The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHK Agenda - 2024-10-01Heritage Kitchener Committee Agenda Tuesday, October 1, 2024, 4:00 p. m. - 6:00 p. m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation(a)kitchener.ca. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair - J. Haalboom Vice -Chair - P. Ciuciura Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. 3.1 Item 4.3 - Owen Scott, CHC Limited 4. Discussion Items 4.1 Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 169- 10m 3 183 Victoria Street South and 59 Park Street, DSD -2024-407 4.2 Heritage Permit Application, HPA-2024-IV-023, 30 m 153 Courtland Avenue East, Demolition of all Buildings, DSD -2024429 4.3 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-018, 10m 1385 Bleams Road, Construction of a 3 -Storey Stacked Townhouse Complex with 8 Units, DSD -2024-382 4.4 Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-020 , 5 m 466 (ween Street South, Installation of One New Window Opening and Two New Wood Windows, DSD -2024-418 4.5 Notice of Intention to Designate, 107 Courtland 10m Avenue East, DSD -2024-426 4.6 Notice of Intention to Designate, 83 Benton 10m Street, DSD -2024-425 4.7 Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review - 10m October 2024 Update, DSD 2024-413 5. Information Items 5.1 Heritage Permit Application Tracking Sheet 6. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Coordinator 11 43 106 128 149 183 Page 2 of 183 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: September 9, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-407 SUBJECT: Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for 169-183 Victoria Street South and 59 Park Street RECOMMENDATION: For information. BACKGROUND: The Development and Housing Approvals Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared by mcCallumSather and dated June 2024. The heritage consultants were retained by Legions Heights Victoria Inc. on behalf of 1000002286 Ontario Ltd., who are the Owners of the properties municipally addressed as 169-183 Victoria Street South and 59 Park Street. The majority of the subject lands, which front along Victoria Street, have no heritage status under the Ontario Heritage Act, being neither designated nor listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. These properties were also not identified on the Kitchener Inventory for Historic Buildings. However, they are adjacent to heritage resources, including: • Properties within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act including 55 Park Street, 52 Henry Street, and 48 Henry Street. • 163-165 Victoria Street South, listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. 55-57 Henry Street / 189-193 Victoria Street South, listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register. 59 Park Street, located perpendicular to the rear of 169-177 Victoria Street, forms part of the subject lands and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, being within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. *** 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 183 The subject properties are also located adjacent to or within the Victoria Park Area Cultural Heritage Landscape and adjacent to the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape, as defined in the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study approved by Council in 2015. 22/ Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Properties with Heritage Property Identified in Red As of the date of this report, the six subject properties are each developed with detached buildings which range in height from one and a half storeys to two and a half storeys. While some of the properties retain their original use as a single -detached residential dwelling, others have been converted for commercial purposes or to contain multiple units. The subject properties are part of an active Zoning By-law Amendment Application (ZBA24/021/V/AP) that has been submitted to the City. The draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was identified as a required component for a complete application due to the heritage property involved and the presence of adjacent heritage resources. REPORT: Proposed Development The ZBA that has been submitted to the City is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with an 8 -storey multiple dwelling consisting of 120 dwelling units, including 24 affordable units. The building is currently proposed to be clad with pre -cast concrete wall panels with a mix of different finishes the provide the appearance of brick and wood, as well as clear and black glazing for the balconies and windows. The massing is generally Page 4 of 183 consistent and rectangular, with a break and step -back at the fifth floor proposed in the rear to establish further distance from the adjacent designated properties. A ramp access to underground parking is proposed via Park Street, while loading accessed is proposed via Henry Street to alleviate vehicular traffic congestion. The heritage resource at 59 Park Street is proposed to be retained in-situ, with only a non -original rear garage addition demolished. A transformer block is proposed to be added to the rear of this property. The existing MU -1 zoning is proposed to be amended to MU -2, and site-specific provisions are proposed to increase the allowed building height to 28.8 metres, increase the permitted floor space ratio, reduce parking requirements, and allow residential units on the ground floor. It should be noted that the subject lands are also subject to City -initiated amendments through Growing Together West. This first phase of Growing Together was approved by Kitchener City Council on March 19th, 2024. Should the amendments of Growing Together be applied the proposed SGA -2 zone for the site, which allows up to eight storeys in height, would be retained and only the site-specific provisions would be requested. It should be noted that a Site Plan Application will need to be made following approval of the ZBA. The Site Plan Application process will require additional heritage studies and documentation to be completed as well as approval of the draft HIA prior to full Site Plan Approval. Detailed design of the building, including massing, stepbacks and setbacks, and materials used will be finalized during this stage of the process. la nC�9SE i i 6 SFw�� I ��C.•c'ikia. L — � I Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan for the Subject Properties 0 L] Page 5 of 183 VICTORIA STREET SOUTH ncl 1 � I ,�. PROPOSED MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING _ 8 STOREY. 12D UNITS 8.564 sq - q_92•.181 - 92. 1 BIsq. It ''I w T - Fwl'•w�ca j♦ 1 -w4X}wt �.wme .Ij l is :.y - K'ta rr . : S:f�• . Y •.1 r 1 eve��xs I'� _______ -� x u� li •.! ,' ff b la nC�9SE i i 6 SFw�� I ��C.•c'ikia. L — � I Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan for the Subject Properties 0 L] Page 5 of 183 14 - "I e, — =A6=,E - �t V,�� P, W. I , —P L 1-1'E 1'_U__9 P CE. Ea - � Ptsrwm E Ptsrwm comum *ALL PA4a F*m oa CONCRM nA P A J -L ?P__A' ' 1 J ry PROSW IRCX POOML04" mm$" PICK Fol"Ll"E4 vo- Coto* Moc" COtOU*:VrWMVeLOUR - - - ;� ;F - Figure 3: Renderings of the Proposed Development (Front Side and Rear Side Views) Page 6 of 183 Impact Assessment The draft HIA assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development on the involved and adjacent heritage resources, as well as the impact on the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape. Impact Analysis Landscape Landscaping is proposed along all street walls to provide a public realm Impact improvement, however due to the limited lot site and floorplate the amount that can be provided is restricted. A landscaped buffer is proposed between the laneway and Henry Street properties, and a 1.8 - metre -tall fence will separate the new development from 59 Park Street. Architectural The 1.5 m rear yard stepback is intended to mitigate impacts to the built Impact environment, as opposed to a consistent vertical elevation. The varied articulation further contributes to the maintenance of a pedestrian scale and integration into the low-rise residential heritage neighbourhood. The 8 -storey massing will provide a transition in height from the high- rises proposed for properties across Victoria Street (Figure 3). The proposed materiality considers the material commonly used with the Victoria Park Area HCD and will maintain the character of the surrounding area. The heritage resource at 59 Park Street is to be retained except for the removal of a later addition, so there is no impact to its integrity. Visual Impact There is the potential for visual impacts to the existing viewscape and surrounding area due to the proposed height of the proposed building. In the horizonal datums and materiality used within its design, a visual reference and interface to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood is created which will help to mitigate these impacts. The HIA also notes that the building would offer a transitional scale from planned high-rises across Victoria Street which will help minimize the potential creation of a dense visual landscape that overwhelms the human scale of the historic surroundings. Land Use The existing uses of the subject properties are a mix of residential, Impact commercial, and office. Therefore, the proposed mixed-use zone will not cause any change from the land uses currently present. Land Construction activity and excavation for the proposed two-storey below - Disturbances grade parking facility has the potential to cause high land disturbance Impact impacts on adjacent built heritage resources. During the construction phase, heavy equipment, shoring work, or other construction activity Page 7 of 183 Page 8 of 183 may result in minor to major vibration impacts and reversible or irreversible damage. Destruction The proposed development includes the partial demolition of a Impacts designated property. The portion of the heritage resource to be removed is a later garage addition. Its removal will restore the dwelling to its original 20th century footprint and create a greater buffer zone between the proposed new construction. The proposed development also includes the demolition of five buildings along Victoria Street. These buildings are not identified heritage resources so there is no loss of heritage fabric, and it is expected that all efforts will be made to ensure that the demolition process posses no adverse impacts or damage to adjacent heritage resource. Shadow A shadow study has been prepared to assess anticipated shadow Impact impacts of the proposed development on surrounding heritage resources. Minor shadow impacts in the early morning hours are anticipated throughout the year. However, there are limited to no new net shadows for the remainder of the daytime in all seasons. As such, the shadow impact is considered to be acceptable. Urban / As discussed in landscaping and architectural impact, the proposal Streetscape considers different strategies in which to effectively integrate the new Impact construction into the Victoria Street South corridor, the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape, and the adjacent Victoria Park Area HCD. This is done through the massing and materiality which accounts for streetscape relationships and aims to achieve public realm improvements. Page 8 of 183 PROPOSED 43 -STOREY STRUCTURE 3 PROPOSER TOWERS M" 38 -STOREY Figure 4: Rendering of Proposed New Developments Along Victoria Street (Aerial View) Recommendations for Mitigation Measures A series of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potential impacts and ensure the new development would establish a compatible relationship with the adjacent heritage resources. They are as follows: • Document the heritage resources and subject property (provided through the draft H IA). • Implementation of construction controls, protection plan, monitoring plans, and the retention of a structural engineer to avoid damage to adjacent properties during the demolition, excavation, and construction phases. • Preparation of a Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan related to the proposed alterations to 59 Park Street. • Maintain the design considerations in the proposed building as they are intended to mitigate impacts and integrate the new development into the context of the surrounding area through materiality, massing, articulation, and rhythm of openings. These considerations are compatible with and respectful to the historic landscape and built -form context. • Establish a landscaped buffer zone that makes use of tall plantings and fencing along the east side of the property line. • Address architectural lighting approaches and confirm how exterior lighting may impact heritage, sustainability, accessibility, security, and integration. • Avoid the introduction of new materials that detract from the surrounding historic character and understanding of the properties evolution — all material elements should be visually compatible with, but subordinate and distinguishable from the heritage properties. Page 9 of 183 • Correct past interventions on 59 Park Street. • Salvage and reuse materials where feasible from the five buildings along Victoria Street South to be demolished. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Page 10 of 183 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: September 11, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-429 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-023 153 Courtland Avenue East Proposed Demolition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-023 be approved to permit the demolition of the single detached dwelling at the property municipally addressed as 153 Courtland Avenue East; and further, That pursuant to Section 31 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Clerk be directed to publish a Notice of Intention to Repeal By-law 85-190 registered on December 3, 1985 as instrument number 833418 being a by-law to designate the property municipally addressed as 153 Courtland Avenue East. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present Heritage Planning staff's recommendation for the proposed demolition of the single detached dwelling at the subject property municipally addressed as 153 Courtland Avenue East. The key finding of this report is that the heritage attributes of the subject property are in a state of advanced deterioration whereby it may not be feasible to repair and the costs to repair and/or replace are significantly more expensive than demolition. Note that according to Section 15.1-15.8 of the Building Code Act, the Bylaw Enforcement Division is required to obtain quotes for both the repair and demolition of buildings that are not in compliance with the Property Standards By-law, and further that they are required to proceed with the lowest quote to bring the property into compliance. The financial implications are that the cost of the demolition will be invoiced to the property owner. If the invoice is not paid, the costs will be added to the property tax roll as a priority lien. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 11 of 183 Community engagement included consultation with the City's Heritage Kitchener committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-023 seeking permission to demolish the single detached dwelling at the subject property municipally addressed as 153 Courtland Avenue East. The subject property is located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East between Cedar Street South and Madison Avenue South. The subject property is in very poor condition. Ise 61157 160 I\�._ Ir 153 $y , 165 Q� 169 � 173 175 179 Figure 1. Location Map — 153 Courtland Avenue East REPORT: The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. By-law 85- 190 designated the subject property as being of historical and architectural value. The historical value is described as "Mr. Johann Hagen, a German sawyer, constructed this house in circa 1866. During the period 1952 to 1965, Mrs. Henrietta McGarry, Chairman of the Kitchener -Waterloo High School Board, owned the property. In 1956 — 57, His Worship Mayor Dominic Cardillo resided in the house, and from 1967 to 1982, Mr. Mike Reidel, a well known title searcher in Waterloo Region, and his wife, owned this property." The single detached dwelling is an example of the Salt Box architectural style, and the heritage attributes include the exterior of the building, and particularly the Courtland Avenue East facade, the side facades, the leaded diamond windows in the walls, and the roofline. Bylaw Enforcement staff received a complaint expressing concerns about the exterior of the subject property in May 2020. In response to this complaint, an inspection was undertaken and subsequently resulted in the issuance of an Order to Comply in June 2020. The Order to Comply identified several deficiencies that required repair and/or replacement, including cladding, soffits and fascia boards, and window sills. The deadline to complete this work lapsed on July 15, 2020 with the owner failing to comply with the Order. Staff acknowledge that the pandemic posed some challenges to the owner Page 12 of 183 completing the work by the deadline. Bylaw Enforcement staff initiated the steps to bring the property into compliance; however, structural concerns were identified. In November 2023, permission to enter the building was granted by the owner and an interior inspection was completed that determined a structural analysis was required to be undertaken to determine the structural condition of the building before proceeding with exterior work. In March 2024, By-law Enforcement staff received a copy of a Structural Condition Assessment prepared by Tacoma Engineers dated April 4, 2024. This assessment determined that the exterior work required to bring the property into compliance could not be completed without addressing structural issues, which would require that the entire building be rebuilt. With this information, Bylaw Enforcement staff proceeded to obtain quotes to bring the property into compliance. Now that two quotes have been obtained, Bylaw Enforcement staff is proposing to demolish the single detached dwelling to comply with the Order requiring that the buildings be repaired or demolished. The demolitions will result in a vacant lot. The requirement to submit a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in support of the proposed demolition was waived given the structural issues and potential risk to public safety. Instead, photographs, a structural condition assessment and two quotes to repair/replace versus demolish the single detached dwelling were required. Heritage Planning staff used this information to develop their professional planning opinion and final recommendation. Current Condition of Building As noted earlier in this report, the Order to Comply identified several deficiencies that require repair and/or replacement, including cladding, soffits and fascia boards, and window sills. The Structural Condition Assessment prepared by Tacoma Engineers dated April 4, 2024 was submitted to Bylaw Enforcement staff and reviewed by Heritage Planning staff. This assessment identified additional deficiencies/issues. The assessment concluded that the building is in poor condition; there is significant risk of portions of the building collapsing or becoming deteriorated beyond repair within the next two years; and, that a comprehensive restoration strategy would be required for both the exterior and interior of the single detached dwelling. The assessment identified interior issues including peeling paint, high relative humidity, mould, roof and wall leaks, buckled hardwood floors, evidence of rodents, fair condition of rubblestone foundation mortar, fair condition of timber floorjoists, and potential compromised basement foundation. The assessment recommends that the following interior items be repaired, reinforced and/or replaced: roof structure; all interior finishes; deteriorated structural members; framing; and, basement foundation. Interior work will also require mould abatement. The assessment also identified exterior issues including bowing/missing/deteriorated clapboard siding, deteriorated wall studs, deteriorated porch beams posing a life safety hazard, missing fascia, hole in roof, and no eavestroughs or downspouts. The assessment recommends that the following exterior items be repaired, reinforced, replaced and/or added: roof; fascia; front porch; clapboard siding; wall studs; front wall; rear wall; and, eavestroughs and downspouts. The life safety concerns with the front porch have been Page 13 of 183 temporarily addressed with the installation of security fencing. With respect to the front and rear wall, the assessment concludes that reframing of large sections of these walls is required. Exterior and interior photographs of the single detached dwelling were taken by both Bylaw Enforcement and Heritage Planning staff in 2020, 2023 and 2024. The following photographs provide a glimpse of the current condition of the building. Attachment C includes additional photos taken by staff in 2020 (exterior only), 2023 and 2024. Photo 1. Front (North) Elevation in 2020 Photo 2. Side (East) Elevation in 2020 Page 