Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-445 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-024 - 115 Lancaster Street East & 58-60 Ellen Street East Alterations to the Existing Building Construction of a 3-Storey AdditionStaff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: November 5, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward DATE OF REPORT: September 25, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-445 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-024 115 Lancaster Street East & 58-60 Ellen Street East Alterations to the Existing Building Construction of a 3 -Storey Addition RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-024 be approved to permit the partial demolition, the construction of a 3 -storey addition, and alterations to the existing building at the property municipally addressed as 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final Heritage Impact Assessment be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of this permit; 2. That the final Conservation Plan be approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of this permit; 3. That the Documentation and Salvage Plan and Cultural Heritage Protection Plan be approved by the City's Heritage Planner; 4. 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 5. That the final building be reviewed, and heritage clearance be provided by Heritage Planning Staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present Heritage Planning Staff's recommendation for the proposed partial demolition, proposed construction of an addition and alterations to the existing building at the subject property municipally addressed as 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed addition meets the policies included within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District for new additions to existing buildings and would not have a negative impact on the integrity of the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District. • The 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-024 proposes various alterations, partial demolition of wood additions, and the construction of a new three-storey addition to the existing building at the property municipally addressed as 115 Lancaster Street East/ 58- 60 Ellen Street East. The existing building is a multi -unit residential building, and the proposed changes are necessary to increase the number of the units in the building. The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District. The proposed three-storey addition is located on the rear and side yard of the property and will have a gable roof, clad in clapboard and is sympathetic but distinguishable from the existing building. The proposed development has been assessed against the policies and guidelines of the District Plan and the proposed development will not have an adverse negative impact on the existing building, or the Lancaster Street and Ellen Street streetscapes. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2024-V-024 (Attachment A) seeking permission for the partial demolition, construction of a side and rear -yard addition and alterations to the existing building at the property municipally addressed as 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East (Fig. 1). n CENTRAL MELEMCK 110 Si Ufa Figure 1. Location Map of 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East REPORT: The subject property is located at the intersection of Lancaster Street East and Ellen Street East. The property currently includes a three-storey residential dwelling built c. 1888 in the Berlin Vernacular architectural style with Queen Anne influences (Fig. 2). It has a Greek cross floor plan and has been used a muti-unit property for many years. It was the residence of local artist Anna Rothaermel Cairnes, who resided and operated an art studio out of the residence. The property is located at the terminus of two streets — Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East — and at a prominent location of the "five points" intersection. Figure 2. Front Fagade of the subject property. The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building has been classified as a Group `A' building within the CCNHCD Plan. Currently, the property is a multiple residential building. The following heritage attributes have been identified by the draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): • Location facing south on the corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection; • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD); Brick exterior; • Three storey height; • Projecting wings on fagade and side elevation; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey fagade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roofs; • Decorative shingles on gable ends; • Deep eaves; and • Molded Wooden frieze. Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District The CCNHCD is an important historical residential neighborhood that can be linked to several key periods in the development of the City of Kitchener. This neighborhood helps tell the story of Kitchener's phenomenal growth at the turn of the 19th century and of the development of its extensive industrial sector. Almost two-thirds of the existing houses were built between 1880 and 1917 and in most cases were occupied by owners, managers, or workers for some of the key industries that defined the community at the turn of the century. The heritage attributes of the CCNHCD include: • Its association with important business and community leaders during a key era of development in Kitchener; • A wealth of well maintained, finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s and early 1900s that are largely intact; • A number of unique buildings, including churches and commercial buildings, which provide distinctive landmarks within and at the edges of the District; • A significant range or recognizable architectural styles (Queen Anne, Berlin Vernacular, Italianate, etc.) and features including attic gable roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, porches, and other details, associated with the era in which they were developed; • The presence of an attractive and consistent streetscape linked by mature trees, grassed boulevards and laneways; and • Hibner Park, Kitchener's second oldest city park, in the centre of the District. Proposed Development at 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East A site plan application for the proposed development had been submitted to the City in 2022 for the subject property (Fig. 3). An HIA and Conservation Plan (CP) were required by staff in support of this application. The draft HIA was presented to Heritage Kitchener at its January 3, 2023, meeting. The proposed development at the subject property involves some alterations to the existing building, the partial demolition of all enclosed wooden porches, and the construction of a three-storey side and rear -yard addition to accommodate three (3) new units, resulting in an eleven (11) unit building (Fig. 3-4). Broadly, there are a number of alterations to the existing building, which include: 0 Replacement of existing asphalt shingle roof with a lighter grey asphalt shingle. • Removal of the existing wooden board soffit and fascia to be replaced with a vented aluminum soffit and fascia. The existing wooden frieze board, which was identified as a heritage attribute, is to be retained and refurbished. • The existing decorative trim on the gable ends, which has also been identified as a heritage attribute, will be conserved. Any worn or missing cedar shakes are proposed to be replaced with new cedar shakes of the same style and size. • Removal and replacement of existing eavestroughs to improve water shedding. • Removal and replacement of existing door fixtures. • Removal and replacement of existing wooden sash windows on all elevations with aluminum windows of the same shape, size, and style, except for two multi -paned windows with coloured glass on the front fagade, which is proposed to be retained and restored. • Painting the structure's brick masonry (it is to be noted that the existing masonry has already been painted. The masonry expert will be cleaning the brick and performing any necessary repairs before repainting). • Removing the paint from the stone masonry foundation. • There are also a number of window openings proposed for each fagade, along with the removal of all wooden porches and the sunroom. • Construction of a dormer on the east elevation, and the enlargement of an existing dormer on the west elevation. Legend: � drY'AS5 � -In ® den_lea HWAr NiO nh IklrlruEF:IAM 6R 6-W- ,,B 35:4 LB d-4. Lyldr B_JW Phi 1iM IY�rrl uf, a� rp !Lr p��rl of rr�+ rq M.f: a..6p1!r•::.:k Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan for the subject property View 3 View tram the, East from Across Lancaster $tract Maur 2- Vices from North flown Ellen Street View 1 : Maye Frain Sulu 1h roward--; fai!w ^Fr+bntp P{t ri=h Figure 4. Renderings of the Proposed Development. The proposed fagade changes are as follows: Front (South) Facade Figure 5. Existing front (south) fagade. Ex nM mre m ba mNt+s'ad K6_ —d him .. .— ..., .i. %� llrn sWul .l�iPY :ud Easl Re snap: b mre:+re m iaaaPn'p,eea la code. and menea ''�. _ rc ya reeP+�io:eanP.lPb. �`` -� r,me]�ed ao-IV_ nA.. -V. aLd lka - nY..,roQOPylna vorr,irvx Eri. nrziQ1lw wed Waw ran �:Nslad � 96'-� I.P vfv 3Fd liar Rm:sY n®Isesl : lwIi1HW eiwi�d'.as EsN. Faw. YM Ards n bn .sreae" �aAKed MC ElP+al. .. .. '........ ..... "• __.. ... diP QahM NPuant vn'rrnrr mpnl rq wwsalb�u'1r9=dNaIHj ... •.. ••..' - Nw 4ixdk Lndc.k pa'aaks at a.Pbn7'!PC Naf aMa am lad! - NanJwa:uB.�nu.dcyltl �I.P. 'Ie54�IIPor Nan wrod ccYrrn Nrw w..aQoy,I: Y w.-.�.N: u' 11 J':LLl.u.. E[19F7s-Urhn Mr-mmnG uih ..n I.�N..I.Y� :e x.F.am. .____Neu xiMw'n edsllq lrasmry'aoa.hp Iaa sAlhtlaq•^[h NUn --�Rtl Sass m.fa�� pma[asry ^^-PelsaO. MI-neix ufiaaN � � D4P� AA. C%:1. !Ilya Ibof'tlalPm _ _ N7w✓g �P4Rnd .a..Tn eu:n r.+l^7 1, s'.Y.4 4 EMN.'ascx..ysprl, IPbeps!'led � •-sr ti� 4 44 l k` /rte j� -: IA, ae&1. M1asanurY •,.t 4 t i -: V'�l I.n. w.v FinaemlY 1, Ea.I.-.ssF.lcu-a.Iere \\1 s �Nd[u-I�N lle uJM1.�gl6Atl bellnu i in• RsaM1 wi skr:a rat rD.11Nsr MIPdh! b`� Figure 6. Proposed Front (south) facade • Retaining and restoring the multi -panes, colour glass sash window located on the upper storey, which was identified as a heritage attribute • Enlarging an existing lower -storey window opening to reinstate original masonry opening. East Elevation — facing Lancaster Street East Figure 7. Existing side (east) fagade — facing Lancaster Street East Figure 8. Proposed side (east) fagade — facing Lancaster Street East uw rtlu[ slnyY Jwirgi rcnf, m yr JxJ svr-nv m orxhrg 6"rL^7 -rim b: va Ma Mn M mAon /+ tea' n.nxii ;n, rd +as iy N[M1 :ACH�n CON dewx.ag71R°Ir ba 6o rNue:r __ �� rr brx nman 1My� d dniq 'llttlor:' In etk y�IT ob IJreik r ��� Cu -v nm uairew rra wliWa wuria ExW ._ I6tiB" Lu. nrn aid fbor — ._J--� Ik.dou•sl -sl P '4'WPrvr9 I _ . knr B'sryplmcce m:steiwrd llrthp Csufl mean ry 9arnrnn -....r I _• _ _ IMw pw'd P�wasPrrpoi r= t[ _ abr 'ani aun 1 P'6' I.a cac'. Dltl Mar CR ' •••-•• - - I.ImMarvsl3ruybngP:Y9}1"iP.cl n"rely mo°iabiiuln ror s.n+al r��.,...:. :.. .. :. "i"°..�. • .; . _ Irr umora�ro uaca eap ul Evlfl. rustrl WnArlsn � - � _— ,. 'fin .�vlrm, � ven_deso=yx:l wroo o-zza _ P+Q La. dfls'I_msln 1{wr - . - -- ._y.P � La iw'ry nwn no[.. dM— 'Mnsljlt lan kr sFnWl9-d+dm waw+n Win.:w•R. p.fwn u..0 Mm°61r61W o=tl[.w,a CtyeM r ,�z n it 1 i rl i1 T•Y In,unr.,haam:nt i i �__r i ii i-�'�-'. I.rv. nmx �¢�arrrvx. _ :uynm �pp•hya-rrx mryiry Sx.xYwi .da J..