Residential X Unknown ❑ Residential X Commercial X What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other X Farm present Office ❑ Other ❑ - function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑X Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Inclusion: ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required Does the subject property contribute to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? Page 13 of 15 Page 266 of 294 1 KrTcHEN�R Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined J. Haalboom: too far off road to assess, can't see smoke house, in good condition based on what can be seen from the road M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010, log house is covered by sidding Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register Page 14 of 15 Page 267 of 294 1 KrT HENER ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes J. Haalboom: age and material and family (Trussler) should qualify for designation, requires reassessment — arrange with owner/resident for the visit M. Drake: assessments provided in 1991 and 2010, see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 15 of 15 Page 268 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 1738 Trussler Road }{k ❑ 1738 Trussler Road, GCT Pt Lt 149 RP 58R8498 Part 1 rj Huron Road, Plan 585 Lots 18, 19, and 20 Part Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 21 SS Huron Road German Company Tract Part Lot 149 Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value ®Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address -1738 Trussler Road (Red) Legal Description: GCT Pt Lt 149 RP 58R8498 Part 1 Year Built: 1879 Architectural Style: Ontario Gothic Revival Original Owner: John Chapman Jr. Original Use: Farm Condition: Good Page 269 of 294 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource The property municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road is a one -and -one-half storey late 19th century brick farmhouse built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The property on Huron Road is a late 19th century farm with outbuildings. The farmhouse is situated on a 0.92 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Trussler Road between Huron Road and Plains Road while the outbuildings are situated on a 62.39 acre parcel of land located at the south east corner of Trussler Road and Huron Road in the South Plains Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the farmhouse, and adjacent outbuildings, specifically the barn, located on Huron Road, and legally described as LT 17 S/S HURON RD, 18 S/S HURON RD, 19 S/S HURON RD, 20 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 3 S/S HURON RD, 4 S/S HURON RD, 5 S/S HURON RD, 6 S/S HURON RD, 7 S/S HURON RD, 8 S/S HURON RD, 15 S/S HURON RD, 16 S/S HURON RD, 21 S/S HURON RD PL 585 TWP OF WATERLOO; PT LT 149 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT KITCHENER AS IN 1200696 & 1200697, SAVE & EXCEPT PT 12 ON 58R-16920; KITCHENER. Heritage Value 1738 Trussler Road is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road demonstrates design/physical value as a representative example of a late -19th century brick farmhouse built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style. The 1851 Manuscript Census suggests that a one -storey log structure was covered or replaced by the existing building. The building has many intact heritage attributes in good condition. Front (West) Facade The front fagade faces Trussler Road and contains three bays. The building features: side -gable roof with a central Gothic dormer; buff (yellow) brick laid in the stretcher bond style; second floor pointed arch (lancet) door and door opening with brick hoodmould with corbel stops; central verandah on the first and second floor; second floor verandah features square newel posts with ball caps, and simple top and bottom rails with square balusters; first floor verandah features highly decorative posts and pilasters with scroll brackets and moulded frieze; front door with segmentally arched transom; two segmentally arched windows, window openings and storm windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; and, fieldstone foundation. Side (South) Facade The side fagade faces south and contains two bays plus a kitchen annex, which may have been original to the house. The first two bays feature: side -gable roof divided by a concrete block chimney; buff (yellow) brick construction; two 1/1 double hung flat head windows with segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on the second storey; two 2/2 double hung segmentally arched windows, window openings and storm windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; and, a stone foundation. The kitchen annex features: cross -gable roof with a central Gothic dormer; buff (yellow) brick laid in the stretcher bond style; second floor pointed arch (lancet) window and window opening; first storey verandah with a hip roof and highly decorative posts pilasters with scroll brackets and moulded frieze; segmentally arched door and door opening with brick voussoirs; one 2/2 double hung segmentally arched window, window opening and storm window with