The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDSD-2024-413 - Municipal Heritage Register Review - October 2024 UpdateStaff 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. 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. 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. • 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. 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 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 80-86 UNION BOULEVARD / 571 YORK STREET s 80J V�f �' ijq? n a•;I? �, o•;I'I � / ?:1? a�Tq�fi 788 30 6 05 1e 14 /� '133 Alag .77 1 asi '750 756 162 7S 39 'I a'1 147, 155 �\ ��Argylz Park. Summary of Significance ® Design/Physical Value ®Historical Value ® Contextual Value 599 595 �o s� 5 <I? ❑ 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 969 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. 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; 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 bO 4 Y : r! wig#wfa ie - 1l+flla+�w w �Ifrirer lRaslte �r .•rcr^�er,��/M1�w�7Ra�w�fa�e �ey�m�rOMF��rwr��r�e i _ _ ��e�• ori _ 4. 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. 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. 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? 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 ❑ 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 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 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. 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. 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. Photos .� xxx �r a , . p� 160 Margaret Avenue 160 Margaret Avenue 40), Al 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. 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. 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 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? 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 0 Other ❑ Church Office 0 Other 0 - * 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 TO BE FILLED BY HERITAGE PLANNING STAFF: Date of Property Owner Notification: # 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 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 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 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