�� Jul r.J Figure 8. Proposed side (east) fagade — facing Lancaster Street East • Removal of the one -storey wood -framed sunroom on the southeast corner of the house (this was a later addition and is not original to the home). • Installation of guardrails to create an enclosed patio. • Enlarging an existing window to become a doorway. • Resizing an existing second storey egress door to become a window opening. • Removal of the wood -frame one -storey storage area on the northeast corner of the house (this was a later addition and not original to the home). • Construction of a small, shed dormer on the third storey containing a rectangular window. The dormer walls will be clad in clapboard siding. Rear (north) Elevation 44 F t_'rt , r Figure 9. Existing rear (north) facade Figure 10. Proposed rear (north) facade rte.rrt,,� mxH s.o� Wen asphrt �np:� Mcg*MC e:{ Wx IV � 11'ad lkm ld,-0'�tu,nen aic. baa � _ fMv CxMffml'd'aam1.A .DGI ilrx .n wmme rnnw�.. �. 'der eawf d ne•p ' _ ® ri.. vaW �juord V.Wd ....... _ ..1' r+e...r:nr. *tn -` �•]�� � r rw d,�uw,. � o>r,r-� c+�ma —RWIMM 'J4C Lit nN.". rM1Lnikdf-d57.m :L__. _. _..__. C'49A.,raM'mahlMm•deWm gaud and mw9riid - @nW hhO�' 04`n'anp .. .. sn rax Mnannnl Figure 10. Proposed rear (north) facade • Facilitating the proposed addition results in the encapsulation of the rear fagade, with all existing openings be infilled to create interior separation between the residential units. • The three storey addition will be clad in clapboard in a neutral colour, with rectangular aluminum windows. The window openings differ from the original window openings, but that was done so that the addition is complementary to the existing building, and to mitigate the impact of the addition on the streetscape. The addition has a gable -roof. • Since the subject property is on the corner of two streets, all facades except for the rear fagade are highly visible from the public realm. Due to this, the addition will be visible from both Lancaster and Ellen Street east. West (side) Elevation — Facing Ellen Street East ____ _______-__ n __________ ._-------�-------- --- -h!! Illlilll s j 1 a VL -_! s :te=a Tto rew [mauml'.Y L[. edR. Nsmerl Figure 12. Proposed side (west) elevation — facing Ellen Street East E Va tr[k nauviry. rcx W M MM lln em�M Mrvfan� a rw� amp ww - FII �%M94m[q.MbM•p l .mcw y iaw. vvN .w[: -h!! Illlilll s j 1 a VL -_! s :te=a Tto rew [mauml'.Y L[. edR. Nsmerl Figure 12. Proposed side (west) elevation — facing Ellen Street East • Refurbishment of the existing fire escape and new guardrails. • Existing third storey dormer is proposed to be enlarged to accommodate a full dormer with a flat roof. The dormer will be clad in vertical siding and a decorative wood frieze board. • The Existing porch and deck on the northwest corner of this facade are proposed to be removed and replaced with new porches. • The existing wood porch on the southwest corner is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new covered porch with a bell cast shingled roof. • An existing door on the gable end will be replaced with a new door. • An existing 1960's "closed addition" on the southwest corner is proposed to be removed. The openings of this addition are also proposed to be removed and the brick infilled. Heritaae Impact Assessment (HIA) for 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East The HIA (Attachment B) identified the following impacts as a result of the proposed development: - The proposed development involves the removal of the original wooden sash windows. The potential for accidental damage to heritage attributes during the construction process and/or as part of the removal or alteration of openings. The proposed development includes alterations to all elevations which do not directly impact heritage attributes but result in the loss of historic materials. Due to the constraints of the irregularly shaped lot and high visibility from Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East, the location of the three-storey addition has the potential to detract from the character of the streetscape. To mitigate these identified impacts, the HIA recommends the following mitigation measures: The re -use and salvage of materials — A Salvage and Documentation Plan (Attachment D) has been submitted which includes detailed documentation of the existing building. The Plan also identifies certain building elements that could be salvaged and how they can be re -used. These include o Wooden windows and doors; o Wood porch materials, o Any interior features proposed for removal with historical, architectural or cultural value; o Any appliances. The Plan suggests that any salvaged material could potentially be used integrated into the new development and used as landscape features or be recycled and donated. • Construction Fencing — to prevent unwanted damages to adjacent designated properties. • Masonry Repointing and painting — for the restoration and ongoing maintenance of the existing building. • Conservation Plan - for the long-term conservation of the building. • Vegetative Screening — to soften any potential impacts of the proposed three-storey addition. • Vibration Monitoring — to ensure that construction activities do not cause unwanted damage to the existing building. Conservation Plan for 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East The Conservation Plan (CP) that has been submitted in support of this application includes measures that should be undertaken for the short-term, medium-term and long- term conservation and maintenance of the property. These measures include but are not limited to: • Repair and cleaning of gutters and downspouts. • Repair or deteriorating brick masonry. • Cleaning and repainting wooden frieze board. • Periodic monitoring and maintenance of heritage attributes. A structural condition of the existing building on the subject property assessment was also completed which confirmed that the existing building will be able to withstand the construction impacts of the proposed addition. Cultural Heritage Protection Plan for Adjacent Designated Properties Since the subject property is adjacent to other designated heritage resources, staff have also requested a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan (CHPP) (Attachment C) to ensure that the immediately adjacent heritage resources — 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East are adequately protected from any construction impacts. All these plans are still in their draft stages and have not been approved by the City's Heritage Planner and/or the Director of Development and Housing Approvals. Conformity with the CCHNCHD Policies Repardinp Additions The CCNHCD Plan includes specific goals and policies for the preservation of the existing built heritage stock within the District. One of the Goals of the CCNHCD Plan with respect to buildings include "establishing policies and design guidelines to ensure new development and alterations are sensitive to the heritage attributes and details of the District and are based on appropriate research and examination of archival and/or contextual information." One of the goals regarding Land Use speaks about "ensuring that infill development or redevelopment is compatible with the heritage character and pedestrian scale of the District'. Sections 3.3.2, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.9.1 of the Plan include policies that are meant to guide any alterations and additions to existing buildings within the district and on Ellen Street East. The proposed development has been assessed against these policies and guidelines in the tables below (Table 1 — 3). Table 1. Section 3.3.2 of the CCNCHD Plan CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines The proposed development 1. The proposed addition is on the (a) Minor exterior includes exterior alterations to rear side -yard of the building. alterations and elements and features on the The property is at the corner of CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments additions to existing building, which are Lancaster and Ellen Street East single detached located on the front and side and is triangular in shape. This dwellings shall yard. Specifically, repainting the limits any development only in be permitted painted brick exterior, removal the rear -side yard of the provided such of existing porches and property. Furthermore, typically alterations are construction of new porches, additions are discouraged not within any replacement of the existing within the front and side yard to front or side eavestrough with like material not detract from the principal yard. and style, replacement of the dwelling. However, because of existing soffit, replacement of the property's location, shape, the existing wooden sash and size, the side facades of windows and infilling of select the dwelling will remain highly existing windows. It should be visible from the street noted that these alterations do regardless of any proposed not all represent alterations to development. Keeping these heritage attributes. The only factors in mind, proposed alteration to a heritage attribute development mitigates the within the front or side yard of proposed location of the the subject property is the addition through design, replacement of the existing ensuring that the addition does wooden sash windows. These not overpower the main windows are proposed to be dwelling. replaced with aluminum frame windows that will match the 2. Minor alterations to the existing existing style and shape of the building are also proposed windows and will maintain the which include but are not size and proportion of the limited to the repair and existing window openings. replacement of windows, repairs to the masonry, and the The proposed addition is repair of the decorative gable located at the rear of the existing ends, construction of a small building however due to the dormer and enlargement of an subject property's irregular existing dormer. These corner lot shape with high alterations are necessary to visibility along Ellen Street East restore the identified heritage and Lancaster Street East the attributes of the building, and to addition will be visible along accommodate the proposed the side elevations. number of units in the building. (b)Structural N/A This is not a residential alterations to the conversion. exterior of buildings are not permitted in the event of residential conversion. Any CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines exterior stairs or fire escapes are to be enclosed and kept away from the fagade of the structure. (c ) Major structural N/A This is not a residential alterations to the conversion. exterior of buildings are not permitted for conversions in the Office - Residential Conversion designation. While the proposed three-storey The proposed addition is (d) Additions shall addition is positioned on the subordinate to the original be subordinate rear (north) elevation of the structure and allows the heritage to the original existing building, the subject features and built form to take structure to property's irregular shape with visual precedence on the street. allow the street frontages on both The addition does project further original Lancaster Street East and Ellen out from the existing dwelling on structure to Street East means the addition is the Ellen Street East side, allow the clearly visible from both the however, that is because of the heritage side elevations. As was space limitations at the rear. features and identified in historical research However, subordination is not just built form to for the 2022 HIA, the existing about size. The proposed design is take visual building was historically complimentary yet distinguishable precedence on oriented to face the "Five from the existing dwelling and the street. Points" intersection to the does not detract from the cultural southeast of the subject heritage value of the existing property. dwelling. To supplement this policy, the recommendations on additions in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada was referenced. On additions, the Standards and Guidelines note: (a) Conserve the heritage value and character defining elements CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. (b) Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place (Standards and Guidelines 2010:34). Regarding (b), the Standards and Guidelines provides further details about what defines a subordinate addition, stating - This is best understood to mean that the addition must not detract from the historic place or impair its heritage value. Subordination is not a question of size; a small, ill-conceived addition could adversely affect an historic place more than a large, well-designed addition (Parks Canada 2010:24). With this understanding in mind, the addition was positioned to preserve the view of the existing building's historical facade as viewed from the "Five Points" intersection. Further design choices such as the addition's massing and roof pitch and use of differing finish materials with a corresponding colour palate are also efforts to create a harmonious yet still differentiable portion of the building that allows the facade to remain visually balanced. Further, the removal of some of the 20th century additions, as outlined in the proposed development, will positively contribute to the visibility of the buildings original Greek Cross floor plan. CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments (e) Design guidelines The proposed development has provided in been reviewed against these Sections 6.4 guidelines in the tables below. and 6.5 of this Plan will be used to review and evaluate application for additions and The existing heritage resource has alterations to been extensively documented and ensure that the studied as part of this site plan proposed changes application. In support of this are compatible with application, a documentation and the existing salvage plan has been submitted dwelling and do not which includes extensive result in irreversible documentation of the existing loss of heritage building and details regarding how attributes. Table 2. Section 6.4 and 6.5 of the CCNHCD CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section 6.4.1 — Recommended Practices and Design Guidelines for alterations to Existing Buildings in the CCNCHD • Research The existing heritage resource has the original been extensively documented and style and studied as part of this site plan appearance application. In support of this of the application, a documentation and building to salvage plan has been submitted determine which includes extensive "authentic documentation of the existing limits" of building and details regarding how restoration CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines or alteration and where the salvaged items will so that the be used. appropriate style is maintained. • Retain and The proposed development restore includes the retention and heritage restoration of identified heritage attributes attributes. The multi -pane colour wherever windows, and the decorative trim possible at the gable ends is proposed to rather than be restored. The original wooden replace sash windows are in need of them, replacement. The wooden porches particularly are not original to the building and for features have also deteriorated and are such as proposed to be removed and windows, replaced with a more consistent doors, porch design throughout the porches, building. and decorative trim. • Where The proposed replacement The proposed doors and windows replacement features include the replacement though a different material, will be of features ( of the existing doors and of the same size and proportions e.g. — doors, windows. This decision was of the existing openings, and will windows, made by the client citing conserve the overall appearance trim) is financial considerations of the existing building. unavoidable, associated with restoration of the the existing wooden windows replacement and ongoing maintenance components concerns associated with the should be of future use of the building as a the same multi -unit rental building. The general replacement doors and windows style, size, are proposed to be aluminum proportion frame but will maintain the size and material and proportions of the existing whenever openings. Further the possible. replacement windows are proposed to maintain the CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines Section 6.5 — existing sash style of the Recommended windows. • Incorporate The proposed addition's height Due to the property's high visibility similar and overall massing is informed within the District and the building by the existing building. The property's shape, informed design forms, proposed addition matches the has been used as a tool to mitigate materials, height of the existing building, the impact the proposed addition scale and and the proposed roof pitch might have on the streetscape of design corresponds with the existing Ellen Street East and Lancaster elements in roofline. Window openings Street East. the located on the west and east alteration elevation of the proposed that exist on addition and therefore visible the original along Ellen and Lancaster building. Streets East will be rectangular and sized to make reference to the proportion of the openings on the existing building. • Avoid concealing The proposed development will not or irreversibly alter the identified irreversibly heritage attributes of the building. altering Some door and window openings original are proposed to be enlarged or re - heritage sized, however that can be attributes of reversed should the need arise. building, The decorative details of the such as building are being conserved and entrances, restored. windows, doors and decorative details when undertaking alterations. CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines Section 6.5 — Recommended Practices and CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Design Guidelines for additions to Existing Buildings in the CCNCHD • Additions that The addition will be clearly The proposed addition is are necessary distinguishable from the complementary and sympathetic to should be original house through the existing building, while being sympathetic materials and form. The subordinate in size and clearly and proposed use of a distinguishable from the existing complementary corresponding colour palette building. The proposed addition in design, and on the rear addition provides does not aim to duplicate the form if possible, a cohesive visual appearance or detail of the existing building, clearly that remains distinguishable. but rather provides an appropriate distinguishable The proposed addition seeks transition between the addition and from the to use new materials which the original structure while original are intended to visually incorporating traditional materials, construction by present as a traditional and using sympathetic colours so form or detail. material (clapboard). The that efficiently blends in with the The use of texture and material existing building, and the existing traditional composition of the two streetscape of the District. materials, different materials will finishes and ensure that they are visually colours rather distinctive. than exact duplication of form, can provide appropriate transition between additions and original structures. • Additions The proposed addition is located should be away from the principal facade of located away the building and is located on the from the rear and side yard of the building. principal Although additions are only fagade(s) of preferred in the rear, due to the heritage constraints of the property shape, properties, the addition had to be located preferably at towards the rear of the property the rear of the and projecting on the side yard. building to CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines reduce the visual impact on the street(s). • Form and As demonstrated above, the form detail of the the detail of the proposed addition addition should is complementary to the original be construction with respect to style, complementary scale and materials but is to the original distinguishable and clearly construction, identifiable as a structure of its with respect to own time. style, scale, and materials but still distinguishable to reflect the historical construction periods of the building. • The height of The height of the rear any addition addition is proposed to be the The proposed addition does not should be same as the existing building. dominate the original building, or similar to the The proposed addition will the neighboring buildings. existing be visible from side elevation building and/or due to the nature of the adjacent irregular lot; however, the buildings to existing historic building will ensure that the remain prominent and highly addition does visible. not dominate the original building, neighboring buildings or the streetscape. • Additions The proposed three-storey The loss of one segmental arch should not addition will result in the loss window is necessary to facilitate obscure or of one segmental arch the connection of the addition with remove window opening on the rear the original structure. However, it CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments important (north) elevation. The should be noted that the rear architectural statement of CHVI identified fagade will be encapsulated in the features of the all of the segmental arch new building footprint and will not existing window openings with brick result in a loss of the entire fagade. building. voussoirs heritage attributes and as such, the proposed The sash windows are going to be development doesn't meet replaced with the windows of the this guideline. However, it is same, style and size. important to note that the proposed development will not alter or obscure any of the segmental arch windows on the facade, east and west elevation which are the elevations with visible street frontage. The proposed addition seeks to remove the wooden sash windows (with the exception of the multi -coloured Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on the facade) which were identified as heritage attributes in the statement of CHVL As such, this guideline is not being met. • Additions The proposed three storey Although step backs are preferred should not addition does extend further for any additions, there were size negatively east than the existing east constraints that had to be impact the elevation which, when considered for this property. symmetry and compared to the original 19th However, the proposed design of proportions of century design of the the addition, with the gable roof, the building or building could be interpreted and complementary building does create a as an impact to the symmetry not have an adverse negative visually of the Greek Floor plan. impact on the symmetry and unbalanced However, it is important to proportions of the building. It also fagade note that several mid -20th does not create an unbalanced century additions to the fagade or dominate the original building have already building. obscured this floor plan and the building currently has an irregular footprint. CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines The addition, which is positioned along the rear (north) addition, preserves the view of the existing building's facade as viewed from the "Five Points" intersection. The addition's massing and roof pitch and use of differing finish materials with a corresponding colour palate creates a harmonious yet still differentiable portion of the building that allows the facade to remain visually balanced. Further, the removal of some of the 20th century additions, as outlined in the proposed development, will positively contribute to the visibility of the buildings original Greek Cross floor plan. • New doors and The proposed development The new doors and windows are of windows includes the removal of the similar style, orientation and should be of existing wooden sash proportions as on the existing similar style, windows