14 of 183 k i V V V �y A Photo 3. Side (East) Elevation in 2023 pppp-:; Photo 4. Side (West) Elevation in 2020 Page 15 of 183 � Sas �♦ '�` `•�1�� ` _ Cost to Repair Versus Cost to Demolish Bylaw Enforcement staff obtained two quotes outlining both the cost to repair and the cost to demolish. Cost to Repair Quote 1 indicates that it would cost a significant amount of money to bring the single detached dwelling back to minimum property standards combined with a substantial cost to remove the contents that have been left in the interior of the building. This quote does not recommend repair, but at the request of the City a quote to repair was provided. The quote did not outline a scope of work (e.g., the building components that need to be repaired, replaced, and/or rebuilt). The first estimate to repair is $200,000+. Quote 2 indicates that the entire single detached dwelling has structural damage and that beyond the work to repair there are also additional costs associated with removing the contents of the building and the removal of two (2) large trees. The second estimate to repair is $450,000 - $500,000. Cost to Demolish Quote 1 recommends demolition of the single detached dwelling. The first estimate to demolish is $43,512.59. Quote 2 indicated that the cost to demolish is $57,980.96. As a result, the proposed repairs required to rehabilitate the single detached dwelling could be anywhere from $156,487.41 - $456,487.41 more than the cost to demolish the single detached dwelling. Based on the condition of the single detached dwelling, and the estimated cost to repair versus demolish, Heritage Planning staff do not object to the demolition. In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • a property standards Order to Comply has been issued against the property requiring the owner to repair or demolish the singled detached dwelling; • the deadline to bring the property into compliance lapsed on July 15, 2020 with the owner failing to comply with the Order; • a Structural Condition Assessment prepared by Tacoma Engineers dated April 4, 2024 concluded that the exterior work required to bring the property into compliance could not be completed without addressing structural issues, which would require the single detached dwelling to be rebuilt; o the assessment also concluded that: ■ there is significant risk of portions of the building collapsing or becoming deteriorated beyond repair within the next two years; ■ the deteriorated porch beams pose a life safety hazard (Note: The security fencing that has been installed around the porch is a temporary measure to protect the public from the life safety hazard.) the heritage attributes of the single detached dwelling are in a state of advanced deterioration; since the owner has not brought the property into compliance, Bylaw Enforcement staff are required to bring the property into compliance; Bylaw Enforcement staff obtained two quotes outlining the costs to repair and the cost to demolish the single detached dwelling; Page 17 of 183 in accordance with Section 15.1 — 15.8 of the Building Code Act, Bylaw Enforcement staff are required to proceed with the lowest quote to bring the property into compliance; and, the work to repair the single detached dwelling could range from $156,487.41 - $456,487.41 more than the cost to demolish the single detached dwelling. Designating Bylaw 1985-190 Once the single detached dwelling is demolished, the design/physical value of the property will be lost. As a result, Heritage Planning staff recommend that the Clerk be directed to repeal Designating By-law 1985-190. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of demolition will be invoiced to the property owner. If the invoice is not paid, the costs will be added to the property tax roll as a priority lien. 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 Building Code Act, 1992 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-020 Attachment B — Designating Bylaw 1985-190 Attachment C — Photographs Page 18 of 183 2024 1 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals K.I200 King Street West, 611 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: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 15� 60ue LIQ AU 9AS / Legal Description (if know): PLA^i .395 P/ Ld I J S I S t L N S P / td 3D Building/Structure Type: Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: /�96AA /Z .3Z Address: /,DCom %L% L Au City/Province/Postal Code: 9y'TG14 v^J dN { Q� 0? 67 Ua Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: '<�%�vj IF ��iZOS Company: ef .;-7 y C)(' 14z j C142l Address:c2ex) P:%(, 5 C F37- City/Province/Postal S%City/Province/Postal Code: 1�.T- TC- H- J&Z'7 ()/NJ Phone Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community 2024 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. f )?0fV5 A_e 1$ -10 6{4vL 7#- 2 �S£ 6A1 -He cj�N,#V 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: iW 'oma 12g r,4.;�2 _ )QFWX. 577,sN- cid .WD�Ti4t�,s'J 7 Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: 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/pa.ges/standards-normes.asp 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? Zyes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? l�% Gtl OZIAi c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes No - If yes, who did you speak to?, d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes [A No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community Page 20 2024 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications appro d by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or impris a s -provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owne gent Date: `� A-06 C Signature of Owner/Agent: 9. AUTHORIZATION Date: If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: / We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. 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 21 of 183 153 Courtland Ave E Synopsis of events By Law enforcement first became involved with the file in June of 2020. An order was issued to have differences on the exterior of the property repaired. The representative of the owner (their Son) had started communicating with Planning regarding the heritage permit process to complete the required exterior repairs as per the order. The file got stagnant due to covid. At one point the owners were looking to sell the house as is and that did not end up happening. July 2023, another P/S officer took the file over. Process to complete the exterior repairs was stalled due to safety concerns regarding the structural compacity of the building. An order was issued for the owner to obtain an engineer to assess the structural condition of the building. The engineers report came back and the interior was badly deteriorated and some parts of the home were not accessible. The front porch of the house needed to be blocked off for safety reasons that were mentioned in the report. Officer proceeded to obtain quotes to complete required repairs of the home and the option for demolition. The quotes came back that demolition was the affordable option as the home is poor condition and would cost anywhere between $200,000 to $500,000 to repair. The home has been without heat and hydro for some time had a water leak that affected the entire interior of the home. Page 22 of 183 •8u7T.9001 aL-4 pue sTTP-m pauoT-4ua=O.9e eLR UT smopuT-m puouzeTp papeaT aq} 'sappae-3: apTs aLU4 'apeaeJ qaa-rqs anueAV pueT�o0 aLt-4 seTno-c-..zed uT pup SuTpT`rnq aLq 90 aoraa4xa aLG 90 pasTaduco 6u-caq -4s-e2 anuan�r pLreT-43noO • Q. f. EST se umoux I4aadoad Tleaa pTesazo.7e age go q -T -2d qeLU� anTen Te7n-4Oa-4TLPxe pue TeoTao-4sTg _40 bu-raq se pa-. -esap ST aaaLJ, • T : SPOTTog se s'4Deua aauaUP-4TM 90 24TO aLU4 .90 uoT-4pJodao;; aqL .4o TTouno0 @q4 S2iO3S= MON =,�-.TT'SdTarcaLij,,l aqq jo xaaT0 aLI4 uodn panaas uaaq seg uoT-.euE)Tsap pasodoad aLF4 oq uOT438:0,0 go WT -40N ou SVFdHHM Qh-V syxparn anT�asuoo aaao Dora ao� aouo fiTTedTaTuruu aq UT uoT-4eTnoaTo TL-jaua5 SuTneg aadedsmsu e uT pagsTTgnd aq oq uoT-4ua-.ul go aoT4oN Bans pasneo seq pue 'pagTaosap as-4j-7aq ZKT.T2nz)Tg-Tz aaou t�-.aadcad Teaa pTesa,zo?e 9LU4 go -4-Ti2d geL14 anTen Teanqoa rgaae pue TeaTao-4s-rLI go 5uraq OR a-.7-�TsaO o-4 uoL-4ua-4ul go a:)-poN e 'uoT-4epuno,a a5e-4Taag oTxz quo aLU4 uodn pue 'aauaga4T� 40 IqTO 9q; UT gseg anxanV pueT�,=m EST se ITTPdTz)-R= unOux sas=@-Td pue spueT aLp jo aeuro au, -4 uo panaes aq o-4 pasneo seg .zauago-4-r)l 90 ATO aq4 90 L7?T-4"eaoaaoD aLU Jo TT3unoO 8LU4 S ¢ada(4M CYV -4saaa4uF ao anTen TeoT.ao-4sTq ao T)ean-.aa-4Tgaae .90 aq o-4 'uoaaaLr4 scan-.an,z-4s pup sSuTpTTnq TTe SuTpnTouT 'A4.zadoad Tl --a.;[ a-.eub-rsap o-. sm21-Aq -4aeLra 04 I4TTUdTDTmny' E 90 TTauno0 aLlq sazTaot4ne 'LSE aG4deTqD `086T ' O ` S' h sd aSeqTaaN oTaeuO aLo GZ uoT40aS SV-aT3I-M (anTen Tean-4aa-4TLraze pup aTao�szq 30 SuTaq se aauaLta-4T go )�4-FD aLU. uT qs-ea anuan-i pU2T-4-TnOD EST S' umgmt ITTedTaTUM r��zaaoad aL4 .90 wed a-.eu6Tsap CI -4 mLT-Xq e 6uT99) U=HaLIx 30 UID = r40 NOIJVdOdM3 = 30 to rr u s r,r xaaT� aoAew b Y2 'S86T •Q•V / 4 30 Imp p s? aauauo*4Tx 30 K-4TD auq uY saaqureLD TTounOD 9LU4 qp QHSSVd • sxaa� anz�noasuoo aaxuq go uoaa aog aouo k4Ttn uu= aLa uT uoY-T2TnoaTo Tpaauab buTn"eq -iadedsMau cues @LU4 u -r paLiszTgnd aq C4 mP-1-A9 sTL4 90 Bu-rssL-d aqq o ao you asnpo o4 pua uoTq'2puno3 ab -raag OT- up av�� uo pum Agaadoad pyesaao;TL auk go aauto aLU4 uo Pancras aq oq �n�T-Ag s-zu4 go Alco L- asnpo o-4 pazzaou4n2 Agaaaq s -r xxaTZ) any '£ •aaT go AagSTbaa puPT aadoad auk UT (gaed 72 suzo} l2axe pageubzsap PTEs arm LPTUI& .9o) o-4aaau -V-- aTnPagz)S UT pagzaasap Agaadoad aLI4 go aZoqm aqq }suTeb,e paaagszbaa aq oq. .go Adoo '2 asnLo o-4 pazz zoLRn-e AGa.xau sT ao-4za-tTos A-4TD auk, ' Z - Z - • aTA}s Xoq gTEs aiU4 go a-[d=a ue s -c asmq sTuq a zn a -4 -Fr zu 90 su.Lxa-4 UI -A-4-xadoad srgn pain 'a9Tctl sTq put 'uo-rbad ooT-Ia-.P1y UT saLPseas aT-4z-4 LUAD.n{ TTam P 'TaPTG2l a3� 'aN 'Z86T 04 L96T uio-Tj puP 'asnoq srgq ut papTsaa oT-[Tpa� azuTmoa acv�uN dTgSJQM srg 'L9 -- 996T UI 'i4lad0ad STLn iOUAD 'per TOOLIoS gSTH ooT.zaTPN,-.zauaua-4Tx auR go UEMITe' 'F.z.zeO:)Pq -L:-'44aTJuaH 's -7W ' S96T o-4 ZS6T poz.zad aLR buYznO '998-[ 'e0xTa UT asnou sTrn pa-pnx4suo0 I-TeAm,es ueuuaO P 'uabPH uueuor -aW •spunozb ["e-xn-pa-.-Euaxe pue azxogs-ru uo apuuz uaaq seu uta.zaq pagz.zasap uoz-.PUBTS;Dp auy N0I,L6MLS:aQ UC)a SNOSVEd -4aa_T-4S _TepaD .4o -4zujTT AT:ca4seatr4nos aq4 uzo-TJ -4sea spuoaas 00 sa-4nuTUL £Z saa-[bap gS LU4noS paxnSpaU q.aaJ g£•i,E 4U24STp 4uTod e oq gaag 8919C _4o aaue s , p e '-4saM spuoaas 00 sa nuTm £Z saa-Tbap 9S g4 -TON ;DtC4jJI =quzod e o4 -4aa3 66'16 .9O aoue-4szp e 'qaax4S �epaD Jo �T ATaa�seaL�gt�s aLiq o-4 TOT -la -Zed -4sarl spuoaas 00 sa4nuZLu LS saaabap ££ LT4noS 2DtZRJU =pLmT 3o Taojud paq-f-msap u-ra.jaq 9LI4 go quau enua muoo ;o quzod aqq oq 4aa4 ZO' TS ;o aouegsYp e -4TM-Tl pauoT-4uaul--4seT aq4 buoTe q.saM spuoaas 00 sagnuTLu 6V saaz5ap OS LUPON ZDRHU LZOL *ON Waunuq.sul se paJG-4ST5a.z ' gS£# �neT-Ag Aq pauado se anuanV pue, 4anoD jo q urrT AT.za-4sami.U4nos au -4 osT12 buzaq 'saute pue sgaaX4S 'OS 401 -4o 4?U?T AT1a4se9Ll-4-xoN aLU4 o-4 -baa; 00*LZ 3o aaue-4sTp e 'S qol pips go -4?mTT ATaagseaugnoS au} go uoiDnpoid ATaagseaglq.zoiq aL,a buoTe 4sLDa spuooas 0o sa-4nuzui It, saa-Tbap ££ Llq.zoN EDNMU Sb£ ueTd pa-1a-4szbad 'S gorI 30 aTbue ATjags-ea -4sau aL 4 -4E JNINNID3S :SMDTTo-; se pa-4eooT T2'J aq u-4uTod gz)TLi�4 'sauerl pue s-4aa.z74S 'OS gorI Jo 4TUM 1 1J04seagq.aoN pies aLr4 uT quTod e -Te ONIGNMWD =ogaaag4 uzaaaq sbuYxeaq TTe Fxrr�eTax PUP ''4saM spuoaas Op sa nuTLu {�� saa�6ap OS LF TOjq Jo buzIea�[ e sell 'sauerl pue s4aaa4S '0S gorl 30 q-TUITT AT-lagseaLlq_xoN aLR 4PLU4 ONISDM" s�+noTTo� se pagi.zasap ATa2TnZ)T4X2d alau aq ueo Taazed LPYUVA 'sauerl puP sgaa14S 'OS 40"1 .4o q 'd pue 'S6£ ueTd paxa-4szbag 'AaAznS s,z-4U121-IS •A 'r 'S -4orl go gzed -To pasod w 'oTje4uo go aauYnoJd aLU4 uT pue (ooT.za- eM .90 A MOD aL14 A13alu0g) ooTjageM 90 ATYTedzazuny,W TeuoTbad aq4 uT 'aaua4P4Tx -4o A -4 -FO 8L14 uY buzacl pue bupXl 8-4enq.Ts sastwaad pue pue-[ jo goeJ- 10 Taoaed uzegaao WL2}YMNIS QNB 'fW -Su=Tbaq jo aasTd auq o-4 ssa-r ao a iau aaaj £8' 9£ o aau sip P buoTEaaau� -4spa spuoaas 00 sa-4nupu 6b saaaSap Q5 q -4t �}PJ�F,TT, saute pue s4aaa4S `09 ,':aqLumN -40`1 P -FPS 90 4?urFT ATaa-4seauL:Pou pies aq4 uE -uzod e o-4 -4aaJ T9 -S6 Jo aauegs-rp e ':aaxqS ;epao go -4purT ITaaqseau4nos Pres o-4 TaTTez[ed '-4spa spuoaas 00 sa-4nu7u LS saazbaP ££ WOM MJN5]lI. Z# O -4ogd -buTPTTnq aqq JO AaO4sTq aO aangoagTqoau aqq uo sagoN aotljo Aalsl6ad •agPp uOTgonagsuo0 uo uOTgPUIaOJuI ;o saoanOS :aouaaaJag paaagTv gonw pooO aoad aTP3 X AaaA aangon-TqS JO UOT4TPuOD 6uipls wnulwnte aagpo X au:pa,3 NoT.zg auOgS 'TaTaa-4eW TTVM :u0T-4onaqsuo0 aauap t sad as[j quasald tap ! ad 'W aaumo quasa.zcT aauaplsad asC1 TPuTbiaO ua6eH uueyOP aaumO TPUTST-10 9981 uOT-4ona74suOO JO a-4eQ:ATo-4sTH buTPTTng go ;DWPN 56€ ueld `5 Iol Iced (ul pa8) jauay lIN -dzgsumoq 'uoTssaouOD anuany puellunoj ES[ `qOT JO umoq `gaaa-4s jeguinN 00t M 1aj e AqunoO : AgT4U;aTI SONS UI09 30 2 2UOINgARI OIuVINO 8L61 Alnp a -4,e Megsl t loo ApuaM sjW a@Lld-eabo-4Ogd JO auaPN 8L61 Alnf a P Meysl t to3 ApuaM -s-tw aapaooaz 40 auiletj (Y) co 4- 0 co a L-1 • PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Front (North) Elevation in 2020 Photo 2. Front (North) Elevation in 2020 Page 29 of 183 Ow Figure 4. Side (West) Elevation in 2020 Page 30 of 183 Figure 5. Side (East) Elevation in 2020 Figure 6. North-West Corner in 2023 Page 31 of 183 Figure 8. Side (West) Elevation in 2023 Page 32 of 183 Figure 9. Side (East) Elevation in 2023 Figure 10. Side (East) Elevation in 2023 Page 33 of 183 Figure 11. Interior — Buckled Wood Floor in 2023 Figure 12. Interior — Water Damaged Wood Floor in 2023 119 Figure 13. Interior — Example of Peeling Paint in 2023 Page 34 of 183 Figure 14. Interior - Bathroom Floor in 2023 Figure 15. Interior - Floor in 2023 Page 35 of 183 L.l5 i Figure 16. Interior — Water Damaged Ceiling in 2023 Figure 17. Interior — Water Damaged Ceiling in 2023 Page 36 of 183 Figure 18. Interior — Stairs to Basement in 2023 ,s Figure 19. Front (North) Elevation in 2024 'i Page 37 of 183 i IQ r - i Ami -- - - - - - - - - --- ,{ ,yam MON.,r i 1 -_....- f Or -- Ili► ire ; s � A&M i d •� r 1Air .rJ 71 �� fir,► ��, �- A f� a� ,A Figure 26. Hole in Clapboard on Side (East) Elevation in 2024 Figure 27. Side (East) Elevation in 2024 Page 41 of 183 Figure 28. Missing Fascia from Chimney Removal on Side (East) Elevation in 2024 Figure 29. Example Leaded Glass Diamond Shaped Windows in 2024 Page 42 of 183 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: September 3, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-382 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-018 1385 Bleams Road Construction of 3 -Storey Stacked Townhomes with 8 Units RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-018 be approved to permit the construction of a 3 -storey stacked townhome complex with 8 units at the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application, and subject to the following conditions: a) That the Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of the heritage permit; b) That the updated Conservation Plan, including the vibration monitoring report, be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of the heritage permit; c) That the building elevations be submitted for review to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner prior to the issuance of the heritage permit; and d) That the final building permit be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present staff's recommendation for the construction of a three-storey stacked townhome complex at the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road. *** 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 183 • The key finding of this report is the construction of the townhome complex will not have an adverse negative impact on the existing cultural heritage resources on the property. • The proposed development is sympathetic to but distinguishable from the existing heritage resources on the building. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-018 proposes the construction of an 8 unit, three- storey stacked townhome complex with parking at the rear on the western edge of the property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road. The townhomes will be clad in brick veneer, stucco and stone veneer, and will be located approximately 30 metres away from the existing building and shed on the property. No alterations are proposed to the existing building and shed. The proposed development is contemporary in design, distinguishable from the heritage resource, and will not have an adverse negative impact on the existing heritage resources. An addendum to the Conservation Plan has also been submitted which proposes vibration monitoring, fencing and a post construction condition assessment to ensure that the existing heritage resources remain protected during and after construction. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-IV-018 seeking permission to construct a 3 -storey stacked townhome complex with 8 units and parking at the rear at the subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Location Map of subject property (highlighted in red box). 'r Page 44 of 183 This permit has been brought before the Heritage Kitchener Committee as the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By- law 1987-309. REPORT: The subject property is located on the southern side of Bleams Road and western side of Fischer Hallman Road, between Fischer Hallman Road and Abrams Clemens Street. Also known as the former `Williamsburg School' the subject property contains a 2 storey rubble stone construction house, which was originally constructed as a school for the former hamlet of Williamsburg in 1864 (Fig 2). i� Figure 2. North and West elevation of the original Williamsburg Schoolhouse. Williamsburg Schoolhouse The Williamsburg Schoolhouse was originally built in 1864. It was a rectangular, gable - roofed structure constructed of granite fieldstone. A brick addition was constructed in 1874 to accommodate more students towards the rear. In 1966, the school was closed and the building was converted into a private residence. In 1987, a stone -faced, wood -framed addition was constructed at the front of the building (Fig. 3). Page 45 of 183 Figure 3. Phases of construction of the Williamsburg Schoolhouse. The blue arrow points to the original schoolhouse built in 1864, the red arrow points to the brick addition added in 1874, and the green arrow points to the stone -faced, wood frame addition added in 1987. The building has been recognized for its design/physical, and historical/associative value in the designating by-law. The building is one of the few remaining original buildings from the former Hamlet of Williamsburg, and the schoolhouse is a representative example of an early construction style - rubble stone construction. The designating by-law identifies the following features of the property: - All rubble stone facades of the original schoolhouse; - The belfry; - The fence; and - The wood shed. Associated Planning Applications 1385 Bleams Road was subject to a Zoning -By Law Amendment (ZBA) in 2023, which was approved by Council at it's April 24, 2023, meeting. The zoning amendment was sought to change the A-1 (agricultural) zoning to RES -6 (residential) to allow for a medium rise residential development. The applicant was proposing to build eight, three-storey townhomes towards the rear of the property. Page 46 of 183 As part of the ZBA application, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Conservation Plan (CP) was submitted in support of the application. The draft HIA was circulated to Heritage Kitchener at it's March 7, 2023, meeting. The HIA and CP have since been approved. Proposed Re -Development at the Subject Property The proposal that was presented to Heritage Kitchener at it's March 7, 2023, meeting has since been revised. At the time, this proposal contemplated development along the western rear portion of the property. It included 8 three storey townhomes, with parking in the front (Fig. 4) BLEAMS ROAD EA" �- bw 30 . 1�! .' .ir • �� • ■ � ! ��' . i • ilk !M .�1lrl. ! ��' ! � . TI y. 4 ♦f i ■ Vis.-. o BNtln� ■ }° N=vcr' ■ A.w II E. L dui=AWA.[ •{ L.� �.�.■�.►+R.r_.r_L .rr_.r�■r�rf.� M73'S£' N3 ,.w T71 rj Figure 4. Initial Redevelopment Proposal presented to Heritage Kitchener Committee. Now the redevelopment contemplates the construction of a three-storey stacked townhome complex with parking at the rear towards the western edge of the property at the front (Fig. 5). Due to the change in design, an Addendum to the approved HIA was required to assess any impacts the proposed redevelopment might have on the existing heritage resources, and to suggest any mitigation measures. The addendum was presented to Heritage Kitchener at its September 3, 2024, meeting. The Committee was generally supportive of the proposal. Page 47 of 183 6L EAMS ROAD p _Wlr1 � I l_--- -- _ ___ - - - - --------- �BLOCKA� _ f 3 STOREY [d 4JNI T$I w.rrl nas CS[STINa [ 1 SpRErTOREY I HC1V5E �.. � I A 1-5 z E G Y DEiArHACi1E6 a cFRAvG€ j ' If �1 ExlsrirvG —AOL f a a' s s a s z i srrt❑ Figure 5. Revised redevelopment proposal site plan The proposed development will have a hipped roof and will be clad in stucco and brick veneer. Columns proposed for the covered porches are going to be clad in stone veneer (Fig 6-9). There are 8 parking spaces proposed at the rear of the building, with one accessible parking spot, along with a 6 -metre driveway connecting the parking area to Bleams Road. A 1.1 metre concrete sidewalk surrounds the townhome complex to provide accessibility. Figure 6. Front Elevation of the proposed Figure 7. Rear Elevation of the proposed development Development Page 48 of 183 U �o C] LOJ 110 U 01 0 Figure 8. West Elevation of the proposed Figure 9. East Elevation of the proposed development development. As part of this redevelopment proposal, the existing cultural resources are proposed to be preserved in-situ, with no alterations proposed. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Addendum The HIA Addendum has concluded that the proposed redevelopment will not have any negative impacts on the existing heritage resources. The HIA has not yet been approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals (Table 1). Potential Ncgarive Impact Assessmene Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features No significant hu itage attribute, nor any part thereof is to be destroyed. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic No alterations to the buildings are proposed. The development is fabric and appearance proposed on lands that are currently vacant ofbuildings. Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change Shadows created do not alter the appearance of any heritage attributes, nor the viability of an associated natural feature or plantings, such as a garden change the viability of any plantings. The proposed building is some 30 metres from the former schoolhouse. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context Heritage attributes arc not isolated from their environment by this or a significant relationship proposal. Direct or indirect obblruclion of signiricant views or vistas within, From, or The formcr schoolhousc is totally exposed to public view front the street of built and natural features and has open space to the east, .vest and roar. A change in land use [such as rezoning a church to a multi -unit residence] whore the change in use negates the property's cultural heritage value There is no change in land use. Lund disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage There: as no land disturbance to the area of the p,ol+crty that conram� the patterns that adversely affect a cultural heritage resource, including 1archaeological resources heritage resources. Drainage patterns are net altered- Table 1. Assessment of proposed development on the existing heritage resources. Source: HIA Addendum — 1385 Bleams Road. Draft Conservation Plan Addendum An addendum to the Conservation Plan has also been submitted which outlines protective measures that will be undertaken during the construction of the development. A Vibration Monitoring Assessment has been submitted that will be followed during construction on-site. Page 49 of 183 Adequate fencing will also be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction to protecting on existing cultural heritage resources. Once the construction is complete, a post construction condition assessment will be performed and any repairs to the masonry will be done according to best conservation practices if they are required. The proposed development meets Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines of Preservation of Historic Places in Canada: • Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character defining -element. o No changes are proposed to existing cultural heritage resources, and they will be conserved in-situ. • Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. o The proposed development will not impact any existing cultural heritage resources on the property. • 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 a historic place. o The proposed development is visually compatible with and distinguishable from the existing cultural heritage resources. Even though in terms of it's size it might not subordinate to the existing heritage building, subordination is not just about size. The proposed development is located at an appropriate distance from the existing building, on the western edge of the property at least 30 metres away. It does not overshadow or dominate the existing cultural heritage resources. Furthermore, the design of the proposed stacked townhomes is sympathetic and complimentary to the existing heritage resources. • Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. o The essential form and integrity of the historic place will not be impaired due to the proposed development. The proposed development also meets the "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties" especially: • Respect for historical material — Repair/conserve rather than replace building materials and finishes except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built resource. o No replacement is proposed for the existing heritage resources because no alterations are proposed for them. • Respect for building's history — Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period. Do not destroy later additions to a building or structure solely to restore to a single time period. o No restoration or destruction is proposed for the existing heritage resources on the property. • Legibility —New work should be distinguished from old. Building or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. Page 50 of 183 o The new development will be distinguishable from the old, with the new build being recognized as a product of its own time. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the applications, heritage staff note that: • The subject property municipally addressed as 1385 Bleams Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; • This permit proposes the construction of an 8 unit stacked townhome complex with parking at the rear. • The proposed development is not proposing any alterations to the existing cultural heritage resource on the property; • The proposed development is located on the western edge of the property, about 30 metres away from the existing cultural heritage resource. It is contemporary is style and distinguishable but complimentary to the existing heritage resources on the property; • The proposed work is consistent with the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties and with Parks Canada's The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; and • The proposed development will not adversely impact the existing cultural heritage resources nor its reasons for designation. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. CONSULT — Heritage Kitchener has been consulted. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Draft Heritage Impact Assessment — 1385 Bleams Road — DSD -2023-080 • Draft Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum — 1385 Bleams Road, DSD -2024- 359 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-IV-018 Attachment B — Draft Heritage Impact Addendum — 1385 Bleams Road Page 51 of 183 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order thal their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 • Repointing of brick Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2024 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2024 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 24, 2023 January 9, 2024 December 29, 2023 February 6, 2024 January 26, 2024 March 5, 2024 February 23, 2024 April 2, 2024 March 29, 2024 May 7, 2024 April 26, 2024 June 4, 2024 - No July Meeting June 28, 2024 August 61 2024 July 26, 2024 September 3, 2024 August 23, 2024 October 1, 2024 September 27, 2024 November 5, 2024 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals T 200 King Street West, 61'' Floor KI F(,HF.\FR Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca Page 7 of 10 Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Demolition 0 New Construction ❑ Signage ❑ Alteration 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address:1385 Bleams Rd Kitchener On N2E3X7 ❑ Relocation Legal Description (if know): LT 5 RCP 1469 KITCHENER; KITCHENER Building/Structure Type: 13 Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: 13 Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ® No 3. PRO Name: Address: 1385 gleams Rd Kitchener On N2E3X7 City/Province/Postal Code: KITCHENER Phone: Email: 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: 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. I would like to build one block of 8 stacked towns on the vacant portion of the lands east of the school house and with a buffer of 4.4 meters from the non designated portion of the home, which is more than the 3.7 m that has beed established in the zoning bylaw. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: To provide additional housing which is intended for long term rentals and financed via cmhc mli select program Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: the proposal is a separate new construction building set back further than the existing heritage property and of 3 stories in height, same height that was approved at the zba and via the also approved hia. 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): the proposal is not attached to the heritage home, does not involve any changes to the heritage home and does not impact any of the protected heritage attributes as registered for the property which are the belfry, the shed and the stone walls. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: asap Expected completion date: april 2025 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? 0 Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Deeksha c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? 1Z Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Nada Djuric and Sheryl Rice Menezes d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes 0 No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: June 24th 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I /We, , owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: to act on my / our behalf in this regard. The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. if you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Aug 16`h 2024 Attn: Deeksha Choudhry, MSc., BES Heritage Planner) Development and Housing Approvals Division) City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 I Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2240 ext. 7602 deeksha. choudhry_La)kitchener. ca Re: 1385 Bleams Rd Heritage Permit Application dated June 24th 2024 Please accept the attached site plan as a revision to the above mentioned heritage permit application in response to Heritage Kitchener's concerns. 13 85 Bleams Rd, Kitchener, On Page 62 of 183 x N 8 of w 0 U rc IU m ro v ^I E $ IE w If NVAMIS 30dON00 w L O m E z E E E o a IS I T E m d n �°CL . LU ° o- Q lo m _ `O _-- o X + d 0 c', E E LU E E m E m m W Oo o a E 0 e O ¢Q � W U) o U O o N J d O d - U w J c Z e d d ❑ x N 8 of w 0 U rc IU m ro v ^I E $ IE w If NVAMIS 30dON00 w L O m E E E E E E a E m d O m m m `O o X + d 0 c', E E E E E m E m m E � � o U m J d z U = O a d dz o OFz > <,o ¢ m° - m ❑ z LL w z < C7 z a d Z a ° ~2 O a z=� ww z ° al naQ of WOU 51 � , 52 I EI II r NI I I I I I I I I I � I Ob'Z x N 8 of w 0 U rc IU m ro v ^I E $ IE w If NVAMIS 30dON00 w L O m E E E E E E a E m d O m m m `O o X + d 0 c', E E E E E m E m m E � � o U m J d z U = O a d dz o OFz > <,o ¢ m° - m ❑ z LL w z < C7 z a d Z a ° ~2 O a o z ww z ° '.z LL2 52 0 o O m a O o U J d z U = d dz o OFz > <,o ¢ m° - A 49 (Y) co 4- 0 m (1) c� a .w D N I,,,i N N ISI x a (Y) co 4- 0 m (1) c� a ai N N 110 r- r- w zcl V] H ..0 � c bA U � � U x N N N 0 N r- w 7t O O O O O 6 a I ¢� Y m _� W, $ 0o Ny U 1 � i sws g aais aa�aaHoa w d d El- asm iR .Sd ,9r -CdH N CIDcnO O U O U cn U U cl cn .t.0 Q N U cn OU 0 'cl 0 cn � O +� ° N t to w n U cn d . cn c 0 O t to C,3 c N cl C cn U U •}, rn S� cn cl 'C Ocnn ct d . C) ^C o c U cn O cn 0 cn +� ctljo N CH cn cd cn O U ' � C) cn S " � cn O o -cn � to cl U cn O cn 0 cn N sm I MW ■ N I D D � D FE -11 B l� e o CI o FM HAI I 1 L I D D � D 0 E3 n � o CI o FM HAI I cv � cn cn cl � U+, Cl U "0 cl � � • � utb O U � O to U N � O Fj cl p p U O �, � 42 Cj U U 0 'C UO O 0 � cli ¢cn 0 0 ,S' O N 4° cl � cl O U �. vUi • U �.' cl —Cli 41 0 cl cl n Cj0 � �• ct rn Q U �.' S.U. O p cH U bC,jA N U cd U N a� r-2 � O U •O � 4cl U cl cl cli o � '+� cl s O U U u U cl � � l U V] U O p U +, cli clj O O � cj O o cl •� s . U fir" cl O .0 O QCj cli � U 'C cd U U cl ° U)0 cl+ bA n N U to � CI O s. s. cl c v' cnO bUA N cd U 4U cd C � O cl cv L u N N O — M N i O v M N 9 N 9 N 14 o U U �i N 0 U U U O U U _O U O O H 'C U U N � O 'C N U O O N � O � _N M U U O O U O U c U OZA Inspections Ltd. A Member Company of the OZA Group August 20, 2024 Re: Preliminary Construction Vibration Assessment 1385 Bleams Road Proposed Stacked Townhouse Block City of Kitchener Our Pile No. 23355 INTRODUCTION 202-400 Jones Road Stoney Creek, ON LSE 5P4 Toll Free 1-800-667-8263 Tel: (905) 643-1074 Fax: (905) 643-9040 estimating(&7ozainspections.com www.ozainspections.com In accordance with your request and the requirements imposed by the City of Kitchener for site plan approval, OZA Inspections Ltd. has conducted a preliminary vibration assessment with respect to the proposed development and the potential impact of construction vibrations relative to the existing `Heritage' designated buildings located at 1385 Bleams Road. A vibration monitoring assessment has been recommended as part of the Heritage Protection Plan for this property (CHC Limited, May 30, 2023, Addendum July 18, 2024). This assessment shall specify monitoring requirements and associated vibration controls as necessary towards the preservation of the subject property, based on the current site plan. Prediction models were developed based on conventional types of machinery used in excavation, grading and servicing. Standard equipment was modeled separately to assess the impact. Predicted vibration levels were compared with thresholds for potential building damage to determine the required safe set -back distances. Vibration impact shall be controlled through the implementation of recommended mitigation measures and vibration monitoring for key operations. OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 131eams Road, Kitchener August 20 age 76 of 183 CONSIDERATIONS Development of the subject site will include, but not necessarily be limited to: excavation for construction and servicing of the proposed 3 -storey, 8 -unit stacked townhouse block, excavation for driveway and parking lot construction, and backfilling and compaction associated with these activities. Driveway and parking lot construction west of the existing heritage buildings (former Williamsburg schoolhouse and batten wood shed) shall involve vibratory compaction of granular base and asphalt. The new building is proposed in the west site area. Based on our review of the Site Plan (Preliminary, Drawing No. A1.01, Orchard Design Studio Inc. Project 15158, updated 2024-08-14), we estimate that the proposed driveway construction is offset by 23± metres from the old schoolhouse building, the proposed new building footprint is offset 30.5± metres. We note that the nearest part of the proposed parking area is offset from the schoolhouse building by 20± metres, the shed structure by 21± metres. We have anticipated that construction activities for this project as described above will involve the following conventional construction equipment: • Bulldozers • Excavators • Compactors (vibratory drum roller and/or hoe-pac) • Dump trucks ASSESSMENT METHODS / DETAILS For assessment of ground borne vibration impact, measurement of the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is widely accepted as the best descriptor of potential for damage; pre - construction assessment involves prediction methods in lieu of measurement. The United States Department of Transportation has published procedures (Reference: United States Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report No. 0123, September 2018) for construction vibration prediction. The reference values provided are considered a reasonable average based on a wide range of site conditions. This procedure involves the use of these reference values at a given distance, factored into a distance attenuation equation to calculate the PPV value. These predicted values are then compared to appropriate criterion to assess potential impact. 2 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 77 of 183 CRITERIA This section forms a preliminary criteria guideline and the basis for the calculation of the setback distances. Currently there is not a universally accepted standard in Ontario for limiting vibration relative to heavy construction such as grading, excavation and vibratory compaction. Subsequently, vibration and loss control consultants rely on our expertise, and interpretation of resources, such as international vibration standards. For specific projects, many factors are typically considered, including but not limited to the structural sensitivity and construction methods (source characteristics). In general, more restrictive vibration limits are applied to vibration sensitive structures, such as buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, than limits for modern buildings. The previously referenced FTA procedures report suggests limits based on the structure type; see Table 1 following: Table 1: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Type PPV mm/s) Reinforced concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 12.7 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 7.6 Non -engineered timber and masonry 5.1 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 3.0 Other references, such as the City of Toronto Municipal Code (Chapter 363-5), specify PPV limits with consideration of the corresponding frequency of the construction generated vibration, with the lower thresholds applicable at frequency levels of IOHz or less. Based on our extensive experience monitoring construction we anticipate vibration frequency levels from conventional machinery measuring in the 20-50 Hz range for this project, well above the typical natural frequency of buildings (3-11 Hz). Older `Heritage Designated' structures are often assigned lower criteria regardless of favourable frequency and building condition. We note that the age of a structure or the heritage designation does not necessarily mean that it is more susceptible to vibration than other structure types. Structure condition should be 3 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 78 of 183 considered. At the time of this report, condition survey documentation of the subject heritage structures at 1385 Bleams Road was not available. Review of the aforementioned CHC Limited Addendum to the Heritage Protection Plan indicates that these structures are in good, sound condition; nonetheless, for the purposes of this assessment and considering the heritage designation and age of these buildings, we have conservatively modeled based on a restrictive 3.0 mm/s PPV value, typically applied to buildings that are considered extremely susceptible to vibration damage. ASSESSMENT Table 2 presents the reference values used in prediction of the vibration levels with respect to the proposed activities and anticipated machinery. TABLE 2 Equipment Type Reference Distance (m) Reference PPV (mm/s) Activity Grading Large Dozer 7.6 2.261 Grading Small Dozer 7.6 0.076 Compaction Vibratory Roller / Hoe- ac 7.6 5.334 Excavation Large Excavator 7.6 2.261 Hauling Loaded Truck 7.6 1.930 Using these FTA reference values, we calculated the minimum separation distance at which a level of 3.0 mm/s is predictable for each activity (source), without consideration of site specific mitigation. The following equation was used: PPVsource PPVRef (DR/D)" (mm/sec) PPVRef reference value at 7.6m DR reference distance (7.6m) D Distance of machinery/activity to the receiver in metres n value, for attenuation rate based on soil conditions Factoring the Table 2 typical reference values for the various activities and factoring competent soil conditions for this site (n = 1.3), set -back distances for the various machinery types are presented in Table 3 following: 4 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 79 of 183 TABLE 3 Required Minimum Separation Distance (m) PPV (mm/s) Dozer Small Dozer Compactor Excavato r Dump Truck 3.0 6.5 <1 12 6.5 5.5 MITIGATION PROCEDURES Setback distances outlined in Table 3 should be maintained for each of the identified activities in order to control vibration to below PPV limits generally specified for vibration sensitive structures. Based on the revised site plan (August 14, 2024), construction operations will not encroach within ±20 metres of the nearest existing heritage structure at 1385 Bleams Road. See Figure 1. Predicted vibration levels indicate work can be carried out in a safe manner, without implementation of a fulltime vibration monitoring program, as the proposed work is outside the required minimum setback distances for the various construction vibration sources. We recommend vibration testing at the onset of key activity, specifically compaction of backfill and/or granular for pavement base, to verify the accuracy of the reference values used in determining the safe setback distances. Testing/monitoring of these key activities shall serve to assess site specific machinery, and allow for additional mitigation of vibrations, if necessary. During the recommended test period, digital, tri -axial seismographs shall be used, with sensors spiked at ground level, positioned in line between the nearest point of the existing heritage structures at 1385 Bleams Road and the vibration source, programmed to measure and record PPV in real time (see Figure 1). Should testing confirm vibration levels consistent with the reference values used in this assessment, further mitigation will not be required. In the event that any of the tested activities produce levels approaching the recommended PPV limit used for assessment purposes, additional vibration mitigation measures may be required. 