brick voussoirs and wood sills; and, stone foundation. Another addition is in the rear but has limited visibility from the public realm. Page 270 of 294 Side (North) Fagade The side fagade faces north and features: side -gable roof; two 1/1 double hung flat head windows with segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on the second storey; two 2/2 double hung segmentally arched windows, window openings and storm windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; and, a stone foundation. The kitchen annex to the rear has limited visibility from the public realm. Interior Value The interior design/physical values were originally described in a document entitled "Architectural Analysis — 1738 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 7, 1991, and based on this research are further described below. An unusual total of seven doors and one dog leg staircase in the kitchen may indicate that this section was an original dwelling. There is original wainscotting and panelled doors with original knobs and latches inside. The rooms remain divided as originally laid out. There is an enclosed, plain staircase directly before the front entrance. Original plaster clads the walls, and the door and baseboards mouldings remain intact. There is an interesting original moulded arch between the kitchen and the main house. Other Buildings The original barn with gable roof, vertical board siding, original hardware and stone foundation is located south of the house on a separate parcel of land. A new garage was constructed in 1999 that does not detract from the character of the farmhouse, barn or immediate surroundings. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 1738 Trussler Road has historical/associative value due to its history and association with early settlement, Daniel and Jacob Erb, Joseph Bamburger, John Chapman, Reuben Eby, Simon Hallman, Ida Hallman, and the Trussler family. Daniel and Jacob Erb sold the land to Joseph Bamburger in 1805 who then sold to John Chapman in 1848. John Chapman Sr., born in 1811, came to Canada from England in the mid -1840's with his wife Lydia and his two children. A third child, John Jr., was born in Upper Canada in 1846. The 1851 manuscript census indicates that the Chapman family resided in a one -storey log structure. It is assumed that the brick structure either replaced or covered the log structure. John Chapman sold the land to Reuben Eby in 1907 who then sold the land to Simon Hallman (b. August 28, 1886, d. May 21, 1976) in 1930. Simon married his wife, Ida Hallman (b. October 24, 1902, d. May 25, 1991), on December 18, 1923. The lands passed to Ida in 1955 and were sold to Trussler Farms in 1977. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to how the property helps to maintain and support the rural character of the area. The farmhouse remains on its original location. A board and batten front gable garage contributes to the character of the property along with the cedar hedges delineating three sides of the property. The farmhouse is visually and historically linked to its surroundings, especially the rural farm property on the corner of Huron Road and Trussler Road where the original barn and driveshed still stand. This property is addressed off Huron Road (outlined in green on page 1) and legally described as Plan 585 Lots 18, 19, and 20 Part Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 21 SS Huron Road German Company Tract Part Lot 149. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 1738 Trussler Road resides in the following heritage attributes: Page 271 of 294 • All elements related to the design/physical value of the brick house built in the Ontario Gothic Revival architectural style, including: 0 one -and -one-half storey height; o rectangular plan with rear kitchen annex; o front fagade with three bays; o side fagade with two bays and rear kitchen annex; o side -gable roof and kitchen annex both with a central Gothic dormer; o buff (yellow) brick laid in the stretcher bond style; o half storey pointed arch (lancet) door and door opening with brick hoodmould with corbel stops; o half story pointed arch (lancet) window and window opening with hoodmould with corbel stops; o central verandah on the first and half storey; o half storey verandah features square newel posts with ball caps, and simple top and bottom rails with square balusters; o first storey verandah features highly decorative posts and pilasters with scroll brackets and moulded frieze; o first storey verandah on the kitchen annex with a hip roof and highly decorative posts pilasters with scroll brackets and moulded frieze; o front door with segmentally arched transom; 0 2/2 double hung segmentally arched windows, window openings and storm windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; 0 1/1 double hung flat head windows, window openings and storm windows with brick voussoirs and wood sills; and, o fieldstone foundation. • All elements related to the design/physical value of interior of the farmhouse, including: o dog leg staircase; 0 original wainscotting; 0 original panelled doors with original knobs and latches 0 original layout of rooms; o enclosed, plain staircase directly before the front entrance; 0 original plaster; o door and baseboards mouldings; and, o an interesting original moulded arch between the kitchen annex and the main farmhouse. References Burmaster, G. (2008). Municipal Heritage Register— Written Response Form. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Google Earth (10.49.0.0 Multi -threaded) (2024). 1738 Trussler Road. [online]. Available from httas://earth.aooale.com/web/search/1738+Trussler+Road.+Kitchener.+ON/(a-)43.37547624.- 80.51422149, 338.67885546x, 51.50655924d , 35y, - 86.22925247h,52.68870417t,360r/data=CowBGm ISXAolMHg4ODJiMGEOMiRiMm UzYWM5OiB4Zm MwMzQ5ZWZmMGI0MiU2YxnpMYCmFLBFQCFfoFoz6CBUwCohMTczOCBUcnVzc2xlciBSb2FkLC Page 272 of 294 BLaXRiaGVuZXlslE9OGAlgASImCiQJzSfvEzgxRUAR1ArBVcuwRUAZxz6yPdEgVMAh4TOPa3AhVM A [Accessed 2024, April 5). Hallman, J. (1991). Hallman Family History in Canada. Mrs. Joan Hallman: Kitchener, ON. Shantz, C. (1980). 1738 Trussler Road. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Simpson, S. (1981). 1738 Trussler Road. City of Kitchener: Kitchener, ON. Photoaraohs Front and Side Elevation (West and North Fagade) — 1738 Trussler Road Front and Side Elevation (West and South Fagade) — 1738 Trussler Road Page 273 of 294 Front Elevation (West Fagade) of New Board and Batten Garage — 1738 Trussler Road View of Farmhouse (1738 Trussler Road) & Barn and Driveshed (Huron Road) Page 274 of 294 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 1478 Trussler Road Address: Gothic Revival, rural small house Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Jean Haalboom Recorder: — Date: March 21, 2023 ❑X Front Facade X Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade ❑ Rear Facade ❑ Details X Setting Designation Criteria Recorder —Heritage Kitchener Heritage Planning Staff Committee 1. This property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ physical value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 275 of 294 1 KrT HEr ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g -A commercial building may provide an understanding of how the economic development of the City occured. Additional archival work may be required. 6. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or Page 276 of 294 1 KrT HES ER reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑X important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. * E.g. - It helps to define an entrance point to a neighbourhood or helps establish the (historic) rural character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is Yes ❑X Yes ❑X physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. *Additional archival work may be required. 9. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. Notes J. Haalboom: main house, blue siding, windows modern, landscape, trees M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 Page 277 of 294 1 KrTMh,!R Additional Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Criteria Interior: Is the interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X arrangement, Yes ❑ finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure have Yes ❑ other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Site Integrity: Does the N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X structure Yes ❑X occupy its original site? * If relocated, is it relocated on its original site, moved from another site, etc. Alterations: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X building retain Yes ❑X most of its original materials and design features? Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Page 278 of 294 1 KrT HEN�R Statement of Significance and indicate which elements are still existing and which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ additional Yes ❑ elements or features that should be added to the heritage attribute list? Condition: Is the building in N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X good Yes ❑X condition? *E.g. - Could be a good candidate for adaptive re- use if possible and contribute towards equity - building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ this site be of ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required importance to Indigenous heritage and history? *E.g. - Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Page 11 of 14 Page 279 of 294 1 KrTCHEN�R topographical ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with the property? * Additional archival work may be required. Function: Unknown ❑ Residential X Unknown ❑ Residential X Commercial X What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other X Farm present Office ❑ Other ❑ - function of the subject property? * Other may include vacant, social, institutional, etc. and important for the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑X Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Inclusion: ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required Does the subject property contribute to N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ the cultural ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required heritage of a community of people? Page 12 of 14 Page 280 of 294 1 