with segmental building. orientation and arches which have been proportion as noted as being heritage on the existing attributes. Replacement doors building. and windows are proposed to Where be aluminum frame but will possible, maintain the size and consider the proportions of the existing use Of openings. Further the appropriate replacement windows are reclaimed proposed to maintain the materials. existing sash style of the windows. • New Construction The proposed addition will not should avoid cause any irreversible damage to irreversible original construction. damage to CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines original The original appearance and construction. character of the existing building Table 3 — Section 6.9.1 — Site Specific Desiqn Guidelines for Ellen Street East CCNHCD Plan Section and Policy and Guidelines Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section 6.9.3 - Ellen Street East • The original The original appearance and appearance and character of the existing building character of the on the subject property is being existing building maintained and integrated into the should be redevelopment proposal included maintained or within this heritage permit integrated into application. any redevelopment proposals. • Building The guideline indicates that The roofline and design of the facades at the a step back should be proposed addition is consistent street level incorporated if required to with the existing building. The should establish a cohesive overall massing and design of the incorporate streetscape. The height and addition will not have an adverse consistent roof roofline of the proposed negative impact on the streetscape lines and step if building is in keeping with within the CCNHCD. required to the existing building and the establish a height of the residences in cohesive the surrounding streetscape streetscape. and is positioned at the rear of the existing building. With this in mind, ARA is of the opinion that a step back is not required in this context. The addition has a gable roof that follows the pitch of the existing building which is in keeping with the original buildings architectural style and does CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines not detract from the surrounding area. • New The proposed development has development entrances oriented to the street. shall have entrances oriented to the street. • To better reflect The proposed development is not the historic greater than 3 storeys. development pattern and address potential issues related to privacy and access to sunlight in the event of any redevelopment, any redevelopment greater than 3 storeys is encourages to maintain a rear yard setback greater than 7.5 metres were feasible. • Locate loading, The initial design proposed These services are located along garbage, and locating garbage and the rear property line, and as such, other service recycling storage along do not have a negative visual elements Ellen Street East however, impact on the street. (HVAC, meters, in consultation with City etc) way from Staff, the revised design the front fagade places garbage and to they do not recycling storage along the have a negative northern property boundary visual impact on to better align with this the street or guideline and ensure there is new no negative impact to the building/addition streetscape. Additionally, a CCNHCD Plan Draft HIA Comments Additional Staff Comments Section and Policy and Guidelines 1.8 -meter -high wood privacy fence is proposed along the property line to minimize any impact of these amenities on the neighbouring properties. There are other sources available to determine whether an addition is complementary and compatible with the existing heritage buildings. The proposed addition does not meet the intent of some of the standards included in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. These include: • Aim for minimal intervention. o The proposed development aims for minimal intervention in incorporating the new addition with the existing building. • Make sure the new work is physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. o As has been demonstrated above, the new addition is physically and visually compatible with and subordinate to the existing building. It is also distinguishable from the historic place. • Design new work so that it could be removed in the future (reversibility). o The new addition could technically be removed in the future through demolition. • Select the location for a new addition so that the heritage value of the original building is maintained. o The addition is located on the rear of the property, maintaining the heritage value of the original building. • Design that new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. o The proposed addition has been designed in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. • Design the addition so that it is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. o The proposed addition is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. Its proposed size, scale, massing, colour, fenestration pattern, and roof design, does not detract from the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. • Find solution to meet accessibility requirements that are compatible with the exterior form of the historic building, i.e., introducing a gently sloped walkway instead of a constructed ramp with handrails in front of an historic building. o n/a • Work with accessibility and conservation specialists and users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility issues with the least impact on the character -defining elements and overall heritage value of the historic building. o n/a The policies and guidelines included within the CCNHCD recognizes that development or redevelopment is bound to occur in the HCD. In fact, these policies and guidelines have been put in place based on that assumption. The intent of these policies and guidelines, however, is to guide the compatibility of gentle infill with the existing heritage stock within the HCD, not to restrict it. There have been many properties over the last few years that have been successfully converted to multi -unit residential homes while still meeting the intent of these policies and guidelines. The proposed development introduces gentle infill in the CCNCHD while ensuring that the integrity of the HCD stays intact. In reviewing this application, heritage planning staff note that: • The subject property municipally addressed as 115 Lancaster Street East/58-60 Ellen Street East is located within the Civic Centre Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The proposed development includes the construction of a rear and side -yard addition to the existing building; • The proposed addition meets the policies included within Section 3.3.2, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.9.1 of the CCNCHD Plan related to the additions to existing buildings; • It is the same height as the existing building, is distinguishable yet sympathetic to the existing building and uses appropriate fenestration patterns, materials, and design to blend in with existing building and within the HCD in general. • The proposed addition meets the intent of most of the standards and guidelines of the Standards and Guidelines of the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; • The HIA has recommended certain mitigative measures to ensure that the proposed development does not have a negative impact on the Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East streetscapes. Implementing these measures will ensure that the addition does not detract from the streetscape. • The proposed addition will not have a negative impact on the existing dwelling and the CCNCHD streetscape. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Heritage Kitchener committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener committee will be consulted on the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act, 2023 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2024-V-024 Attachment B — Draft Heritage Impact Assessment Attachment C — Draft Cultural Heritage Protection Plan Attachment D — Documentation and Salvage Report 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals 200 King Street West, 6th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; planning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that 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 heritageakitchener.ca. 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 confine 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 +, �Urowing thoughtfully t Build:ingcommunity, 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. Work.ing tageth*r a 45rpwing.thoughtfully t Au41d]ri ; immmunit yL 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 Aril 2, 2024 March 29, 2024 Ma 7, 2024 April 26, 2024 June 4, 2024 - No July Meeting June 28, 2024 August 6, 2024 July 26, 2024 September 3, 2024 August 23, 2024 October 1, 2024 September 27, 2024 November 5, 2024 - No December Meeting arking together . Urowing thoughtfully + i8olldlnj rammunity 2024 Page 4 of 10 B. 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: Wovkkng togather # Srowl:ng thoughtfully + Building a*mmunity 2024 Page 5 of 10 Setting I. 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 WorUng together • OrQw1ong thoughtfully • Bulld rra c*rnmun ty 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 Si na e The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed • A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials means of attachment (the means of attachment should be historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: , methods of construction, colours and arranged to anchor into joints between • 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.calen/pages/standards-normes.aspx . For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritageQkitchener.ca. W*rkling tagether • Growin . thoughtfully + Building cair munity 2024 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Development & Housing Approvals 9 � .. 200 King Street West, 6th Floor K �' i,: 3`" I Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 619-741-2426; planning a@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: 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, ON Legal Description (if know): Part Lot 3 Plan 417 Kitchener as in 1273756; Kitchener 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 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Matthew Muller Company: John MacDonald Architect Inc. Address: 195 King Street West, Suite 202 City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, ON N2G 1 B1 Phone: 519-579-1700 Email: matthew(a)-johnmacdonaldarchitect. ca W*rking~ together & OrowIng -thoughtfully + Buildiag carr munitw 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. As outlined in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application, issued by the City of Kitchener in May 2023, the proposed development includes the renovation and revitalization of the existing building at 58-80 Eilen Street East/115 Lancaster Street East. The subject property is currently divided into a six -unit multiple dwelling and construction of an adjoined three storey addition. The new addition is proposed to create an additional three units resulting in an eleven -unit multiple dwelling building. In 2022, a Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan was subitted to the City. This heritage permit application includes documents to address comments provided by City staff and reflect the revised design in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application. A memo for the revised Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan, a Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Action Pian for the subject property and adjacent properties and Documentation and Salvage Report are attached. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: The proposed development includes the revitalization of a heritage building at a high-profile intersection in the Civic Centre neighbourhood. The proposed addition to the building would ensure a reasonable return on investment while ensuring that the effort to provide functional and quality rental housing is worthwhile. The proposed use and scale of use of the proposed development is permitted within the existing OP and area zoning and supports the goals of the City of Kitchener's Secondary Plan for Land Use within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood for medium density multiple dwelling units and is a permitted use within the City's Zoning By-law (2019-051) for residential (R5) multiple dwellings. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: The proposed development includes the revitalization of a heritage building at a high-profile intersection in the Civic Centre neighbourhood. The proposed addition to the building would ensure a reasonable return on investment while ensuring that the effort to provide functional and quality rental housing is worthwhile. The proposed use and scale of use of the proposed development is permitted within the existing OP and area zoning and supports the goals of the City of Kitchener's Secondary Plan for Land Use within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood for medium density multiple dwelling units and is a permitted use within the City's Zoning By-law (2019-051) for residential (R5) multiple dwellings. A Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan (attached) for the subject property and adjacent properties has been developed to ensure that the properties are protected throughout the construction process. 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 proposed development is consistent with the Standard's and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as outlined by Parks Canada as the conservation of the heritage building retains the existing exterior form and will protect the heritage resource by undertaking maintenance and conservation of the building's existing materials. Further, the proposed development will not isolate any identified heritage attributes or obstruct/detract from the visibility and legibility of the property from the surrounding environment, context or any significant relationship. The proposed new construction is distinct and legible from the historical structure and is placed to the rear of the property, allowing the views to the historical structure to remain intact and legible. Further discussion on the proposed project and conservation methods were included in the 2022 HIA and CP and are elaborated on in the HIA/CP Revision Memo and CHPP/TPP and Documentation and Salvage Plan. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Summer 2025 Expected completion date: 2026 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ® Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Deeksha Choudry - Heritage Planner c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? e) Other related Building or Planning applications ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No Application number. working logetheii * Wowl.ng �Chilpughtfulljy + 8.u1ld rtg camrrnuNty' 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 im d for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Age Date: nrkobe,�- Signature of Owner/Age 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 1 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). Workirug togelher a Growing thoughtfully + BuIlding eomrnunity 2024 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working toBetl-er a, 6rowing thoughtfully + Baaild#ng tommumity -T - Page 10 of 10 AW%S1M0WFARA ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION FINAL October 1, 2024 Submitted to: c/o Matthew Muller John MacDonald Architect Inc. 141 Whitney Place, Suite 101 Kitchener, ON N2H 2X8 Tel: (519) 579-1700 Email: matthew(uiohnmacdonaldarchitect.ca Re: Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan for 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener. ARA Project #: 2021-0338-03 (HR -384-2021) 1.0 BACKGROUND The City of Kitchener has requested that Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) provide a memo to accompany the original Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan for the proposed development at 58-60 Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East (the subject property) to address comments from City Planning staff and satisfy the conditions outlined in the May 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on the subject property was completed by ARA in March 2022 (ARA 2022). The HIA included a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06). This evaluation determined that the property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. Heritage Staff provided comments on the HIA dated January 20, 2022. The comments to be addressed in this memo are outlined in Table 1. A Conservation Plan (CP) on the subject property was developed in August 2022 which identified and assessed the subject property's cultural heritage resources and heritage attributes and outlined short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures (ARA 2022). The CP was reviewed by City Staff and specific direction on remaining items to address in the memo were outlined via an email dated June 18, 2024. The comments to be addressed in this memo are outlined in Table 2. As outlined in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application, the HIA and CP must be approved by the Director of Planning prior to Site Plan Approval. City staff indicated that the submission of a memo addressing staff comments on the HIA and CP and outlining the final proposed design for the subject property, with updated elevation photos would meet the needs of this requirement. These items are addressed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Table 1: Heritage Impact Assessment — Comments to be Addressed City of Kitchener Planning Staff Comment ARA Res onse/Relevant Memo Section HIA Page No: i HIA Section: Executive Summary ARA has provided further clarification on the Staff Comment: Suggested Revision in Wording from: The CCNHCD subject property's identification in the CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group 8 to The as outlined in Section 2.0. CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group (very fine or fine examples respectively). HIA Page No: ii HIA Section: Executive Summary ARA has provided a revised description of the Staff Comment: Impact 5 talks about garbage placement. This proposed development to reflect the design statement might have to be revised considering the placement of presented in the Conditional Approval of Site garbage and recycling bins might have changed. Plan Application. See Section 3.0. HIA Page No: 1 HIA Section: Project Context ARA has provided further clarification on the Staff Comment: Suggested Revision in Wording from: The CCNHCD subject property's identification in the CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group 8 to The as outlined in Section 2.0. CCNHCD identifies properties within the HCD as Group A or Group (very fine or fine examples respectively). ARA has provided further details related to how HIA Page No: 50 the addition was positioned and considerations HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 5, Impact 1 - made regarding the visual context of the heritage Impact Assessment for Proposed Development) resource in the revised proposed development Staff Comment: The HIA states that the addition will not significantly description. See Section 3.0. detract from the character or visual context of the heritage resource but does not comment on its location and whether that would any The chart discussing this impact has been effect. updated accordingly to address this comment. See Section 4.0, Table 3. ARA has provided further details related to how HIA Page No: 50 the addition was positioned and considerations HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 6, Policy a - made regarding the visual context of the heritage Policies Considered from Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to resource in the updated proposed development Existing Buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) description. See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: The HlAneeds to mention whatimpacts these minor The chart discussing this policy has been alterations mighthave ornothave on the identified heritage attributes. updated accordingly to address this comment. See Section 4.0, Table 4. HIA Page No: 51 ARA has provided further details to this impact HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 6, Policy d - description to further describe howthe alterations Policies Considered from Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to associated with the proposed design may or may Existing Buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) not have impacts to the identified heritage Staff Comment: Due to the location of the proposed addition attributes. See Section 3.0. currently, it is not look subordinate to the building, specially when The chart discussing this guideline has been viewed from Lancaster Street. The HIA should provide commentary updated accordingly to address this comment. on that. See Section 4.0, Table 4. HIA Page No: 51/52 ARA has provided further details related to the HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 7, Guideline 5 removal of the existing wooden sash windows - Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section and any infilling of doors and window openings in 6.4 Alterations of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) the design presented in the Conditional Approval Staff Comment: The HIA should provide commentary on the impact of Site Plan Application. See Section 3.0. and mitigative measures of removing of the existing wooden sash The chart discussing this guideline has been window and infilling of door and window openings. It is not sufficient updated accordingly to address this comment. to just comment that they are being removed. See Section 4.0, Table 5. HIA Page No: 52 ARA has provided further details related to the HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 7, Guideline 6 removal of the existing wooden sash windows - Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section and the rationale for this decision alongside a 6.4 Alterations of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) comparative cost analysis of retaining the Staff Comment: The proposed replacement of doors and windows existing windows. See Section 3.0. will not be the same material. The windows are proposed to be October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario replaced with vinyl windows, the material for the dormer is proposed The chart discussing this guideline has been to be steel. The HIA should mention all these changes, and suggest updated accordingly to address this comment. mitigative measures. See Section 4.0, Table 5. ARA has provided further details related to how HIA Page No: 52 the proposed windows doors and porch forms HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 7, Guideline 7 were considered in the design presented in the - Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application. 