5 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 80 of 183 In summary, the following mitigation measures are required: • Application of the Table 3 minimum setback distances • Site vibration testing at the onset of key activities to verify the accuracy of the Table 3 set -backs Supplementary mitigation measures, should actual site testing indicate higher than predicted levels, may include but not be limited to the following: • Use of equipment known to produce lower generating vibration where set -back distances are not feasible, verified through site specific vibration monitoring • Use of smaller vibratory equipment, such as a 48 -inch drum versus a 60 - inch drum roller, in low mode for granular compaction and asphalt compaction • Smaller excavators/bulldozers for grading and granular placement work • Ongoing remote vibration monitoring with automated alert notification capability for vibration levels approaching the specified threshold CONCLUSION OZA Inspections Ltd. has conducted a pre -construction vibration impact assessment for the proposed 1385 Bleams Road stacked townhouse block development. Based on modelling, work will not encroach within the minimum setback distances required for vibration pertaining to heritage structures on the subject property. Therefore, specific vibration controls are not required. Initial testing of vibration levels from key construction operations will help ensure safe management and subsequent protection of the nearby heritage buildings. INDENMITY The information and recommendations contained in this report represent our judgement in light of the limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports. Judgement was exercised in gathering and analyzing the information obtained and the compilation of our report. This report carries no guaranties or warranties as to the structural competence of adjacent buildings. This report must be a read as a whole. Notwithstanding full compliance with the specifications of the project, approval of the 6 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 81 of 183 construction plan and the successful completion of the work, the Contractor shall be solely responsible for any damage, direct or indirect, arising from the work and shall hold OZA harmless from any costs, liens, charges, claims or suits, including the casts of defence arising from such damage, real or alleged. OZA accepts no responsibility for damages that may be suffered by any third party as the result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. Respectfully submitted, OZA Inspections Ltd. Senior Vice President P.Eng. OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 20 age 82 of 183 I �- ■swca�z�. BLEAMS R O A D or Zone of Influence q -W—1 Excavation/Grading r — 6.5m� Zone of Influence j �y Compaction -12m _J L_____ 1 � I 1385 Bleams I j Former Schoolhouse �. Building •� j � I L EXISTING WETACiIE GARAGE :I I • S 6 I I I I Vibration Testing Positions EXISTING SHED FIGURE 1: VIBRATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE AUGUST 2024 OZA INSPECTIONS LTD 1385 BLEAMS ROAD HERITAGE STRUCTURES NTS 8 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 83 of 183 wuec DMIM 1L Maw HT.r M'ir t 4 M 5' BLOCK A 3 STOREY (O UNITSi 1 B — „•„ V a' Ip U.O KBE S.. I �- ■swca�z�. BLEAMS R O A D or Zone of Influence q -W—1 Excavation/Grading r — 6.5m� Zone of Influence j �y Compaction -12m _J L_____ 1 � I 1385 Bleams I j Former Schoolhouse �. Building •� j � I L EXISTING WETACiIE GARAGE :I I • S 6 I I I I Vibration Testing Positions EXISTING SHED FIGURE 1: VIBRATION ZONE OF INFLUENCE AUGUST 2024 OZA INSPECTIONS LTD 1385 BLEAMS ROAD HERITAGE STRUCTURES NTS 8 OZA Inspections Ltd. 1385 Bleams Road, Kitchener August 2024 Page 83 of 183 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: September 9, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-418 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-020 466 Queen Street South (Joseph Schneider Haus) New Window Opening and New Wood Windows on 1987 Gallery Addition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-020 be approved to permit the installation of one new window opening and two new wood windows on the 1987 gallery addition to the rear of the Joseph Schneider Haus on the property municipally addressed as 466 Queen Street South, 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 a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present Heritage Planning staff's recommendation for the proposed installation of one new window opening and two new wood windows on the 1987 gallery addition to the rear of the Joseph Schneider Haus at the subject property municipally addressed as 466 Queen Street South. The key finding of this report is that the installation of one new window opening and two new wood windows will not negatively impact the heritage attributes of the subject property, the Queen Street South streetscape, or the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation 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 84 of 183 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-V-020 seeking permission to install one new window opening and two new wood windows on the 1987 gallery addition to the rear of the Joseph Schneider Haus at the subject property municipally addressed as 466 Queen Street South. 55,E Figure 1. Location Map The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD), which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property is identified as a Group `A' building in the VPAHCD. In the VPAHCD Study, it was noted as "Kitchener's most historic building." The circa 1816 building is described as, "A 2 - storey Mennonite Georgian style frame side -gabled farmhouse with full -width verandah and later rear additions to accommodate its museum functions. Enclosed by a picket fence, it is an outstanding example of conservation." The VPAHCD Plan indicates that major work requires a Heritage Permit Application. The installation of one new window opening and two new wood windows on the 1987 gallery addition located to the rear of the Joseph Schneider Haus is considered major work. The subject property is also a National Historic Site that operates as a museum owned by the Region of Waterloo. The National Historic Site status is only a commemorative status, and it does not provide statutory protection. REPORT: The subject property is located on the west side of Queen Street South between Courtland Avenue East and Schneider Avenue, within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD). The original Joseph Schneider Haus was constructed circa 1816 in the Page 85 of 183 Mennonite Georgian architectural style while the gallery addition was constructed in 1987. In 2009, Council approved the Development and Technical Services DTS-09-143 staff report which identified the subject property as a property of very high cultural heritage value or interest (Group A). The applicant is proposing to install one new window opening and two new wood windows on the 1987 gallery addition located to the rear of the Joseph Schneider Haus. The VPAHCD Plan indicates that major work requires a Heritage Permit Application (HPA), notes that work that irreversibly changes the building's historic fabric is considered major work, and identifies increasing the window profile and sizes as an example of irreversible changes considered major work requiring a HPA. Figure 2. Location of New Window Openings and New Wood Windows The VPAHCD Plan outlines building conservation guidelines for windows. These guidelines note that 1. "The position, shape and design of windows establish the historic style and character of a building. " And 2. "The Georgian style window is the earliest style and usually consists of six over six sash within a wood frame." The proposed new window opening will be four (4) feet high by six (6) feet wide located two (2) feet about the finished floor level. The proposed new wood windows will be paired with each individual window being four (4) feet high by three (3) feet wide. The proposed new wood windows will match the existing windows of the 1987 gallery addition in terms of colour (white) and design (6/6 single hung window). Page 86 of 183 �- ------------------- c ---------- r I ME -Mi u Figure 3. Design Detail for New Window Opening and New Wood Windows The Federal "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada" and the "Province's Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties" both address conservation principles and standards related to designing additions and alterations to be distinguishable/identifiable from the cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. These documents did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; however, thought was given to developing a physically and visually compatible addition in terms of location, massing, architecture, materials, and design details. Further, in the past, the mission/vision for the Joseph Schneider Haus focused on restoring, rehabilitating, and interpreting the property to the year 1856. As a result of the aforementioned information, it is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the new window opening, and the two new wood windows do not need to be distinguishable from old because in this case "old" refers to a non -original 1987 gallery addition where the proposed new window opening, and the proposed new wood windows will match those of the 1987 gallery addition. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • For several decades, the mission/vision for the Joseph Schneider Haus focused on restoring, rehabilitating, and interpreting the property to the year 1856: o The 1987 gallery addition was built prior to the passing of the 1996 designating by-law for the VPAHCD and was guided by the mission/vision; o The Federal "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada" did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; o The Province's "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties" did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; o The proposal to install a new window opening and new wood windows will match the existing window openings and the existing windows of the 1987 gallery addition; • The proposal is in keeping with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan building conservation guidelines for windows; and, Page 87 of 183 A r I ME -Mi u Figure 3. Design Detail for New Window Opening and New Wood Windows The Federal "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada" and the "Province's Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties" both address conservation principles and standards related to designing additions and alterations to be distinguishable/identifiable from the cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. These documents did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; however, thought was given to developing a physically and visually compatible addition in terms of location, massing, architecture, materials, and design details. Further, in the past, the mission/vision for the Joseph Schneider Haus focused on restoring, rehabilitating, and interpreting the property to the year 1856. As a result of the aforementioned information, it is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the new window opening, and the two new wood windows do not need to be distinguishable from old because in this case "old" refers to a non -original 1987 gallery addition where the proposed new window opening, and the proposed new wood windows will match those of the 1987 gallery addition. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning Staff note the following: • The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • For several decades, the mission/vision for the Joseph Schneider Haus focused on restoring, rehabilitating, and interpreting the property to the year 1856: o The 1987 gallery addition was built prior to the passing of the 1996 designating by-law for the VPAHCD and was guided by the mission/vision; o The Federal "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada" did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; o The Province's "Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties" did not exist when the 1987 gallery addition was built; o The proposal to install a new window opening and new wood windows will match the existing window openings and the existing windows of the 1987 gallery addition; • The proposal is in keeping with the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan building conservation guidelines for windows; and, Page 87 of 183 The proposal will not detract from the character of the property, the integrity of the Queen Street South streetscape, nor the Victoria Park Area 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 install a new window opening. 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-020 Page 88 of 183 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order thal their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 • Repointing of brick Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Samples Page 3 of 10 It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2024 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2024 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 24, 2023 January 9, 2024 December 29, 2023 February 6, 2024 January 26, 2024 March 5, 2024 February 23, 2024 April 2, 2024 March 29, 2024 May 7, 2024 April 26, 2024 June 4, 2024 - No July Meeting June 28, 2024 August 61 2024 July 26, 2024 September 3, 2024 August 23, 2024 October 1, 2024 September 27, 2024 November 5, 2024 - No December Meeting Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavour to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Demolition 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ New Construction ® Alteration 466 Queen Street S., Kitchener, ON, N2G 1W7 Legal Description (if know): Schneider Haus National Historic Site Page 7 of 10 ❑ 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. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Stephen Key, Region of Waterloo Address: 150 Frederick Street City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, Ontario, N2H 21-9 Phone: 226-749-0113 Email: skey@regionofwaterloo.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Kelvin Lugo Company: Greystone Design Inc. Address: 156 King Street, East City/Province/Postal Code: Cambridge, ON, N3H 3M4 Phone: 519-896-1010 Email: kelvin.lugo@greystoneinc.ca Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 10 Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. See attached document 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: See attached document Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: See attached document 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): See attached document 7. PROPOSED WORKS Sept, 2024 October, 2024 a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? M Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Michelle Drake c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? Jennifer Young ® Yes ❑ No d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ® Yes ❑ No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number, #24 119399 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: �� K Date: Aug 22, 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, Stephen Key, Region of Waterloo owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Greystone inc to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Aug 22, 2024 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2024 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: Page 10 of 10 STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage G Greystone Cambridge Toronto Edmonton 154 King St. East 522 Mount Pleasant 12227 107 Ave, Unit 200 Cambridge, ON N3H 3M4 Road, Suite 200 Edmonton, AB T5M 1Y9 T: (519) 896-1010 Toronto, ON M4S 2M3 T: (780) 652-1648 info@greystoneinc.ca. T: (416) 440-0058 www.g reystonei nc.ca August 22, 2024 Schneider Haus National Historic Site 466 Queen Street South Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 1W7 Attn.: Development & Housing Approvals Heritage Permit Application & Submission 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4V6 To whom it may concern, This letter is in additional submission to the noted Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements dated August 23rd, 2024 on the above noted project. Our response for each of the items is as follows: ITEM #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. Comment: The proposed work involves alteration to the existing Schneider Haus National Historic Site. The proposed alteration includes partial removal of the existing exterior wall in order to satisfy a new opening for provided window. This alteration is designed to retain all existing physical elements of the building and match existing window characteristics and colour selection. The proposed work is comprised of demolition and installation including: • Remove existing portion of exterior non -load bearing wall with rough opening size of (4'- 0"H and 6'-0"W at 2'-0" above finished floor). • Maintain existing power outlet below. • Dispose of existing construction & existing materials. • Patch and repair adjacent walls to match existing construction and exterior finish • Patch and repair any damaged floor and ceiling to match existing construction. • Place new 3'-0"W x 4'-0"H single hung window mounted at 2'-0" from finished floor. Greystone is a Division of Greystone Design Group Inc. Building Permit Page 1 of 4 Page 99 of 183 • Place new window frame on interior side of building. • Wall to be re -painted after window installation. • Spray foam to fill necessary gaps. • Place new flashing to the rough opening on the exterior with new sill, jamb and Blueskin type membrane to tie into air barrier. • Exterior trim colour to match existing window trims throughout the building. The proposed construction of the window assembly wall will be as followed • Existing top and bottom plate within the wall assembly to remain. • Cut into existing 2x6 wood studs and toe nail into new lintel. • Built-up new lintel consisting of (3) 2x8 plywood & (2) 1/2" plywood spacers. • Existing sheathing to be refastened to new framing from outside with (2) 1/2" common wire nails. • Built-up (2) 2x6 jack studs & (2) 2x6 king studs either side of opening. • Cut into existing 2x6 wood studs and install new built-up (2) 2x6 plywood sill on top. See Appendix A for photographs of existing conditions & Appendix B for detailed drawings of proposed work. ITEM #6 REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES' Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Comment: The proposed work is necessary to bring natural outdoor light inside to the existing use of an institutional children's classroom. The current lack of windows in this space does not bring enough ample lighting for the space's use. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Comment: The proposed work will carry out the consistency in keeping the original architectural farmhouse style of the building by allowing for minimal style adjustment. The new double placed single - hung window will be wood configured which will tie into the building's 19 -century vernacular design including its rectangular massing, modified neo-classical exterior design and detailing with pitched roof, and large verandah. Evidence of heavy -timber construction and wood finishing materials throughout the building defines the proposed selection of the new window. It is proposed that the city can select a colour from the different colour options provided by the window distributor. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Greystone is a Division of Greystone Design Group Inc. Building Permit Page 2 of 4 Page 100 of 183 Comment: The design approach involves minimal intervention and in conjunction to Part 3: The Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; by taking into consideration of recognizing the historic importance and maintaining the character -defining elements by using standard materials. Indicated in part 4.3.5 of the standards and guidelines, statement shows that windows are integral to the exterior wall assembly and in addition to their function — providing light, views, and fresh air. The proposed work will consist of longevity assembling parts containing weatherstripping, adjusting hardware, sealed openings, joints, and energy efficiency. Protecting adjacent character -defining elements from accidental damage will be crucial during construction work. See attached Appendix A & Appendix B for photographs and documented drawings of the proposed work. We trust that these satisfy the comments & application requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact should you have any further questions. Kelvin Lugo Intermediate Architectural Technologist kelvin.luao@arevstoneinc.ca Stefano Racco Key Account Manager stefa n o. ra cco @ g reysto n e i n c. ca Greystone is a Division of Greystone Design Group Inc. Building Permit Page 3 of 4 Page 101 of 183 Appendix A (Photographs of existing building & characteristics) Greystone is a Division of Greystone Design Group Inc. Building Permit Page 4 of 4 Page 102 of 183 � $133818■llna f f m : � ® 2 4-01XI � $133818■llna f f m : � ® M - j C) G: ƒ srm ) ` \ \ ;9 is \ ( §()()-ly ^ r] \}\\\\,\�/ _ ;F�- y\�� \( �- - - - ---------- - - - �\ � / ƒ \ Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: September 10, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-426 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 107 Courtland Avenue East 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 107 Courtland Avenue East 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 107 Courtland Avenue East Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 107 Courtland Avenue East has been drafted by Heritage Planning staff. • The key finding of this report is that 107 Courtland Avenue East 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 August 6, 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 106 of 183 BACKGROUND: 107 Courtland Avenue East is a two-storey 20th century brick school built as a Vernacular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style. The school is situated on a 3.96 - acre parcel of land located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East between Peter Street and Cedar Street in the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Secondary Plan of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the school. A C05I / Figure 1.0: Location 97 122 101 2 34 103 %281 30 34 Y 166 10 1 4'76 { -. 182 $ 1 24 7 $ 3 (126 s` Map of Subject Property (107 Courtland Avenue East) A full assessment of 107 Courtland Avenue East has been completed, including: field evaluation and archival research. 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 was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on August 6, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 107 Courtland Avenue East 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 Page 107 of 183 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. Bill 200, the Homeowner Protect Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. 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 107 Courtland Avenue East was contacted via second letter sent by mail dated August 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 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: Front (West Fagade) Elevation 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 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. 107 Courtland Avenue East is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. It satisfies five (5) of nine (9) criteria for designation under the Page 108 of 183 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. 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 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 No 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) Design/Physical Value The property municipally addressed as 107 Courtland Avenue East demonstrates design/physical value as a rare example of a two-storey 20th century brick school built as a Vernacular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style. In Ontario, the Beaux-Arts Classicism architectural style was present between 1900 and 1945, and primarily used for public and semipublic buildings, such as post offices, banks and libraries. Ontario architects generally preferred a Classical interpretation of the Roman or Greek architecture but on a smaller scale. This preference can be seen in the scale, symmetry, and simplicity of the Courtland Avenue Public School building design. The design also pays tribute to the semi -circular arches of the main entrance, bell tower, and second floor windows of an earlier school on the site through the use of blind semi -circular stone arches. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 107 Courtland Avenue East has historical/associative value due to its direct association with public education and because Page 109 of 183 it demonstrates the work of an architect and builder who were significant to Berlin (now Kitchener). The subject property was the third site for a public school in the Berlin. The original building was constructed in 1890 as a four -room school at a cost of $5500. In 1903, four new classrooms were added to the school at a cost of $3000 The current building was designed by Bernal A. Jones and constructed by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert) in 1928 at a cost of $94,297. B.A. Jones moved to Kitchener in 1922 and worked with W.H.E. Schmalz until opening his own office in 1926. During that time, B.A. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalz design the 1922-23 Kitchener City Hall. B.A. Jones is also responsible for the design of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 KW Granite Club, the 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd. The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974. They were responsible for the construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 KW Granite Club and the 1938-39 Registry Theatre. Contextual Value The contextual value relates to how the property is physically, functionally, and historically linked to its surroundings. The building is physically and historically linked to its original site and continues to function as a senior public school. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 107 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the design/physical value of the brick school built as a Vernacular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style, including: • Front (North) Fagade o a symmetrical fagade with five bays; o a flat roof; o a central bay with: ■ yellow brick and stone; ■ concrete classical main entrance door surround with pilasters and entablature; ■ the entablature features a plain architrave, a frieze with round reliefs, ■ a moulded cornice with dentils; ■ a stone sign that reads "COURTLAND"; ■ copper flashing is used above the entablature, the stone sign, the second -floor stone belt course, and the roof; ■ a stone belt course below the first floor windows; ■ a stone belt course above the second floor windows; ■ a pair of window openings with a stone surround; and, ■ a bronze plague that reads "Courtland Senior Public School 1890 — 1990 to Commemorate One Hundred Years in Education." o the two bays on either side of the central bay feature: Page 110 of 183 ■ four flatheaded basement windows; ■ yellow brick; ■ a stone belt course below the first floor windows; ■ a window pattern on both the first and second floor that features a single window opening with a stone sill, a ribbon of three window openings with a stone sill, and another single window opening with a stone sill; ■ a second stone belt course above the second floor windows; ■ the belt course features decorative concrete embellishments; ■ copper flashing; and, ■ copper flashing on the roof. o the two end bays feature: ■ yellow brick and concrete; ■ three flatheaded basement windows; ■ a concrete belt course below the first -floor windows; ■ blind stone semi -circular arches with decorative central keystones (agraffe) supported by fluted pilasters with plain bases and crown caps; ■ stone cartouches above the blind concrete arches; and, ■ stone medallions with brick surrounds. • Side (East) Fagade o portion of the circa 1928 fagade, which is visible; o yellow brick and stone materials; o two flathead enclosed basement windows; o a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second floor windows; o a single flatheaded 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and a stone sill on both the first- and second -storey; o a ribbon of three flatheaded 1/1 windows with enclosed transoms and a stone sill on both the first- and second -storey; and, o copper flashing on the roof. • Side (West) Fagade o yellow brick and stone; o four flathead basement windows with stone sills; o a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second -floor windows; o a ribbon of three 1/1 flatheaded windows with enclosed transom and stone sills bookended by a single 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and stone sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, o copper flashing on the roof. 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 111 of 183 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 May 17, 2024. Heritage Planning staff corresponded by email with the owner of the property and met virtually on June 21, 2024 to discuss the proposed designation. During this meeting, the owner advised that they do not object to the proposed designation of 87-91 King Street West. 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, 2027, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 200. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2032). 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) • Bill 200, Homeowners Protection Act, 2024 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update (DSD -2024-250) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update (DSD -2024-333) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update (DSD -2024-413) APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 107 Courtland Avenue East Page 112 of 183 4 0 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 107 Courtland Avenue South 97 `? 101 7 �Z2 &34' 2 24 Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ® Historical Value ® Contextual Value I 'l 41 • "- ,1451 6 t1 ` 70 i7: ® Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑Environmental Value 76 If- 182 i26 Municipal Address -107 Courtland Avenue East Legal Description: Plan 419 Lot 4-9 Part Lot 10 & 11 GCT Lot 277 Year Built- c. 1928 Architectural Style- Vernacular example of Beaux Arts Classicism Original Owner- Public School Board Original Use- Public Elementary School Condition- Good Page 113 of 183 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource The property municipally addressed as 107 Courtland Avenue East is a two-storey 20th century brick school built as a Vernacular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style. The school is situated on a 3.96 -acre parcel of land located on the south side of Courtland Avenue East between Peter Street and Cedar Street in the Cedar Hill and Schneider Creek Secondary Plan of the City of Kitchenerwithin the Region of Waterloo. The principal resou rce that contributes to the heritage value is the school. Heritage Value 107 Courtland Avenue East is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Desian/Phvsical Value The property municipally addressed as 107 Courtland Avenue East demonstrates design/physical value as a rare example of a two-storey 20th century brick school built as a Vern acular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style. In Ontario, the Beaux-Arts Classicism architectural style was present between 1900 and 1945, and primarily used for public and semipublic buildings, such as post offices, banks and libraries (Blumenson, 1990). Ontario architects generally preferred a Classical interpretation of the Roman or Greek architecture but on a smaller scale (Blumenson, 1990). This preference can be seen in the scale, symmetry, and simplicity of the Courtland Aven ue Pu blic School building design. The design also pays tribute to the semi -circular arches of the main entrance, bell tower, and second floor windows of an earlier school on the site through the use of blind semi -circular stone arches. Front (North Elevation) FaQade The front fagade faces Courtland Avenue East and features a symmetrical facade with five bays and a flat roof. The central bay features- yellow brick and stone materials; a classical frontispiece that is raised from the ground features smooth pilasters with simple moulded base and a crown cap topped by an entablature; the entablature features a plain architrave, a decorative frieze with round reliefs, and a moulded cornice with dentils; above the entablature sits a stone sign that reads "COURTLAND"; copperflashing is used abovethe entablature, the stone sign, the second floor stone belt course, and the roof; stone belt courses are located below the first floor windows and above the second floor windows; a pairof window openings with a stone surround; and, a bronze plaque that reads "Courtland Senior Public School 1890 — 1990 to Commemorate One Hundred Years in Education." The two bays on eitherside of the central bay feature: fourflatheaded basement windows; yellow brick and stone materials; a stone belt course below the first floor windows and above the second floorwindows; the belt course above the second floorwindows feature decorative stone reliefs; a window pattern on both the first and second floor that features a single flatheaded 1/1 window with enclosed transom and a stone sill, a ribbon of three flatheaded 1/1 windows with enclosed transom and a stone sill, and another single flatheaded 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and a stone sill; and, copperflashing on the entablature, stone sign, second floor belt course, and roof. The two end bays feature: yellow brick and stone materials; three flatheaded basement windows; a stone belt course that aligns with the bottom of the first floor windows and a broken stone belt course Page 114 of 183 that aligns with the top of the second floor windows; blind stone semi -circular arches with decorative central keystones (agraffe) supported by fluted pilasters with plain bases and crown caps; stone cartouches above the blind concrete arches; and, stone medallions with brick surrounds. Side (East) FaQade The side fagade faces East but only a portion of the circa 1928 fagade is visible because the 1964 addition was built on to the East fagade. The portion of the circa 1928 building that can be seen features: yellow brick and stone materials; two flathead enclosed basement windows; a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second floorwindows; a single flatheaded 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and a stone sill on both the first- and second -storey; a ribbon of three flatheaded 1/1 windows with enclosed transoms and a stone sill on both the first- and second - storey; and, copperflashing on the roof. Side (West) Facade The side fagade faces West and features: yellow brick and stone; fourflathead basementwindows with stone sills; a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second-floorwindows; a ribbon of three 1/1 flatheaded windows with enclosed transom and stone sills bookended by a single 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and stone sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, copperflashing on the roof. Rear (South) FaQade The rear fagade faces South and consists entirely of the 1964 addition. Addition (1964) A one storey addition was builtof the south fagade of 107 Courtland Avenue East. The addition is set back behind the frontline of the circa 1928 building. The addition is constructed of brown brick and features the school's name "COURLTAND SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL" as well as the Waterloo Region District School Board logo. The addition does not detract from the character of 107 Courtland Avenue, orthe character of the Courtland Avenue East streetscape as it is setback from the original fagade, lower in height, and situated on a lower elevation of land. Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 107 Courtland Avenue East has historical/associative value due to its direct association with public education and because it demonstrates the work of an architectand builder who were significant to Berlin (now Kitchener). The subject property was the third site fora public school in the Berlin (now Kitchener). The original building was constructed in 1890 as a four -room school ata cost of $5500 (Berliner Journal, 1890). It's first principal was Mary Cairnes (WRDSB, 2015). The first sub -principal was Miss Edith Matheson (1890-1891) and the second principal was Miss M.B. Tier (1891-1904) (Noonan, 1975; WRDSB, 2015). In 1903, four new classrooms were added to the school ata cost of $3000 (WRDSB, 2015). Later principals included Arthur Foster (1905-1912), Peter Fischer (1912-1917), W.G. Bain (1917-1919 & 1920-1927), and, Olive Matthews (1919-1920) (Noonan, 1975; WRDSB, 2015). Peter Fisher was one of fourfounding members of the Waterloo Historical Society (The Record, 2012). The current building was designed by Bernal A. Jones and constructed by the Dunker Brothers (William and Albert) in 1928 at a cost of $94,297 (WRDSB, 2015). B.A. Jones attended the Toronto Page 115 of 183 Technical School and worked as a draftsman for Frank Darling, in the office of Darling and Pearson, between 1908 and 1922 (Hill, 2009). B.A. Jones moved to Kitchener in 1922 and worked with W.H.E. Schmalz until opening his own office in 1926 (Hill, 2009). During that time, B.A. Jones assisted W.H.E. Schmalzdesign the 1922-23 Kitchener City Hall. B.A. Jones is also responsible forthe design of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 KW Granite Club, the 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd (Hill, 2009). The Dunker Brothers were a well-known and respected local building company that operated between 1887 and 1974 (Parks Canada, 2013). They were responsible forthe construction of several other important buildings in Kitchener such as the 1927 KW Granite Club and the 1938-39 Registry Theatre (Parks Canada, 2013; Schmidt, 1977). Studentswere sentto nearby schoolsduring construction and the first principal of the newly renovated and expanded school was Stanley Hodgins (1927-1937) (WRDSB, 2015). A major renovation circa 1964 required the demolition of two single detached dwellings to construct a $500,000 addition to the side and rear of the building to convert the school from a primary to a senior public school (KW Record, 1964; WRDSB, 2015). This renovation required the demolition of eight rooms, the addition of six new classrooms along with rooms for music, art, industrial arts, home economics, science and a double gymnasium with showers and changes rooms (WRDSB, 2015). The additions maintained the front portion of the 1928 building. Post renovation, the principal was William H. Taylor (1965-1970). Mr. Taylor was community minded contributing to local sports and being honoured by the Mayor for 20 years of service as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission (WRDSB, 2015). Contextual Value The contextual value relates to how the property is physically, functionally, and historically linked to its surroundings. The building is physically and historically linked to its original site, and continues to function as a senior public school. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 107 Courtland Avenue East resides in the following heritage attributes: All elements related to the design/physical value of the brick school built as a Vernacular example of the Beaux Arts Classicism architectural style, including: • Front (North) Facade o asymmetrical fagade with five bays; o a flat roof; o a central bay with: ■ yellow brick and stone; ■ concrete classical main entrance door surround with pilasters and entablature; ■ the entablature features a plain architrave, a frieze with round reliefs, ■ a moulded cornice with dentils; ■ a stone sign that reads "COURTLAND"; ■ copper flashing is used above the entablature, the stone sign, the second -floor stone belt course, and the roof; ■ a stone belt course below the first floor windows; ■ a stone belt course above the second floor windows; ■ a pair of window openings with a stone surround; and, Page 116 of 183 ■ a bronze plague that reads "Courtland Senior Public School 1890 — 1990 to Commemorate One Hundred Years in Education." o the two bays on either side of the central bay featu re: ■ fourflatheaded basement windows; ■ yellow brick; ■ a stone belt course below the first floor windows; ■ a window pattern on both the first and second floor that features a single window opening with a stone sill, a ribbon of three window openings with a stone sill, and anothersingle window opening with a stone sill; ■ a second stone belt course above the second floorwindows; ■ the belt course features decorative concrete embellishments; ■ copperflashing; and, ■ copperflashing on the roof. o the two end bays feature: ■ yellow brick and concrete; ■ three flatheaded basement windows; ■ a concrete beltcourse below the first -floor windows-, ■ blind stone semi -circular arches with decorative central keystones (agraffe) supported by fluted pilasters with plain bases and crown caps; ■ stone cartouches above the blind concrete arches; and, ■ stone medallions with brick surrounds. • Side (East) Facade o portion of the circa 1928 facade, which is visible; o yellow brick and stone materials; o two flathead enclosed basement windows; o a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second floorwindows; o a single flatheaded 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and a stone sill on both the first- and second -storey; o a ribbon of three flatheaded 1/1 windows with enclosed transoms and a stone sill on both the first- and second -storey; and, o copperflashing on the roof. • Side (West) Fagade o yellow brick and stone; o fourflathead basementwindows with stone sills; o a stone belt course below the first -floor windows and above the second -floor windows-, o a ribbon of three 1/1 flatheaded windows with enclosed transom and stone sills bookended by a single 1/1 window with an enclosed transom and stone sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, o copperflashing on the roof. References Berliner Journal. (1890). NewBuildingsin Berlin. Berliner Journal: Berlin, Ontario. Hill, R. (2009). Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950. Retrieved from http://www.dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/architects/view/173 on October 4, 2013. Noonan, G. (1975). A History of Kitchener. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Page 117 of 183 Parks Canada. (2013). Canada's Historic Places. Registry Theatre. Retrieved from http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=12427 on October 4, 2013. Unknown. (1990). Courtland 1890-1990 (100th anniversary program). Courtland Public School: Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB). (2015). Principals and Vice -Principals Courtland Avenue P. S. 1890-2015. WRDSB: Kitchener, ON. Photographs Front Elevation (North Facade) —107 Courtand Avenue East Side Elevation (West Fagade) — 107 Courtland Avenue East Page 118 of 183 -,^' � =h- h0, a 1;' �'lM SY" y 1°' 'w �yYw�~ ��'K•"•r / Y �, , w lti 4 -27 Side Elevation (East Fagade) — 107 Courtland Avenue East Rear Elevation (South Fagade) — 107 Courtland Avenue East Page 119 of 183 1 KrTMh,!R CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 107 Courtland Avenue East Address: Public school, c. 1928, Beaux Arts Classicism Description: (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: Michelle Drake Recorder: Date: April 24, 2024 ❑ 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 ❑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 ❑ No ❑X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or Page 120 of 183 1 KrT HES ER scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. 4. The property has historical value or N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ associative value Yes ❑X Yes ❑X because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. * Additional archival work may be required. 5. The property has historical 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 ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑X because it demonstrates or Page 121 of 183 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 maybe required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ 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 ❑ 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 Page 10 of 15 Page 122 of 183 1 KrTcHEN�R Additional Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Criteria Interior: Is the interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ arrangement, Yes ❑ finish, craftsmanship and/or detail noteworthy? Completeness: Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ 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 referto the list of heritage attributes within the Page 123 of 183 1 KrTcHEN�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 ❑ 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 ❑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 ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ Page 124 of 183 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 ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑X Institutional — School 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 Doesthe 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 125 of 183 1 KrT HENIJR Doesthe 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 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: Page 14 of 15 Page 126 of 183 General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 15 of 15 Page 127 of 183 Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 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 9 DATE OF REPORT: September 10, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-425 SUBJECT: Notice of Intention to Designate 83 Benton Street 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 83 Benton Street 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 83 Benton Street Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. • An updated Statement of Significance describing the cultural heritage value or interest of 83 Benton Street has been drafted by Heritage Planning staff. • The key finding of this report is that 83 Benton Street meets two (2) 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. • 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 August 6, 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 128 of 183 BACKGROUND: 83 Benton Street is a two-storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.32 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Benton Street between St. George Street and Church Street in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Figure 1.0: Location Map of Subject Property (83 Benton Street) A full assessment of 83 Benton Street has been completed, including: field evaluation and archival research. The findings concluded that the subject property meets two (2) 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 August 6, 2024. The Committee recommended that pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest of 83 Benton Street 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. Bill 200, the Homeowner Protect Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. 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 83 Benton Street was contacted via second letter sent by mail dated August 9, 2024. This letter was accompanied by the updated Statement of Significance and a "Guide to Heritage Designation for Property Owners" prepared in June Page 129 of 183 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 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: Front (North Fa(;ade) Elevation — 83 Benton Street 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. Page 130 of 183 83 Benton Street is recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative values. It satisfies two (2) 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. 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 Unknown 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 property municipally addressed as 83 Benton Street demonstrates design/physical value as a unique example of the Italianate architectural style and a rare example of the Italianate subtype known as centered gable. This example of the centred gable subtype is a variation of the farmhouse elevations and plans introduced in 1865. The building is two - stories in height and features a low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower, a front -facing centered gable with lunette window, wide overhanging eaves supported by decorative brackets, tall and narrow segmentally arched door and window openings, double entrance door, and a full -width hipped roof one -storey verandah with square beveled corner posts and decorative brackets. The 1/1 hung windows do not appear to be original as their flathead does not match the segmentally arched window opening. The house is in good condition. Page 131 of 183 Historical/Associative Value The property municipally addressed as 83 Benton Street has historical/associative value for its relationship to an early property owner, the original building owner and the Bitzer family. The property was purchased by Christopher Blum in 1871. Christopher Blum was the great -great-uncle of property owner in 2014. His niece and husband, Adeline and Conrad Bitzer, built the building around 1886. Conrad Bitzer was an honoured citizen who practiced law, held several political offices and was actively involved in various associations and boards. Conrad and Adeline had six children who were born and/or raised at the family home located at 83 Benton Street. Three of their children held political offices and were active in various associations and boards. Arno Lindner Bitzer served as an alderman between 1917 and 1919. Armin Moritz "Arnie" Bitzer was an electrical engineer. He served as a lieutenant with the Canadian Signal Corps during WWI, the Public Utilities Commission in 1939 and 1940, the Family Relief Board, and the secretary of the Kitchener Taxpayers Association. Armin served as an alderman between 1958 and 1960 and was a vocal opponent of the civic centre project, which he appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). In an interesting turn of events, Armin had a heart attack and died at the OMB meeting held at Kitchener City Hall on October 31, 1967. Wilfrid Laurier Bitzer was born in the house at 83 Benton Street. He was the youngest child and was named after Wilfrid Laurier who was the Prime Minister at the time of his birth. Wilfrid Laurier Bitzer began his real estate career in the 1940s and retired in 1990 at the age of 94. He was active in the real estate industry, German community, and many community groups. He also served as a Kitchener Alderman from 1954-1957. Paul Jewitt Bizer was the grandson of Conrad and Adeline Bitzer Paul was born in Toronto but returned to his ancestral home at 83 Benton Street when he was nine years old. He attended Kitchener Collegiate Institute and Waterloo College before becoming a civil servant in the Saskatchewan government. He served as a Kitchener Alderman between 1977-1979 and helped to launch the Centre in the Square. He was a lifelong member of the United Church of Canada, including Trinity United Church in Kitchener. The Bitzer family was honoured on the German Pioneer's Day in 2012. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 83 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: o Front Elevation (North Fagade) ■ three bays; ■ orientation towards Benton Street; ■ prominent centre bay features: • buff (yellow) brick construction; • low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; • front -facing centred gable containing a lunette window with brick surround and wood sill; • wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; • fascia, soffit and frieze board; Page 132 of 183 • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills; • full -width hipped roof one -storey verandah with square beveled corner posts and decorative woodwork; and, • double entrance segmentally arched wood door with lower panels and upper lites. two end bays feature: • a setback approximately 16 feet from the centre bay; • buff (yellow) brick construction; • low-pitched cross -hipped roof; • wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) brackets; • fascia, soffit and frieze board; • rubble stone foundation; and, • eastern bay displays segmentally arched false window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills while the western bay displays segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills. o Side Elevation (East Fagade) ■ three bays; ■ buff (yellow) brick construction; ■ low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; ■ wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; ■ fascia, soffit and frieze board; ■ evidence of an original chimney; ■ paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, ■ rubble stone foundation. o Side Elevation (West Fagade) ■ three bays; ■ buff (yellow) brick construction; ■ low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; ■ rear facing gable at the back of the house; ■ wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; ■ fascia, soffit and frieze board; ■ evidence of an original chimney; ■ paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; ■ door openings on both the first- and second -storey; and, ■ rubble stone foundation. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Page 133 of 183 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 May 17, 2024. Heritage Planning staff corresponded by email with the owner of the property and met virtually on June 21, 2024 to discuss the proposed designation. During this meeting, the owner advised that they do not object to the proposed designation of 87-91 King Street West. 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, 2027, after which it will be removed in accordance with the legislative changes enacted by Bill 200. Once removed from the MHR, it cannot be re -listed on the MHR for five (5) years (i.e., January 1, 2032). 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) • Bill 200, Homeowners Protection Act, 2024 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update (DSD -2024-250) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update (DSD -2024-333) • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update (DSD -2024-413) APPROVED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director, Development and Housing Approvals ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Statement of Significance for 83 Benton Street Page 134 of 183 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 83 Benton Street Figure 1.0: Location Map — 83 Benton Street Summary of Significance ®Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ❑Contextual Value ❑Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 83 Benton Street Legal Description: Plan 205 Part Lot 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 Together with & Subject to ROW Year Built: c. 1886 Architectural Style: Italianate Original Owner: Adeline & Conrad Bitzer Original Use: Residential Condition: Good Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 83 Benton Street is a two-storey late 19th century brick house built in the Italianate architectural style. The house is situated on a 0.32 -acre parcel of land located on the east side of Benton Street between St. George Street and Church Street in the Cedar Hill Planning Community of the City of Kitchener Page 135 of 183 within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the house. Heritage Value 83 Benton Street is recognized for its design/physical and historical/associative values Desian/Phvsical Value The Italianate architectural style originates from the romanticism of the mid -1800s. Italianate buildings are often two -stories in height and, feature low-pitched roof with wide eaves and brackets beneath; tall, narrow arched windows; and, a square cupola or tower (McAlester, 1984). Six principal subtypes can be distinguished, including approximately 15% that represent the centered gable subtype that may showcase a simple or compound plan with a front facing centred gable that projects from a low- pitched hipped roof (McAlester, 1984). In 1865, The Canada Farmerjournal printed elevations and plans for a two-story square plan farmhouse with a symmetrical design featuring a centred gable frontispiece, hung windows with hood molds, corner quoins, chimneys and panelled front door with transom and side Iites (Blumenson, 1990; Kyles, 2016). These elevations and plans were unique to Ontario. 83 Benton Street demonstrates design/physical value as a unique example of the Italianate architectural style and a rare example of the Italianate subtype known as centered gable. This example of the centred gable subtype is a variation of the farmhouse elevations and plans introduced in 1865. The building is two -stories in height and features a low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower, a front -facing centered gable with lunette window, wide overhanging eaves supported by decorative brackets, tall and narrow segmentally arched door and window openings, double entrance door, and a full -width hipped roof one -storey verandah with square beveled corner posts and decorative brackets. The 1/1 hung windows do not appear to be original as their flathead does not match the segmentally arched window opening. The house is in good condition. Front Elevation (North Fa(;ade) The front facade of the building is three bays wide and faces Benton Street. The prominent centre bay features buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; a front -facing centred gable containing a lunette window with brick surround and wood sill; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills; full -width hipped roof one -storey verandah with square beveled corner posts and decorative woodwork; and, a double entrance segmentally arched wood door with lower panels and upper lites. The two end bays are setback approximately 16 feet from the centre bay, are about 6 feet wide, and the ridge of their cross -hipped roofline aligns with the rear of the main hip roof. These bays feature buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched cross -hipped roof; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) brackets; fascia, soffit and frieze board; rubble stone foundation and, the eastern bay displays segmentally arched false window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills while the western bay displays segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills. Side Elevation (East Fagade) The side fagade of the original building is three bays wide. The bay closest to Benton Street features buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; wide Page 136 of 183 overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; evidence of an original chimney; and, rubble stone foundation. The middle bay features buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched cross -hipped roof; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, rubble stone foundation. The end bay has minimal visibility from the sidewalk and Benton Street. Side Elevation (West Fagade) The side fagade of the original building is three bays wide. The bay closest to Benton Street features buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; evidence of an original chimney; and, rubble stone foundation. The middle bay features buff (yellow) brick construction; a low-pitched cross -hipped roof; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, rubble stone foundation. The end bay is visible from St. George Street and features: buff (yellow) brick construction; gable roofline; wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; fascia, soffit and frieze board; segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; a door opening on both the first- and second -storey; and, rubble stone foundation. This fagade also features a non -original two-storey verandah. Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative values relate to an early property owner, the original building owner and the Bitzer family. The property (lot 20) was purchased by Christopher Blum in 1871 (Bitzer, 2014). Christopher Blum was the great -great-uncle of property owner in 2014 (Bitzer, 2014). His niece and husband, Adeline and Conrad Bitzer, built the building around 1886 (Bitzer, 2014). Conrad Bitzer (b. January 11, 1853; d. September 22, 1903) was an honoured citizen who practiced law, held several political offices and was actively involved in various associations and boards. Conrad obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Toronto in 1878 and went on to study law in the office of Bowlby and Clement in Berlin until he was called to the bar in 1881 (Berliner Journal, 1903). He ws the first German-speaking lawyer in Berlin (Wikipedia, 2023). Between 1882 and 1892 he practiced law in partnership with Alex Millar, K.C. and in 1892 he began his independent practice (Berliner Journal, 1903). Conrad served as Deputy Reeve and Reeve of the Town and County Council in 1890 and 1891 and Mayor of Berlin in 1892 (Berliner Journal, 1903). He was a member of the Berlin School Board, the Berlin High School Board, the Berlin High School ex -Pupil's Association, the St. Peter's Lutheran Church, the local YMCA, and the liberal party (Berliner Journal, 1903). His involvement with the school boards continued until his death in 1903 (Bitzer, 2014). He also served on the finance and railroad committee of the second Saengerfest festival committee in 1897 (Berliner Journal, 1897). Conrad and Adeline had six children who were born and/or raised at the family home located at 83 Benton Street (Koch, 1986; Wikipedia, 2023). Three of their children held political offices and were active in various associations and boards. Arno Lindner Bitzer (b. February 7, 1858; d. July 16, 1933) served as an alderman between 1917 and 1919 (Bitzer, 2014; Bonk, 2024). Armin Moritz "Arnie" Bitzer (b. October 4, 1885; d. 1967) was an electrical engineer (KW Record, 1967; Bonk, 2024). He served as a lieutenant with the Canadian Signal Corps during WWI, the Public Utilities Commission in 1939 and 1940, the Family Relief Board, and the secretary of the Kitchener Taxpayers Association (KW Record, 1967). Armin served as an alderman between 1958 and 1960 (Bitzer, 2014) and was a Page 137 of 183 vocal opponent of the civic centre project, which he appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (KW Record, 1967). In an interesting turn of events, Armin had a heart attack and died at the OMB meeting held at Kitchener City Hall on October 31, 1967 (KW Record, 1967). Wilfrid Laurier Bitzer (b. February 10, 1896; d. 1996) was born in the house at 83 Benton Street (Bonk, 2024; Koch, 1986). He was the youngest child and was named after Wilfrid Laurier who was the Prime Minister at the time of his birth (KW Record, 1996. Wilfrid Laurier Bitzer began his real estate career in the 1940s and retired in 1990 at the age of 94 (KW Record, 1996; KW Record, 1990). Wilfrid partnered with Michael Budaker forming the real estate firm of Bitzer-Budaker Ltd., which operated between 1983 and 1990 (KW Record, 1990). He was the president of the K -W Real Estate Board in 1951 (KW Record, 1996). Wilfrid was also active in the German community and was known as the German `Godfather' (KW Record, 1981). He was a founding member and a long-time president of the Trans Canada Alliance of German Canadians, a founding and honorary member of the German Business and Professional Men's Association and the founder of the Canadian Society for German Relief (KW Record, 1996). His work with the Canadian Society for German Relief earned him a Federal Republic of Germany's Medal First Class in 1975 (KW Record, 1996). He was honoured in 1981 for his work with the German community that included helping German immigrants to come to Kitchener, helping them with language barriers, helping them process immigration forms and acting as a liaison between West Germany and its former citizens (KW Record, 1981). He was the Honorary German Consul between 1956 and 1981 (Bitzer, 2014). He served as a Kitchener Alderman from 1954 to 1957 and was active with other community groups including the Granite Club, the Rotary Club of Kitchener and the Concordia Club (KW Record, 1996). At the time of his death, Wilfrid was known in the real estate industry as it's "elder statesman" (KW Record, 1996). Paul Jewitt Bizer (b. 1931, d. May 12, 2020) was the grandson of Conrad and Adeline Bitzer (Bonk, 2024). Paul was born in Toronto but returned to his ancestral home at 83 Benton Street when he was nine years old (KW Record, 2020). He attended Kitchener Collegiate Institute and Waterloo College (now Wilfrid Laurier University) before becoming a civil servant in the Saskatchewan government (KW Record, 2020). He served as a Kitchener Alderman between 1977-1979 and helped to launch the Centre in the Square (Bitzer, 2014; KW Record, 2020). He was a lifelong member of the United Church of Canada, including Trinity United Church in Kitchener (KW Record, 2020). The Bitzer family was honoured on the German Pioneer's Day in 2012 (Bitzer, 2014). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 83 Benton Street resides in the following heritage attributes: ■ All elements related to the Italianate architectural style of the house, including: o Front Elevation (North Fagade) ■ three bays; orientation towards Benton Street; prominent centre bay features: • buff (yellow) brick construction; • low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; • front -facing centred gable containing a lunette window with brick surround and wood sill; • wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; • fascia, soffit and frieze board; Page 138 of 183 N N RPfPrPnr_Pc • segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills; • full -width hipped roof one -storey verandah with square beveled corner posts and decorative woodwork; and, • double entrance segmentally arched wood door with lower panels and upper lites. ■ two end bays feature: • a setback approximately 16 feet from the centre bay; • buff (yellow) brick construction; • low-pitched cross -hipped roof; • wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) brackets; • fascia, soffit and frieze board; • rubble stone foundation; and, • eastern bay displays segmentally arched false window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills while the western bay displays segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills. Side Elevation (East Facade) ■ three bays; ■ buff (yellow) brick construction; ■ low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; ■ wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; ■ fascia, soffit and frieze board; ■ evidence of an original chimney; ■ paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; and, ■ rubble stone foundation. Side Elevation (West Facade) ■ three bays; ■ buff (yellow) brick construction; ■ low-pitched hipped roof with the remnants of a cupola or tower; ■ rear facing gable at the back of the house; ■ wide overhanging eaves supported by large (not paired) decorative brackets and small (paired) decorative modillions; ■ fascia, soffit and frieze board; ■ evidence of an original chimney; ■ paired segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and wood sills on both the first- and second -storey; ■ door openings on both the first- and second -storey; and, ■ rubble stone foundation. Berliner Journal. (1897). The Second Saengerfest. Berliner Journal: Berlin, Ontario. Berliner Journal. (1903). Death of Conrad Bitzer. Succumbs to Typhoid Fever, - An Honored Citizen and Ex -Mayor of Berlin. Berliner Journal: Berlin, Ontario. Bitzer, B. (2014). E-mail to Michelle Drake dated May 15, 2014 regarding the heritage evaluation of 83 Benton Street. Page 139 of 183 Blumenson. (1990). Ontario Architecture: A Guide to Styles and Building Terms: 1784 -Present. Fitzhenry & Whiteside: Leaside, Ontario. Bonk, D. (2024). Waterloo Region Generations: A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario. https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/ Koch, H. (1986). Real estate broker, 90, is aiming for 110. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1967). Former Alderman: Armin Bitzer Dies At Civic Hearing. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1981). German `Godfather' Honored at Dinner. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1990). Bitzer retires at 94. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (1996). Obituary: Bitzer dedicated life to heritage, home town. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. KW Record. (2020). Paul Jewitt Bitzer obituary. KW Record: Kitchener, Ontario. Kyles. (2016). Building Styles. Italianate (1850-0900). Accessed on July 22, 2024 from http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/itaIianate.htm. McAlester. (1984). A Field Guide to American Houses. Random House: Toronto, Ontario. Photographs Front Elevation (North Fagade) — 83 Benton Street Page 140 of 183 Side Elevation (East Facade) — 83 Benton Street Side Elevation (West Fagade) — 83 Benton Street Page 141 of 183 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 83 Benton Street Address: c. 1886, Italianate Description: Michelle Drake Recorder: — Date: July 3, 2024 (date of construction, architectural style, etc) Photographs Attached: 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 ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X physical value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * E.g. - constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 142 of 183 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 ❑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 ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ associative value Yes ❑ Yes ❑ because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. *Additional archival work may be required. 7. The property has contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑ important in defining, maintaining or Page 143 of 183 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 8. The property has interior N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ arrangement, contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No X because it is Yes ❑ Yes ❑ physically, noteworthy? Completeness: functionally, visually Does this N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ or historically linked Yes ❑ other original to its surroundings. outbuildings, notable *Additional archival work landscaping or may be required. features that 9. The property has complete the site? 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 Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee 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 ❑X Yes ❑ structure have Yes ❑ other original outbuildings, notable landscaping or external features that complete the site? Page 144 of 183 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 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 Page 145 of 183 for adaptive re- use if possible and contribute towards equity- building and climate change action. Indigenous History: Could N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ 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 ❑X No ❑ Yes ❑ 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 ❑ Unknown ❑ Residential ❑X Commercial ❑ What is the Commercial ❑ Office ❑ Other ❑ 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. Page 146 of 183 Diversity and Inclusion: Does the subject property contribute to the cultural heritage of a community of people? Does the subject property have intangible value to a specific community of people? * E.g.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required ❑ Additional Research Required Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register Page 147 of 183 ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 148 of 183 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: October 1, 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: September 5, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-413 SUBJECT: Municipal Heritage Register Review — October 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: • 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street • 160 Margaret Avenue REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend pursuing designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for three 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. Bill 200, the Homeowners Protection Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. Listed properties are properties that have not been designated, but that the municipal Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria for designation is established by the Provincial Government (Ontario *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 149 of 183 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 completed for 79 properties. 2 properties are before the Committee as of the date of this report to be considered for designation. 27 properties have fully undergone the designation process. 37 properties are currently undergoing the designation process and are at various stages of completion. 14 properties have been reviewed and determined that no action should be taken at this time, and NOID has been withdrawn by Council (Attachment C). Bill 200, the Homeowners Protection Act, 2024, extended the time municipalities have to designate properties listed on their municipal heritage registers until January 1, 2027. Staff are working on an updated Work Plan and will bring it forward to Heritage Kitchener later this year. 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. Page 150 of 183 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. Also, among the changes brought about by Bill 23 are how properties can now be listed or designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They include: • Properties would warrant being listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register if they met one or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). • Properties could be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act if they meet two or more criteria of O. Reg 9/06 (amended through O. Reg. 569/22). The following three properties were reviewed and meet the following criteria: 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street The subject property municipally addressed as 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street 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 design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. • 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. • 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. 160 Margaret Avenue The subject property municipally addressed as 160 Margaret Avenue meets five (5) of the nine (9) criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 (amened 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 or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a communit. • 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. • The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. Page 151 of 183 • 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, 2027. 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, 2027, after which it will have to be removed. The process of designating these properties can be started at any time until January 1, 2027. 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, 2027, 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, 2032. 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. Page 152 of 183 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 2023— DSD -2023- 309 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — January 2024 Update — DSD -2024-022 • 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 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — June 2024 Update — DSD -2024-250 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — August 2024 Update — DSD -2024-333 • Municipal Heritage Register Review — September 2024 Update — DSD -2024-361 • 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 — 80-86 Union Boulevard/ 571 York Street Attachment B- Updated Statement of Significance — 160 Margaret Avenue Attachment C- Municipal Heritage Register Review Progress Page 153 of 183 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 80-86 UNION BOULEVARD / 571 YORK STREET s 8051 VP 1792%� o(i? �• `788. o•;I'I 30 lot, 26• 705 1e ' 14 /� 134 7 112 77 146 '750 156 162 13 33 a�131 gylz Park Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ® Contextual Value ❑ Social Value ❑Economic Value ❑Environmental Value Municipal Address: 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street Legal Description: Plan 203 Lot 140 Part Lots 115, 138, 139 & 140 Year Built: 1944 Architectural Styles: Mid -Century Vernacular Original Owner: A. Kraus Original Use: Residential (multiple dwelling) Condition: Very Good Page 154 of 183 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street contains two mid -20th century apartment buildings constructed in the Mid -Century Vernacular architectural style. The buildings are situated on a 0.25 acre parcel of land located on the western corner of the intersection at York Street and Union Boulevard, within the K -W Hospital Planning Community of the City of Kitchener in the Region of Waterloo. The principal resources that contribute to the heritage value of the property are the two apartment buildings. Heritage Value 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. Desian/Phvsical Value The design value of the subject property relates to the architecture of the apartment building. The building is a unique example of the Art Moderne architectural style with Art Deco influences. The buildings are three and a half storeys in height, with a raised basement and the third floor being composed of dormer additions. They feature varied roofline, curved building corners, varied brick colour, concrete banding, projecting central front bay, main entrance framed by glass blocks with stone face surround; signage above the main entrance that reads "UNION APTS" with decorative leaf motifs; symbol with the letter's `U' and `A'; and, parged concrete foundation. The buildings also have a range of different windows and window openings including 1/1 windows with concrete headers and sills, 6/6 windows with concrete sills, and glass block windows with concrete sills. The Art Moderne architectural style emerged during the 1930's and developed out of the Art Deco architectural style. It is characterized by its use of simple geometric shape, long horizontal lines and banding, curved sides and corner windows, and glass block windows as seen in 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street. The Art Deco influences can be seen in the decorative detailing that adorn the building, such as the leaf motifs above the entrance of the carved UA symbol, or the more dramatic and ornate front entrance surround. Front Fagade The front fagades of the buildings are symmetrical in their design and massing. They can be divided vertically into three sections; while all sections are approximately the same width, the northern -most and southern -most sections are recessed back from the central section and contain angled corners with glass block windows and concrete sills and headers. The side sections also contain three single hung windows with concrete sills and headers. The projecting central section contains the single front - entrance, which is framed by glass blocks and a stone -faced surround. A stone sign which reads "UNION APTS" with decorative leaf motifs is located within this surround, and above the sign there is a single lantern. Above the front entrance there are two single hung windows framed by concrete sills and headers and glass blocks to the side, as well as a decorative UA symbol just below the roofline. The roofline of the central section is square and stepped, and distinctive from the slope of the rest of the roof. The building is also divided horizontally by concrete banding which delineates the raised basement, first, and second floor. The third floor is distinguished by the roofline and dormers which do not appear to be original and are clad with white horizontal siding. Page 155 of 183 Historical/Associative Value The historic and associative value of the apartment buildings relate to their potential to contribute towards an understanding of development patterns in the late 1930's to the 1960's. This time period saw a marked change is housing, as Canada regained its economic and social footing following the second world war and opened its doors to new immigrants. As such a construction boom of apartments occurred, as they were an efficient and economical means to create a sufficient supply of housing. In 1928 14 apartments existed within Kitchener and Waterloo (Vernon's Directory, 1928). By 1945 there were 66 apartment buildings, and by 1955 there were 109 (Vernon's Directory, 1945 and 1955) 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street was one of the first of several low-rise apartment buildings constructed in the Art Moderne style between the time period of 1944-1954. The Art Moderne style was an appropriate choice for such developments, as it was a response from designers which sought to meet the needs of ordinary citizens while proving that mass production / quantity and quality were not mutually exclusive. The resulting apartments were sensible and were still of a small enough scale as to allow a community -centric experience to residents. Contextual Value The contextual values relate to the contribution that the apartment building makes to the continuity and character of the Union Boulevard and York Street streetscapes and the surrounding area. The property is located within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, and boarders the Union Street & Union Boulevard Cultural Heritage Landscape. The Westmount CHL is a neighbourhood with a unique urban form inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. One of its more distinguishable features are the slightly curvilinear alignment of the roads and the 6 -metre -wide medians planted with high branching trees and elegant light fixtures. The residential dwellings within the neighbourhood are a concentrated mixture of recognizable architectural styles from the 1920's -1940's, largely constructed from high quality material and displaying fine details. A number of these homes are historically associated with important city builders, businesspeople, and community leaders including A.R. Kaufman, E.O. Weber and E.F. Seagram. While slightly larger in height and massing than the typically 1.5 and 2 -storey single detached dwellings predominate in the neighbourhood, the overall design, form, setbacks, and materials used in the construction of 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street are compatible and complimentary to adjacent and surrounding properties. The garden beds and mature trees in and around the property further integrate it into the well-maintained Westmount neighbourhood. The apartment buildings at 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street are also physically, visually, historically, and functionally linked to their surroundings as they remain in-situ and maintain their original multiple residential use. Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 80-86 Union Boulevard / 571 York Street resides in the following attributes: ■ All elements related to the Art Moderne with Art Deco influences architectural style, including: o varied roofline; o angled building corners; o varied brick colour; Page 156 of 183 o concrete banding; o window openings with concrete headers and sills; o glass blocks framing window openings and entrance openings; o glass block windows with concrete headers and sills; o projecting central front bay with main entrance; o stone faced surround; o sign that reads "UNION APTS" with leaf motifs; o light fixture above main entrance; o symbol with the letters `U' and `A'; and, o parged concrete foundation. • All elements related to the contextual value, including: o Location and orientation of the buildings and the contribution that they make to the continuity and character of the Union Boulevard and York Street streetscapes. Photographs Page 157 of 183 Page 158 of 183 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 80-86 Union Blvd Address: Apartments Description: Photographs Attached ❑X Front Facade ❑ Left Fagade ❑ Right Fagade Jes sica Vieira d er: August 19, 2024 ❑ Rear Facade ❑X Details ❑X Setting Designation Criteria Recorder — Heritage Heritage Kitchener Committee Planning Staff 1. This property has design value or physical N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ value because it is a Yes Nx Yes ❑ rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ value because it Yes ® Yes ❑ displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ® N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ value because it Yes ❑ Yes ❑ demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. * e.g., constructed with a unique material combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 160 of 183 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. * Additional archival work may be required. N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ® Yes ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ 5. The property has historical or associative N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ value because it yields, Yes ® Yes ❑ or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. * E.g - 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 ❑ 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. Page 161 of 183 7. The property has Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior contextual value N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ because it is important Yes ® Yes ❑ in defining, maintaining N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external Yes ❑ or supporting the features that complete the site? 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 physically, Yes ® Yes ❑ functionally, visuallyor 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 ❑ because it is a Yes ❑ Yes ❑ landmark. *within the region, city or neighborhood. No tes Additional Criteria Recorder Heritage Kitchener Committee Interior: Is the interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship N/A N Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ and/ordetail noteworthy? Yes ❑ Completeness: Does this structure have otheroriginal outbuildings, N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ notable landscaping or external Yes ❑ features that complete the site? Page 162 of 183 Site Integrity: Does the structure occupy its original site? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ❑ materials and design features? Yes N Please refer to the list of heritage attributes within the Statement of Dormers seem like new Significance and indicate which additions, new double single - elements are still e)dsting and hung or single -hung windows which ones have been removed. Alterations: Are there additional elements or features that should be N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ added to the heritage attribute list? Yes N Light fixture above entrances look like they could be orignal 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 Ilistory: Could this site be of importance to N/A ❑ Unknown N No ❑ Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Indigenous heritage and history? ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required El Additional Research Required *Eg. -Site within 300m of water sources, near distinct topographical land, or near cemeteries might have archaeological potential and indigenous heritage potential. Could there be any urban Indigenous history associated with N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ the property? N/A ❑ Unknown N No ❑ Yes ❑ Additional Research Required * Additional archival work may be ❑ Additional Research Required required. Function: What is the present Unknown ❑ Residential N Unknown ❑ Residential ❑ Commercia function of the subject property? Commercial ❑ 1 ❑ Office ❑ Other N Office ❑ Other ❑ - * Other may include vacant, social, Multiple dwelling institutional, etc. and importantfor the community from an equity building perspective. Diversity and Inclusion: Does N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No N Yes N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ the subject property contribute to ❑ ❑ Additional Research Required the cultural heritage of a ❑ Additional Research Required community of people? N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Page 163 of 183 Does the subject property have N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑X Yes ❑ Additional Research Required intangible value to a specific ❑ community of people? ❑ Additional Research Required * Eg.- Waterloo Masjid (Muslim Society of Waterloo & Wellington Counties) was the first established Islamic Center and Masjid in the Region and contributes to the history of the Muslim community in the area. Notes about Additional Criteria Examined Recommendation Does this property meet the definition of a significant built heritage resource, and should it be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act? (Does it meet two or more of the designation criteria?) N/A ❑ Unknown ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X If not, please select the appropriate action for follow-up ❑ Keep on the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Remove from the Municipal Heritage Register ❑ Additional Research Required Other: General / Additional Notes TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification Notes Page 164 of 183 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ® Historical Value ® Contextual Value 160 Margaret Avenue M argai et Avenue L Ptlbll2 School 1 � C / ®Social Value ❑ Economic Value ❑ Environmental Value 11 `� J � 1 a —i 'd r Municipal Address: 160 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Plan 376 Lots 518 to 521 Part Lots 515 to 517, 522 to 526 STS & LNS Part Lot 38 Year Built: 1974 Architectural Style: Gothic Revival Original Owner: New Apostolic Church Original Use: Church Condition: Excellent 1�1 Page 165 of 183 Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 160 Margaret Avenue is a late 20th century building built in the Gothic Revival architectural style. The church is situated on a 3.63 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Margaret Avenue bwtween Adam Street and Blucher Street in the Mt. Hope Huron Park Planning Community of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the church. Heritage Value 160 Margaret Avenue is recognized for its design/physical, historic/associative, and contextual values. Desipn/Physical Value The design value relates to the architecture of the church. The church is a representative example of the Gothic Revival architectural style, and is in excellent condition. The church features: an irregular plan, limestone cladding in an ashlar pattern, cross gable roof encompassing tower on the south side, projecting main entrance, surrounding arched arcade, parapets and gothic windows on the tower with stained glass glazing and trefoil windows, multi -pane rectangular, gothic and trefoil windows, concrete arched door surrounds, double wood door with glazing and stain glass transom; and pendant lights. Construction on the church started in 1973, after the church had outgrown the building it was occupying at 182 Victoria Street North. The front fagade of the church features a cross gable plan with a projecting arched arcade that has a flat roof with an encompassing tower. The arched arcade has stone buttresses with recessed entrances. The tower includes arched gothic windows with geometric tracery and trefoils. There are stone buttresses on the tower with decorative moulding at the top. The gable have large arched gothic windows with tracery. The lower level of the church has square windows with decorative stone moulding. Next to the gable is a flat roofed portion of the church with long but narrow arched gothic windows and stone buttresses. The facade fronting onto Adam Street also follows a similar design with a gable roof and a large gothic arched window with geometric tracery. The windows have decorative stone buttresses on each side with a round window at the gable peak. The lower level of the church is flat -roofed, with square windows that have decorative stone moulding and buttresses. Next to the gable is a flat roofed portion of the church with long but narrow arched gothic windows and stone buttresses. The building also includes a one -storey modern addition built towards the rear of the church. The rear portion of the church includes a gable roof with stone buttresses and stone construction. At the time of its construction, the church was made to seat 1,200 people, making it one of the largest churches in the Region of Waterloo. At the time of it's construction, Rev. Michael Kraus stated that the church will be the headquarters for 150,000 members who make up the district of which he was the head at the time. The district included all of Canada, United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, the northern part of South America, India, Ceylon, Kenya, Romania, Great Britain, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Korea. The district was one of 20 apostolic districts in the world united under the chief apostle at the time, Rev. Walter Schmidt of Dortmund, West Germany. Page 166 of 183 Historical/Associative Value The church has historical value because it has direct associations with the New Apostolic Church. The New Apostolic Church started in England around 1832. Early services of the New Apostolic Church were held in Waterloo in 1925 by the parent church in the United States, and by 1930 services were also being held at 20 Ellen Street in Kitchener. As the congregation grew rapidly, the church purchased a house at 182 Victoria Street North and used it as their church for several years. By 1958, a sufficient number of congregations had been formed to organize a separate Canadian district church, and ordained Michael Kraus as District Apostle of the church in Zurich on June 21, 1958. Having outgrown this building, it was demolished in 1946 to allow for the current building at 182 Victoria Street North. The congregation continued to grow and moved to the current location at 160 Margaret Avenue in 1974. Michael Kraus The church also has associative value because it has direct associations with Michael Kraus, former reverend of the church, and a prominent business in the Kitchener -Waterloo community. He was born in Romania on March 26, 1908. He arrived in Kitchener at the age of 18 from Romania. At age 22, he married Hilda Loscher and two years later the couple became members of the small New Apostolic congregation on Ellen Street. He was ordained into the ministry the following year. In the 1930s, he worked as a labourer in the Baetz furniture factory, and built apartments during after hours. Then, he began importing upholstery fabric at age 33, and eventually starting his own carpet company, Carpet Mills at age 51. Upon being ordained into the ministry, he traveled extensively and sent fellow missionaries all the over, and helped establish the New Apostolic Church in over 70 countries. The church membership had grown to 4 million by his retirement in 1994. He died in Kitchener on November 16,2003. Albert Carl Reider The associative values also relates to the architect of the building. The building was designed by Albert Carl Reider of Reider and Hymmen. His career spanned 47 years, and he was involved in the design of over 400 buildings, including designs for university projects, public buildings, ecclesiastical works, industrial facilities, and more than a 100 private residence. He was born in Alberta on July 19, 1913, Reider was educated in Kitchener and later graduated from the School of Architecture at the University of Toronto in 1938. He became a registered architect in Kitchener that same year. After he served with the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War II, he opened a firm in in 1946 in partnership with William (Ed) Barnett, as Barnett & Reider Architects, which had joint offices in Toronto and Kitchener. Over the next two decades, Reider achieved major success with modern designs for landmarks in Kitchener. His partnership with Barnett dissolved in 1969, after which Reider established his own independent practice as senior partner in the new firm of Reider, Hymmen & Lobban. He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute in Canada in 1998. He died In Kitchener on August 27, 2007. Contextual Value The church has contextual value because it is physically, functionally and historically linked to its surroundings. The church is located in its original location and has always been used as a church. There have not been many alterations since the church was first constructed. The church also has contextual value because it helps maintaining and supporting the character of the area. The church contributes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape. The mature trees, the wrought iron fence and the limestone clad pillars all contribute towards maintaining the low-rise character of Margaret Avenue and the setting of the property. Page 167 of 183 Other Values Social Value New Apostolic Church has significant social value as a place of worship that has been in Kitchener for over 50 years. This building has been supporting these services for all these years and has become a place of importance in the community. This church being the headquarters of one of the districts further contributes to its social value. Places of worship often provide intangible community value as a place where people gather and are often a central piece of a community. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes of 160 Margaret Avenue 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 irregular plan; o limestone cladding in an ashlar pattern; o cross gabled roof encompassing tower on south side; o projecting main entrance; o surrounding arched arcade; o parapets and gothic windows on tower with stain glass glazing and trefoil windows; o windows and windows openings, including; ■ multi -pane rectangular windows, gothic windows, and trefoil windows o Door openings, including ■ Concrete arched door surrounds o Pendant lights. All elements related to the contextual value of the building; o The original location of the building on Margaret Avenue and the contribution it makes to the continuity and character of the Margaret Avenue streetscape; o Wrought iron fence with limestone clad pillars surrounding property and the large mature trees. Page 168 of 183 Photos .� xxx �r a , . p� 160 Margaret Avenue 160 Margaret Avenue Page 169 of 183 4 40), Al 4 i N �� y RSR ;`.ic ,�- F �\f a i..'�te a •=, yjj x, -i't � is ; yu • � �..y �'9 4t a 4 - :�� ll+lllll f��_ - y�yp References K.W. Record, May 14, 1973, Construction starts on Apostolic Church, accessed via Kitchener Public Library Archives Etherington, F., Guggi, August 6, 1977, Kraus Carpets: Bible with the broadloom, K -W Record, accessed via Kitchener Public Library Archives K -W Record, September 12, 1964, Kitchener is Now Headquarters for 48 New Apostolic Churches, accessed via Kitchener Public Library Archives K -W Record, November 18, 2003, Michael Kraus; March 16, 1908 — November 16, 2003, accessed via Kitchener Public Library Archives Ontario Association of Architects, n/a, REIDER, Albert Carl (1913-2007), accessed via https://oaa.on.ca/Assets/Common/Shared Documents/Awards/Honour%20Roll/RIEDER,%20Albert%20Ca rl.pdf New Apostolic Church, accessed via https://www.naccanada.org/imis prod/nac Vernon, H. & Son. (1910). Vernon's Berlin, Waterloo and Bridgeport: Street, Alphabetical, Business and Miscellaneous Directory: For the Years 1974 (8th Ed.). Hamiltion, ON: Griffen & Richmond. Page 172 of 183 CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION FORM 160 Margaret Avenue Address: Church Description: Photographs Attached: OFront Facade Deeksha Choudhry Recorder: August 26, 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 combination or use, incorporates challenging geometric designs etc. Page 173 of 183 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 174 of 183 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 175 of 183 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 176 of 183 * 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 ❑X 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 177 of 183 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: Page 178 of 183 # Municipal Property Address 1 64 Water Street North 2 73 Shanley Street 3 181 Frederick Street 4 369 Frederick Street 5 97 Victoria Street North 6 90-92 Queen Street South 7 35 & 43 Sheldon Avenue North 8 28 Burgetz Avenue 9 120 Victoria Street South 10 1 Queen Street North/ 4 King Street 11 2-22 Duke Street East 12 24 Courtland Avenue East 13 26 Courtland Avenue East 14 54-68 King Street West 15 58 Queen Street South 16 66 Queen Street South 17 67 King Street East 18 73 Young Street 19 144-150 King Street West 20 149-151 Ontario Street North 21 628 New Dundee Road 22 40 Chapel Hill 23 72 Victoria Street South 24 33 Eby Street South 25 60 Victoria Street South 26 91 Madison Street South 27 87 Scott and 82 Weber Street East 28 131 Victoria Street South 29 56 Duke Street West 30 10 Duke Street West 31 11-15 Pandora Avenue North 32 113-151 Charles Street West 33 83-85 King Street West 34 87-91 King Street West 35 97-99 King Street West 36 148 Madison Avenue South 37 171-173 Victoria Street South 38 709 King Street West 39 103-109 King Street West 40 1738 Trussler Road 41 621 King Street West 42 107 Courtland Avenue East 43 83 Benton Street 44 47 Onward Avenue 45 100 Margaret Avenue 46 104-106 Margaret Avenue Page 179 of 183 47 112 Margaret Avenue 48 148 Margaret Avenue 49 33 Queen Street South 50 44-54 Queen Street South 51 80-86 Union Boulevard/ 571 York Street 52 160 Margaret Avenue 53 265 Frederick Street 54 53 Church Street 55 7 Fischer Court 56 57-61 Stirling Avenue North 57 236 Gehl Place 58 1478 Trussler Road 59 156 Duke Street West 60 35 Courtland Avenue West 61 111 Ahrens Street West 62 23 Water Street North 63 Huron Rd (adj. 1738 Truss) 64 51 Breithaupt Street 65 1434 Trussler Road 66 10 Bingeman Street/138-140 Lancaster Street East 67 35 Roos Street 68 160 Courtland Avenue East 69 201 Lancaster 70 325 Breithaupt 71 19 Benton 72 90 King Street West 73 142 Church 74 33-43 Cedar Street North 75 187-193 Victoria Street South 76 101 Church Street 77 41 Weber Street West 78 72-78 King Street West 79 70 Francis Street North Page 180 of 183 MHR Review Status Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved Designation By-law at Council in September Designation By-law Approved Designating By-law Approved NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published NOID Published SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated Page 181 of 183 SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated SOS Updated In Progress In progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress Research in Progress Research in Progress Research In Progress Research In Progress Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action Reviewed - No Action NOID Published - withdrawn by Council Page 182 of 183 (Y) co 4- 0 (Y) co r a r2 oU cU N c N O ' m Z L 3 N c .2 C c -O L p 3 N Z c Q a p a o °c `o `o c O o Q o i+ O c.0 -0 c O .o -o CL C N O O (6 ` O C w L U (6 o w E 6— m LL rn n 06 m N w c ❑ F -I O U c (6 > N U❑ C c L L (n O a' Cl -O N p L W -Up O O E> L E N (6 O -E LL 'x N (6 O C U 'O O O H d' (6 .� U" -0 N E cu i cu O � U w m U O 4 O X lL (4 Itv � Q O o � � i+ Q, O m Q� d V 6l Q U 0 G/1 z 0 O O O O O O O O O O v x y E E E E E E E E E E Y 6 � c C C C C C c C c C c C c C c C c C c C a > iw �yI L i T C C U N N W^ W� t'y N W 60 00 7 00 r N 7 N (00 co co N N N0 N N N N 0 N 0 N N N ON N N N N 'y Vi � y V' � V N o m U a � v N C L U ° v w 0 L E a pai a� a U Eai U ♦+ w O 2 m Un L m N -o V1 C — U) c N m =i N W N Ln DU O J U c M r M ❑ O m M 61 0 0 O J 0 O 61 r O M 0 co co Q N CO 10 O 7 N r- y 00 OO O O O O O O co O m O O O O O w iii > > > > > > > .� 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 az 000 N N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 N N 0 N a a a a a a a a a a xxx x x x x x x x r N M l6 i0 n fA (A O r r N M r (O 1�a0 r O N N N N M N N N i0 N n N to N to N O M M (Y) co 4- 0 (Y) co r