KrTcHEN�R Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined J. Haalboom: too far off road to assess, can't see smoke house, in good condition based on what can be seen from the road M. Drake: see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010, log house is covered by sidding Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register Page 13 of 14 Page 281 of 294 1 KrT HENER ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes J. Haalboom: age and material and family (Trussler) should qualify for designation, requires reassessment — arrange with owner/resident for the visit M. Drake: assessments provided in 1991 and 2010, see "Architectural Analysis -1478 Trussler Road" written by Don Ryan on June 5, 1991; see "Cultural Heritage Background Study: Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes: Southwest Kitchener Urban Area Study" written by Nancy Z. Tausky in August 2010 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 14 of 14 Page 282 of 294 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 103-109 KING STREET WEST 175173 Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ®Contextual Value Murahitc-dlec�tive2 30 ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 103-109 King Street West Legal Description: Plan 380 Pt Lot 9 Year Built: c. 1908 Architectural Style: Classic Revival Original Owner: Christian Huehn Original Use: Commercial Condition: Good Page 283 of 294 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 103-109 King Street West is a three storey early 20th century brick building built in the Classic Revival architectural style. The building is situated on a 0.19 acre parcel of land located on the south side of King Street West between Gaukel Street and Ontario Street South in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the commercial building. Heritage Value 103-109 King Street West is recognized for its design, physical, historic and contextual values. Design / Physical Value The building is a representative example of the Classic Revival architectural style. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The building features brick construction of a colour unique to the area, a brick parapet wall with intricate brick details, brick pilasters, continuous stone lintels and sills, and original window openings. Front Fagade 103-109 King Street West fronts onto King Street West. It's facade is divided vertically into two sections by three piers, three storeys in height which create two bays. The first floor of the building contains storefronts and its appearance has been modernized. The second storey contains a row of six windows, three in each bay. The windows do not appear to be original and the window openings on the eastern -most bay have been reduced in size. Below the windows are stone sills, and above and dividing the second storey from the third is a continuous stone lintel. The third storey contains a row of eight windows, four in each bay and all of a size. The windows do not appear to be original. These windows are also framed by stone lintels and sills. The roofline possesses a brick parapet with decorative brickwork. Historical / Associative Value The building was built c. 1908 as part of the Huehn Block built by Christian Huehn, an accountant for the Breithaupt Leather Company. He was also the founder of the Fischman Spring Company and he presented Kitchener with the site for St. Mary's General Hospital. The building is also associated with the Freemasons community presence in the City of Kitchener. The Freemasons are the oldest and largest fraternal organization in the world, with bodies present in numerous countries. Within Ontario alone there are over 550 lodges, with 103-109 King Street West being the former home to Grand River Lodge 151. The first Masonic lodge within what was then the County of Waterloo was established in June 1861 and was instituted as Alma Lodge No. 72 in the Town of Galt. Grand River Lodge 151 was formed just one month later in July 1861. W. D. Perine was the first Master of the lodge and a known industrialist in the area. He and his brothers M.B Perine and J.S. Perine established the Doon Twine and Cordage Company in 1853, and the mill was the first of its kind in Canada to produce twine, rope, and curtain cordage. A number of other prominent male citizens have been members of the Freemasons, including but not limited to Alexander Millar (Berlin Business Lawyer), William Hendry (Manager of Ontario Mutual Life Assurance Company, now part of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada), Joseph E. Seagram (founder of Seagram Distillery), David Forsyth (leading educationist), and more. Page 284 of 294 The construction of the Huehn Block, including 107 King Street West, provided an opportunity for the Grand River Masonic Lodge to acquire a space more suitable for their organization. The upper floors of the building were designed to include a lodge room, a dinner room, and other rooms. The building served as the centre for Masonic activity for 47 years (c. 1908 — c.1956). Contextual Value The contextual value of 103-109 King Street West relates to its contribution in maintaining the commercial character of the surrounding area, as well as its physical, visual, and historical link to its surroundings. The subject property is located within the Downtown Cultural Heritage Landscape, which is within the City Centre District and is an area that has historically been recognized as the heart of the downtown and a focal point of the Region for development. The area is occupied by a mix of uses, with hotels, banks, and other commercial enterprises being the original anchors of the commercial core. Several of these historical anchors are still present and have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, including the commercial building 115-117 King Street West directly adjacent to 103-109 King Street West to the west and 1-11 King Street West/18-20 Queen Street North (the Walper Hotel), 37 King Street West, and 41-45 King Street West in proximity to the east. Many other late -19th century and early -20th century commercial structures also remain and contribute further to the character of the streetscape and surrounding area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 103-109 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Classic Revival architectural style of the building, including: o Brick parapet wall; o Brick construction, including brick colour; o Brick pilasters; o Continuous stone lintels and sills; and, o Window openings. Photographs Page 285 of 294 j WA 7Z iAiN f SECOND LOOK BOOKS & MORE jai —=_ V.1Z� - -- Igor - v,71 " ��iry-r f:r4 ��'�� �.i`J7�7 E�../ Kr pi4t'�w� E'V'E t����,��,,'' �yr�rYT'��iu'!`°x S• ,�s +" . - _� � .. �" Fay . , _ e • - �� � ,. .. . &L, VN-,� ''W 41 l `l1 if . rn SECOND LOOK _ t - H. S & MORE kms` y t STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 709 KING STREET WEST B�,mo' e�amimvrn�q � ceane o= ,04 41 R \,` Servl� Ortario 96 1. 70 45 I � `RFS ®�k�•. '� 9 PlIking Op tions `� /Flat#cM1mie Muraf �� / ` Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ❑Contextual Value V/" ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 709 King Street West Legal Description: Plan 377 Lot 39 & 40, Lot 82-85, Part Lot 86 Year Built: c. 1887 (addition 1921 and 1962/63) Architectural Style: Neo Classical Original Owner: NA Original Use: Institutional Condition: Good Descriotion of Cultural Heritaae Resource 709 King Street West is a two storey early 20th century brick school building built in the Neo Classical architectural style. The school building is situated on a 1.81 acre parcel of land located on the block bounded by King Street West, Agnes Street and Walter Street in the City Commercial Core Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school building. Page 288 of 294 Heritage Value 709 King Street West is recognized for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The building is located on a corner bounded by King Street West, Agnes Street and Walter Street. The existing portion of the school which fronts onto King Street West is a good example of the Neo Classical architectural style. The building is in good condition with many intact original elements. The original school build c. 1887 fronted onto Agnes Street and was later modified by the Neo -Classical frontage in 1921, changing the orientation towards King Street West. The 1921 fagade is constructed of red brick with white mortar and features: Front (King Street West) Elevation.- The levation: The front fagade can be visually divided into three sections, with projecting end bays and a tiered central massing. The end bays have 2/5 casement windows with a 4 -pane transom, flanked with flat pilasters with an upper section of vertical grooves to represent capitals and topped with a triangular pediment; the existing casement windows replaced 18/18 single -hung windows c. 2018. Each end bay also has a venetian window with 6/6 section flanked by 3 -paned sidelights on the top floor and 6/6 windows to the basement level. The central section of the school contains the primary entrance, which is comprised of 12 -paned doors surrounded by an architrave, and topped by a projecting cornice visually supported by a bracket at each end. There are two 8/8 windows flanked by 2/5 sidelights on either side of the door. Above are a row of 2/5 casement windows topped with a two -pane transome and moulded panels. This storey also features moulded columns and the King Edward Public School sign. The top floor is recessed with one large 15/15 window in the center flanked by two triple 9/9 windows. The roofline features a projecting cornice with dentil row and plain frieze. Side (Agnes Street) Elevation: The side elevation of the 1921 portion of the building that fronts onto Agnes Street features two doors surrounded by an architrave, flanked by pilasters, with a cornice above carrying a wrought iron railing to simulate a balcony; moulded panels; 6/6 window separated from 4 -paned sidelights by half -round pilasters with vertical grooves forming capitals and topped with a wooden fan; 8/8/8 double hung windows and venetian window. Side (Interior) Elevation: The interior side elevation features two doors surrounded by an architrave, flanked by pilasters, with a cornice above carrying a wrought iron railing to simulate a balcony; moulded panels; 6/6 window separated from 4 -paned sidelights by half -round pilasters with vertical grooves forming capitals and topped with a wooden fan; 8/8/8 double hung windows, and venetian window. Page 289 of 294 Historical/Associative Value The school building was built in 1886 for a total cost of $4000 and was originally known as the Agnes Street Public School. It is the second -longest operating grade school within Kitchener. The construction of the school was essential, as the City (then known as Berlin) was experiencing rapid population growth which was resulting in overcrowding at the sole elementary school Central (now Suddaby Public School). Agnes Street Public School was opened under head teacher Maggie Hyndman in 1887, prior to Jennie Thomson being appointed principal in 1889. Over the next 10 years the City's population continued to grow rapidly, so four additional rooms were added to the school in 1897 for a cost of $5000. Janet Metcalfe was named principal this same year; 15 years earlier she had established Canada's first kindergarten class at Central School. By the turn of the century the school was full again, with approximately 750 pupils between kindergarten to grade 8 attending. In 1905 the school board adopted the name King Edward Public School, to honor the monarch King Edward VII. In 1921 a neo classical frontage was built onto the school, turning the eight classrooms to be oriented towards King Street and providing the building with its current appearance. In 1962 the school underwent further major construction, with portions of the original 1886 and 1897 building being demolished and replaced by a new wing which is comprised of a mostly -glass facade and set at a right angle to the King Street fagade, oriented along Agnes Street. Contextual Value 709 King Street West has contextual value as it is physically, functionally, and historically linked to its surroundings. The building exists in its original location, occupying a large corner lot on the prominent King Street. It maintains its original use as an elementary school. The building also maintains and supports the character of the area, being surrounded by residential family homes which have occupants who may utilize the school, and further being in proximity to other institutional uses including the Kitchener Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School located to the west at 787 King Street West. Further, the schools distinctive and attractive fagade make is easily recognizable within the local area. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 709 King Street West resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the construction and Neo Classical architectural style of the building, including: o Roof and roofline; o Windows and window openings; o Doors and door openings; o Red brick with white mortar; Front (King Street) Elevation o projecting end bays with multi -pane windows, flanked with flat pilasters with an upper section of vertical grooves to represent capitals and topped with a pediment; o large multi -pane windows o two venetian windows with 6/6 section flanked by 3 -paned sidelights; o projecting cornice with dentil row; o plain frieze; Page 290 of 294 o entrance with 12 -paned doors surrounded by an architrave, and topped by a projecting cornice visually supported by a bracket at each end; Side (Agnes Street) Elevation o Two doors surrounded by an architrave, flanked by pilasters, with a cornice above carrying a wrought iron railing to simulate a balcony; o moulded panels; 0 6/6 window separated from 4 -paned sidelights by half -round pilasters with vertical grooves forming capitals and topped with a wooden fan; o venetian window; Side (Interior) Elevation: o Two doors surrounded by an architrave, flanked by pilasters, with a cornice above carrying a wrought iron railing to simulate a balcony; o moulded panels; 0 6/6 window separated from 4 -paned sidelights by half -round pilasters with vertical grooves forming capitals and topped with a wooden fan; and o venetian window. vnotograpns off w ' E Front Elevation Page 291 of 294 ■ Ju Side Elevation (Interior) Page 292 of 294 -�LIU --mv rn N 4- 0 N N a Y o N c Yj N C N O C Z c r i _ i+ -O ° C -C U -C c6 ° 0 t� .3 c O O cu O L C m o w W a)N— o O� N O `U`° E C 6 > U o LLN .° E m° o° "C -2U `mU _0 LL ❑ N N m 0 E° d' c6 V a o LL w c U Q) o o c -1 aa) a af C af N O � w X W v � A O o bq Pi a v � � ;� eq V � O A .... o U 0 oC >0 v. CL Hey H� N N N N N N N IIW/ u N N 47 N r r r 1�1 y W� LO 00 00 0 m 00 0 Ln 0 0 0N N it CL 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 �4 FY N 000 N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N W ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rT, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M6 C6 v� � � y V' v N � o � a U a A v to u N U v cu W _o af cu c0i N N0 O L E L N U N a�cu m cn L m N ul m i O Y p ¢� N a0 w N 7 U O M r M J m Qi O O i 1 M N 111 1111 1111 1 Q N CO (° O O y O 000 O O O O co O 61 O m iii > > 0 w 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 az 000 N N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N a a a a a a a xxx x x x x r N M i0 1� WO r r r N N N M 1-1-1-1-1 NNN N N N O M M rn N 4- 0 N N