6.4 Alterations of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: How have the proposed windows, doors, new porch considered the existing form, material, scale and design and directly The chart discussing this guideline has been informed the proposed design. updated accordingly to address this comment. See Section 4.0, Table 5. HIA Page No: 52 ARA has provided further details related to how HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 8, Guideline 2 the built form was considered in the design - Guidelines Considered from Section 6.9.3. Area Specific — Ellen presented in the Conditional Approval of Site Street East of the Civic Centre) Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: The height and roofline of the proposed building is in keeping with the original building, but the proposed design has to The chart discussing this guideline has been stepback. The HIA should include commentary on how this part of the updated accordingly to address this comment. policy is not being satisfied and suggest mitigation measures. See Section 4.0, Table 6. ARA has provided a revised description of the HIA Page No: 53 proposed development to reflect the design HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 8, Guideline 5 presented in the Conditional Approval of Site - Guidelines Considered from Section 6.9.3. Area Specific — Ellen Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Street East of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) Staff Comment: This would need to be updated to reflect the new The chart discussing this guideline has been proposed place for garbage. updated accordingly to address this comment. See Section 4.0, Table 6. HIA Page No: 53 ARA has provided a revised description of the HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 9, Guideline 1 proposed development to reflect the design - Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic presented in the Conditional Approval of Site Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: It was previously mentioned that the proposed material for the addition is horizontal siding. However, the discussion The chart discussing this guideline has been for this guideline includes Board and Batten — which is traditionally updated accordingly to address this comment. vertical siding. Please confirm or revise this portion in the HIA. See Section 4.0, Table 7. HIA Page No: 53 ARA has provided a revised description of the HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 9, Guideline 4 proposed development to reflect the design - Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic presented in the Conditional Approval of Site Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: The HIA should mention how the proposed addition The chart discussing this guideline has been does not have any stepback, and how that might impact that updated accordingly to address this comment. elevation, seeing as it is highly visible from the public realm. See Section 4.0, Table 7. HIA Page No: 53 HIA Section: Analysis of Potential Impacts (HIA Table 9, Guideline 6 ARA has provided a revised description of the - Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic proposed development to reflect the design Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan) `bump presented in the Conditional Approval of Site Staff Comment: I do not agree with this statement. The out' Plan Application. See Section 3.0. of the addition will have a negative impact on the existing symmetry of the building, and also on the Greek Floor plan that currently exists. The chart discussing this guideline has been Mitigation measures need to be explored which might include updated accordingly to address this comment. stepping back the addition, so that: 1) It is insubordinate to the original See Section 4.0, Table 7. building; and 2) It does not have an adverse impact on the existing elevations and symmetry of the building. HIA Page No: 56 ATemporary Protection Plan, Vibration HIA Section: Masonry Repointing and Painting (HIA Section 12.4) Monitoring Report and Pre -Condition Structural Staff Comment: Can the HIA confirm that the building is stable Assessment on the subject property have been enough to withstand the proposed replacement and construction of completed as part of this resubmission. the addition? HIA Page No: 57 ARA has provided a revised description of the HIA Section: Vegetative Screening HIA Section 12.6 proposed development to reflect the design October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Staff Comment: This section could require updating based on presented in the Conditional Approval of Site resent garbage collections plans. Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Table 2: Conservation Plan - Comments to be Addressed City of Kitchener Relevant ARA Section Staff Comment: The photos and description of the proposed ARA has provided a revised description of the development will need to be updated based on the discussions that proposed development to reflect the design were had with Matthew and the team during the site plan approval presented in the Conditional Approval of Site process. Plan Application. See Section 3.0. Staff Comment: There needs to be some commentary regarding how ARA has provided the Standards and the proposed development is in keeping with the Standards and Guidelines recommendations that were Guidelines - and how each relevant standard and guideline is being considered when writing the 2022 met. They are mentioned in the CP but are not elaborated on and it is Conservation Plan. See Section 6.1. something we typically ask for in our CPs No short-term works requiring a cost estimate were identified in the 2022 Conservation Plan. Staff Comment: Our ToR also mentions a cost estimate for the short- term works, if it is required. If there are none, you can let me know A2024 structural assessment completed by and mention that in the CP. Tacoma Engineers Inc. identified some short terms works and a cost estimate was provided. See Section 6.2. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The CCNHCD applies groupings for properties within the HCD; Group A (very fine example) or Group B (fine example) represent "fine or very fine" examples of an architectural style (City of Kitchener 2007:27). It should be noted that there is some inconsistency within the CCNHCD regarding the subject property's grouping as the property includes multiple municipal addresses. Appendix B of the CCNHCD has identified 60 Ellen Street East as Class B (fine) and 115 Lancaster Street East as Group A (very fine), however an overview map of the Civic Centre neighbourhood identifies the entire property as Group A (very fine example). An architectural description and overview of the condition of the subject property and its heritage attributes was provided in ARA's 2022 HIA and CP. As the initial HIA and CP submission took place in 2022, updated photographic documentation of each elevation is provided below (see Image 1 to Image 4). There have been no changes to the exterior appearance of the building since the initial submission of the HIA and CP. 2.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest A statement of cultural heritage value or interest and the identification of heritage attributes was developed as part of the 2022 HIA and has been added to this memo for reference. It should be noted that the 2022 HIA described the existing building as a two -and -a -half -storey building whereas the drawings and designs provided by the client's architect described the existing building as three -storeys. For clarity, the following statement was updated to describe the building as three -storeys. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2.1.1 Introduction and Description of Property The subject property, municipally known as 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East, is situated on a triangular shaped lot. The lot contains a three storey, painted brick residential house in Berlin or Kitchener vernacular architectural style that features decorative elements influenced by Queen Anne residential architecture. 2.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value/Statement of Significance 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has design or physical value as a representative example of a late 19th century Berlin or Kitchener vernacular residence with Queen Anne design elements. Constructed circa 1888, the building is distinguished by projecting wings on the facade, northeast and southwest elevation that feature large, paired window openings with segmental arches. The Queen Anne influence is displayed through the steep intersecting gable roofline with decorative gable ends, wooden sash windows with small panes of coloured glass, deep eaves with a molded wooden fascia. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has historical or associative value for its associations with the local artist Anna Rothaermel Cairnes. Anna Rothaermel Cairnes, is a notable Berlin/Kitchener artist who resided and operated an art studio out of the residence. Her work is featured in the Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum and the Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery collection. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it supports and maintains the late 19th and early 20th century character of the Civic Centre neighbourhood and the development of the Town of Berlin. Positioned at the approximate centre of a triangular shaped lot, the property is placed alongside a cluster of historic homes within the Civic Centre neighbourhood. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East contributes to the late 19th and early 20th century character of the area which is recognized as playing an important and prominent role in the development of the town of Berlin, now the City of Kitchener. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it is visually and historically linked to the Civic Centre neighbourhood which is an important residential neighbourhood directly associated with several key periods of growth and development. The property is visually and functionally linked to its surrounding as being the terminus for two streets and for its prominent location at "five points". The significance is reinforced through the Berlin/Kitchener vernacular architectural style of the structure. Constructed circa 1888, the subject property is historically linked to the surrounding as being part of a larger residential neighbourhood which was associated with important businesses and community leaders and associated with several key periods of urban growth and development Cultural Heritage Attributes: 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has design or physical value as a representative example of a late 19th century Berlin or Kitchener vernacular residence with Queen Anne design influence. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Brick exterior • Three-storey height; October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario • Projecting wings on facade and side elevations; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey facade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roof; • Decorative gable ends with wooden shingles; • Deep eaves; and • Molded wooden frieze 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has historical or associative value for its associations with local artist Anna Rothaermel Cairnes. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Location facing south on corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection. • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East has contextual value as it supports and maintains the late 19th and early 20th century character of the Civic Centre neighbourhood and the development of the Town of Berlin. The subject property contains the following attributes which reflect this value: • Location facing south on the corner of Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East at the Five Point intersection. • Location on the boundary edge of the Civic Centre neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. • Brick exterior • Three storey height; • Projecting wings on facade and side elevations; • Original and paired wooden sash windows with segmental arches and brick voussoirs; • Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on second and attic storey facade with multiple coloured glass panes; • Intersecting gable roof; • Decorative shingles on gable end; • Deep eaves; and • Molded wooden frieze October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 7 Image 1: Subject Property — Fagade (Photo taken September 9, 2024) Image 2: Subject Property — East Elevation (Photo taken September 9, 2024) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 3: Subject Property — North Elevation (Photo taken on September 9, 2024) 11 Image 4: Subject Property — West Elevation (Photo taken on September 9, 2024) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The following section outlines the design associated with the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application (henceforth, the revised design) which was modified after the initial submission of the HIA and CP in 2022. The revised design involves the construction of a three-storey addition to the rear of the existing three-storey building and includes renovations to the exterior and interior of the existing building (see Figure 1 to Figure 7). The revised design will result in an eleven unit building with a shared tenant storage area. The addition is proposed to be at the rear of the existing building (north elevation). 3.1 Exterior Design The subject property is an irregular corner lot, with street frontages on and high visibility along both Lancaster Street East and Ellen Street East. Recognizing that these conditions present constraints on how the property could be adapted, there was much consideration on how an addition should interact with the existing building. As outlined in the HIA, the existing building was historically oriented to face the "Five Points" intersection to the southeast of the subject property. Later modifications to the building, including the addition of multiple porches and a two-storey, hip roof addition on the west elevation of the building modified the building's initial Greek Cross floor plan. In the mid -20th century, the building was retrofitted to a multi -unit rental property which reoriented the primary entrances to the building to Ellen and Lancaster Street East. Currently, the subject property marks the eastern boundary of the CCNHCD and frames the entrance to the CCNHCD from Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East. The Heritage Character Statement in the CCNHCD notes that the area is valued for the historic development that took place in the City of Kitchener at the turn of the 19th century with large homes associated with key business and community leaders of the time and that a key heritage attribute is the "wealth of well maintained, finely detailed buildings from the late 1800s and early 1900s that are largely intact" (City of Kitchener 2007:2.7). With these considerations in mind, the initial and revised design positioned the addition in a manner that would preserve the fagade view of the existing building and best maintains the view of the subject property as one would view it from the Five Points intersection and when entering the CCNHCD. The site plan of the revised design (see Figure 1) outlines that two asphalt parking spaces will be located in the northwest corner of the property, using the existing driveway access and curb cut along Ellen Street East. Garbage and recycling storage is proposed along the northern property boundary as well as a bicycle storage area for eight bicycles. These amenities are proposed to be buffered from the neighbouring properties by a 1.8 -meter -high wood privacy fence. The east elevation along Lancaster Street East is primarily a sodded area with concrete pathways to access the unit entrances. The south elevation includes a patio/public amenity area, landscaping and sodded area where Ellen Street and Lancaster Street East intersect. Lasty, the west elevation includes a concrete walkway, landscaping features, new fire hydrant, retaining wall, and backlit building signage and multiple trees. Figure 2 shows the overall massing of the proposed addition. Alongside the construction of a three-storey addition, changes are proposed for the exterior envelope of the existing structure which are detailed in Figure 3 — Figure 7. Overall changes to the existing building's exterior appearance include: Replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof with a lighter grey asphalt shingle (Certainteed, Landmark Pro "Weathered Wood" — see Figure 3); October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10 • Removal of the existing wooden board soffit and fascia to be replaced with a vented aluminum soffit and fascia. The existing wooden frieze board, which was identified as a heritage attribute is proposed to be retained and refurbished. • The existing decorative trim on the gable ends is proposed to remain. Any worn or missing cedar shakes are proposed to be replaced with new cedar shakes of the same style and size. The cedar shakes are proposed to be stained (stained to the colouring of Frasier Wood Siding "Ginger" or similar - see Figure 3). • Removal and replacement of existing eavestroughs to improve water shedding; • Removal and replacement of the existing door fixtures to be replaced with doors that will be painted (Benjamin Moore colour no. 2158-20 "Venetian Gold" - see Figure 3). • Removal of the existing wooden sash windows on all elevations to be replaced with contemporary windows of the same shape, style and size, with the exception of two multi - paned wooden windows with coloured glass on the facade, which are proposed to be retained and restored; o See Section 3.1.1 for further discussion and rationale related to the removal and replacement of the existing windows. • Painting the structure's brick masonry: o The client has outlined that their contractor will be cleaning the brick masonry prior to repainting to remove any loose paint residue/debris. The client confirmed that their contractor will be provided with the masonry conservation guidance outlined in the Conservation Plan, namely: Masonry cleaning to remove any biological growth and old paint residue should use non-abrasive cleaning methods such as low-to-medium pressure water (100-400psi), steam cleaning or a chemical application (ARA 2022:44). o Any brick masonry areas requiring repair are proposed to be repaired after cleaning. The client has retained masons from Brent's Masonry who have demonstrated experience with historical buildings in the Region of Waterloo. The client confirmed to ARA that they will be provided with the masonry conservation guidance outlined in the Conservation Plan. o Once cleaned and repaired, the brick masonry will be repainted with a latex exterior paint, Benjamin Moore colour no. OC -55 "Paper White" - see Figure 3. • Removing the paint from the stone masonry foundation: o The client has outlined that their contractor will be cleaning the brick masonry prior to repainting to remove any loose paint residue/debris. The client confirmed that their contractor will be provided with the masonry conservation guidance outlined in the Conservation Plan, namely: Masonry cleaning to remove any biological growth and old paint residue should use non-abrasive cleaning methods such as low-to-medium pressure water (100-400psi), steam cleaning or a chemical application (ARA 2022:43). o Any brick masonry areas requiring repair are proposed to be repaired after cleaning. The client has retained masons from Brent's Masonry who have demonstrated experience with historical buildings in the Region of Waterloo. The client confirmed to ARA that they will be provided with the masonry conservation guidance outlined in the Conservation Plan. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 11 With respect to the facade (south elevation), specific changes to the elevation are outlined in Figure 4 and include: Retaining and restoring the multi -paned, coloured glass sash windows located on the second and third storey which were identified as heritage attributes contributing to the building's Queen Anne architectural style. Enlarging an existing, but modified window opening on the first floor to reinstate the original masonry opening. With respect to the east elevation, specific changes to the elevation are outlined in Figure 5 and include: • The removal of the wood -framed, one -storey sunroom on the southeast corner of the building. o The sunroom and addition behind it represent later additions to the building and are not considered to contribute to the building's Queen Anne architectural style. • Installation of guardrails to create an enclosed patio above the existing flat roof addition on the southeast corner of the building. • Enlarging an existing window opening to become a doorway to provide access to the second storey patio o This opening represents a previous modification to the original building design and is not considered contributing to the building's Queen Anne architectural style. The opening is differentiated from the original openings by its jack arch, irregular placement and different sash style. • Resizing an existing second storey egress door to become a window opening. o This opening represents a previous modification to the original building design and is not considered contributing to the building's Queen Anne architectural style. The opening is differentiated from the original openings by its jack arch and irregular placement. • Removal of the wood frame, one -storey storage area on the northeast corner of the building. o The one -storey storage area represents a later addition to the building and is not considered to contribute to the building's Queen Anne architectural style. o Following removal, the construction of a hip roof porch roof spanning the distance to the addition on the north addition. This new roof will shield the existing east elevation entrance. • Construction of an Arriscraft cut stone wall and guardrails to frame the entrances to the proposed basement units. • Construction of a shed roof dormer on the third storey containing a rectangular window opening composed of three windows. The dormer walls will be clad in cement board shingles (James Hardie colour "Aged Pewter") that will match the three-storey addition on the north elevation. The dormer roof will be clad in asphalt shingles matching the rest of the roof cladding. o The dormer is to be positioned in line with the windows in the gable ends of the existing building. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 12 With respect to the north elevation, specific changes to the elevation are outlined in Figure 6 and include: The proposed three-storey addition constructed along the existing north elevation and will be visible along the east and west elevation (see Figure 5 - Figure 7). While the addition abuts the existing building, the construction of the proposed addition would not include the removal of the north elevation's brick masonry. The masonry will be encapsulated within the addition and all existing openings will be closed in/infilled to create interior separation between the residential units. o There are two openings in the north elevation masonry, one of which represents an original opening, differentiated by its size and shape with a segmental arch and brick voussoirs. o The gable roofline will be extended to meet the roof ridge of the additions gable roof. The three-storey addition is described as follows: o The addition is to be clad in James Hardie siding colour "Aged Pewter" with accent trim in James Hardie Siding colour "Arctic White" (see Figure 3). o Window openings located on the west and east elevation and therefore visible along Ellen and Lancaster Street East will be rectangular and sized to make reference to the opening sizes on the existing building. o The north elevation of the three-storey addition contains two rectangular openings on each storey with a covered patio on the third storey. ■ The window opening sizes differ from the original openings however this was limited to the rear elevation to minimize impact to the streetscape. o Entrances to two basement units are located at the sub -level along this elevation. The west elevation of the three-storey addition will contain two rectangular window openings on the first and second storey. o The window openings differ in size from the original openings on the existing building but draw inspiration from the original openings in their proportions and placement. o A two-storey porch is to be installed along this portion of the addition with guardrails framing entrances and exterior areas for the units. With respect to the west elevation, specific changes to the elevation are outlined in Figure 7 and include: • The existing fire escape is proposed to remain however will be painted and refurbished with new guardrails to meet safety requirements; • The existing third storey dormer is proposed to be enlarged to accommodate full storey height dormer with a flat roof. o This dormer rests on a two-storey hip roof addition that was added and modified the building's original Greek Cross floor plan at an unknown date. o The new dormer will be finished with vertical steel siding and a decorative wood frieze board, referencing the existing frieze board will be installed along the ridge. • The existing porch and deck on the northwest corner of the building are proposed to be removed and replaced with newly constructed patios with guardrails to meet safety requirements and establish a consistent finish around the building • The existing 1960s wood porch on the southwest corner of the building is proposed to be removed and replaced with new covered porch with a bellcast shingled roof. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 13 o This bellcast roofline makes reference to the porch visible in historical images of the existing building and is in keeping with porch styles on Queen Anne buildings. The existing door on the gable end will be replaced with a new door fixture that will be painted (Benjamin Moore colour no. 2158-20 "Venetian Gold"). An existing 1960s `closet addition' on the southwest corner of the building is proposed to be removed. The openings within this addition are proposed to be removed and brick infilled. o The client has retained masons from Brent's Masonry who have demonstrated experience with historical buildings in the Region of Waterloo. The client confirmed to ARA that they will be provided with the masonry conservation guidance outlined in the Conservation Plan. 3.1.1 Replacement of Windows/Doors The property owner has indicated that the proposed design includes the retention and restoration of the two paired Queen Anne style wooden sash windows with multi -paned coloured glass which are located on the facade. These windows were specifically indicated as heritage attributes in the 2022 HIA. The existing one -over -one wooden sash windows with segmental arches, which were identified as heritage attributes in the 2022 HIA (see Section 2.1.2) are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed development. Comments from City of Kitchener Planning staff and the City's heritage committee noted that they "strongly encourage the retention of all original wood windows" (City of Kitchener 2022:4). Based on communication with the property owner, ARA understands that they would still like to remove the existing wooden windows to replace them with aluminum frame windows produced by Everlast Group of Companies of the same size and style. The property owner cited financial considerations associated with restoration of the existing windows and ongoing maintenance concerns associated with the future use of the building as a multi -unit rental building. As per the required due diligence and at the direction of City of Kitchener Planning Staff and ARA, the property owner obtained a quote on the cost of restoring the existing wooden windows to compare with the cost of the desired aluminum windows. The property owner contacted Hoffmeyer's Mill, a wood window sash and storm windows producer based in Sebringville, Ontario, who provided a rough estimate of the cost to produce a reproduction of the existing one - over -one wood window units on the subject property (19 in total) with a matching two lite arched storm window and half height screen. Hoffmeyer's Mill outlined that each window would cost $3150.00, totalling $59,850.00 for the 19 sash windows in the existing building. Comparatively, the cost to procure all the windows needed for the existing building and addition (47 aluminum frame windows in total) from Everlast Group of Companies, was quoted at $59,388.73+HST. Full communication with Hoffmeyer's Mill and Everlast Windows has been provided in Appendix A. 3.2 Interior Design Based on the materials provided by the property owner associated with the revised design the property will include 11 units between the existing building and the new addition and shared basement tenant storage (see Figure 8 - Figure 11). An overview of the 11 units is as follows: 1. Unit 001 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 450 ft2. This unit will be located in the basement of the existing building and accessed via stairs on the east elevation. A private patio is located at the entrance to this unit. 2. Unit 002 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 585 ft2 and extends between the basement and ground floor of the new addition. The unit will be October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 14 accessed via stairs on the east elevation which leads to a patio that is shared with Unit 003. 3. Unit 003 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 530 ft2 and extends between the basement and ground floor of the new addition. The unit will be accessed via stairs on the east elevation which leads to a patio that is shared with Unit 002. 4. Unit 101 is proposed to be a two bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 830 ft2. This unit will be located on the ground floor of the existing building and accessed via stairs on the west elevation. A new porch measuring will be located at the entrance to this unit. 5. Unit 102 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 420 ft2. This unit will be located on the ground floor of the existing building and accessed via a ramped porch on the east elevation. 6. Unit 103 is proposed to be a one bedroom/one-and-a-half- bathroom apartment measuring 500 ft2 and extends between the second and third storey of the new addition. Access to the unit via a new porch is located on the ground floor on the west elevation. This unit has two private patios, the first located on the second storey of the west elevation and the second off the bedroom on the third storey of the north elevation. 7. Unit 104 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 550 ft2 and extends between the second and third storey of the new addition. Access to the unit via a new porch is located on the ground floor on the east elevation. This unit has a private patio located on the second storey of the east elevation. 8. Unit 201 is proposed to be a two-bedroom, one bathroom apartment measuring 595 ft2. This unit will be located on the second storey of the existing building and accessed via the existing interior staircase with an entrance on the east elevation. This unit will have a private patio located on the southeast corner of the building. 9. Unit 202 is proposed to be a one-bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 425 ft2. This unit will be located on the second storey of the existing building and accessed via the existing interior staircase with an entrance on the east elevation. This unit will have a private patio located on the west elevation of the building. 10. Unit 301 is proposed to be a one-bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 440 ft2. This unit will be located on the third storey of the existing building and accessed via the existing interior staircase with an entrance on the east elevation. This unit will have an emergency exit located on the west elevation that connects to an exterior fire escape. 11. Unit 302 is proposed to be a one bedroom/bathroom apartment measuring 550 ft2. This unit will be located on the third storey of the existing building and accessed via the existing interior staircase with an entrance on the east elevation. This unit will have an emergency exit located on the west elevation that connects to an exterior fire escape. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338-03 LO 0 coo Q) o � QY � O av y W Q) c U y O U Q J Q Lo Q 2 y O W o_ ai .y co N � N I W O N LO S`nNi E Im 11H Ili n" � r c 49 6^ OC i 0 rn m —6 u9mid I a � O 'c •� u ed o o � a, a; 7 ^q �cuyi I V i n r EE�>r 3 I�rv� _ f v � � ?� j 0 U r q s, II �I �$ Q.®� v Rnz�en`^�o�= i mN _ _ mm 6�� II M � II�aCi rnll I�� N c �I II Vi cyptl I �,PI °° E`E mP�Emv�R�.w x.4.4 i1¢"a.amm jj dan `� y 01'� S.D a -33m moy pow I 'ol n. 05 �n ° E- m'�&'E m�$m 2x�❑$" rnG E° na O o ;p, _ al L^g s� �`➢���Inmw. g cnw E yam m O . ca+e��il nsl t4 e, ��, o�o� F, e�� oSooa�.EE `ooao =;`.a �� i� f1•- MEZZUELL LMZM E Ed;mE Sj;j!yfig§N n ¢m - C�Fw6OsI I andI 4 'o EocoEaEOEa �E E'�o .'� SSE�a ova. rL L �N.r. aia`a`a a aha` Q 0 n rs ON Ex. SWawalk� .79m (E0' -e 718") r 8 1 .x° S xYSG 9 7N @ G A h i s Vie, ry4 e Z `M1EJ�. CL A W G c lB o JB�s. ry ri''iV � ;d Z 9y G `C j,o3 .Em r g h N �: z a00 Cl) J M O Z O U N O co Q) Q UQ NQ co O N � N O � N Q) 0 Q)015- M c _ 0 coo °Q) QY � o 0 av �y �w �Q) a� Q c Q � U y O U Q J Q Lo N y O W z N O N co N Z cl� N I W O N � Z Lo 0 ;w - V) y N � N L 0a C� 0 a� �o EL- `° Cl) o N 0 CL 0 a N 3 LL a00 Cl) J M O O O U N O N Q UQ NQ O N � N O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ P U CA O ( f}I EL 11�/ m � .ea v ea o In In CL e � � z a f I- it G I �l O aii + "I 3 'SII° fn c v o �li IL >v �d a 6 i v N u I c o � u C W w D ❑ Fi b W L .� Z � m N m Y Tr CJ 7 3 3 > >� 0 ;w - V) y N � N L 0a C� 0 a� �o EL- `° Cl) o N 0 CL 0 a N 3 LL a00 Cl) J M O O O U N O N Q UQ NQ O N � N O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ .O coo r �Y O av N y ami W N N co Q � U y O U Q J Q Lo N 2y O W O_ //N y cJ (/ �) �L Qi I W O N � Z Lo M 3 LL a00 Cl) J M O fB O U N O N Q UQ NQ 04 O N � Q) O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ AlP.�$ E°2 �r733 amry dna Q d kl Mm w ¢ B m6—r.E `2s — - I ad � �7 �i� 1 �O x mlgi I� 2b 2 � I� NY l6 6�l talc U I a _ _I I a�alyl ��,� qT4 - C7C 63 II bm = Ill _1 = rrl HE) r r r mm EEZ �L' Ec -- d 125 a�� c°m ef� v m atloS a �gfrYY a�ffi 5 Ear S_E n®fin Qui w w� # z mai flaw -- rcq w lu zE ZR2 z w M 3 LL a00 Cl) J M O fB O U N O N Q UQ NQ 04 O N � Q) O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ co I W O N � Z Lo a00 Cl) J M O Qi O U N O Q) Q UQ 04 O N � Q) O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ 0 C H m E"' g m Q 3 I P I •~-X y fes} X14 1�4� 4 Z I SII I I i ME / i I k m a sig 3� III/ i1.0 mp` E Eye � °� $_3A N Pg9 Ti E 'E E PoI .° mEEfi Ex _8_ re LE RM 9 a €m"c $Et m yy ° B xy p; n E _ g�w y g _ gs Mm`- 3' �tv m e$_ J�EE 8 a00 Cl) J M O Qi O U N O Q) Q UQ 04 O N � Q) O 4 Q) 00 15- M c _ rn LO CD ii a00 Cl) J M O O U N O � N Q UQ Q Q 04 O N � N O 4 00 /^- co E z Q � n y � Y s�' y � � � a � V �✓ Z E Z2... Z3 0 2 Z Z Z 2 zat 3 � �✓ W � © m I1 I O I EAR I 1 3 I t FLID U al t II tM UT � I � I ----ill � III ' ISI I % I I ° I ' =I ° ---=dl I l — — g i g w r• ° ate$ r � I 3 � I I I P sig 33 1 °^ I `I ISH. y Egg EASE 63E R w 72 N 2 W Zr ^ Z Z i LO CD ii a00 Cl) J M O O U N O � N Q UQ Q Q 04 O N � N O 4 00 /^- co C) N 0 coo ami o� QY � o av o y W �Q) Q� c� Q� U y O U Q J Q Lo N � Q 2y O W O_ //N�� c .�J ' N Z cl� N I W O N � Z Lo CO LL 04 O N � N O Q) 00 15- M c _ a oo F v y c t° E s`nI g ail � � �l � v �I � � ❑ � � � � o Q 3 I C I gz � � 0 E l I I I Miff l C :o m a aLL— JIM I =l_�€ 5v z� 0 nvi a o� o� E W c �'.n o. � m o• 5 E $ a' � o' Ems. s a s aagg Z 2Sw Z�m"d L Z¢ py%5$5 �� Ema6 CO LL 04 O N � N O Q) 00 15- M c _ N 0 coo aQ) Q) Q)Q) � o av y W Q) c Q � U y O U Q J1 1^^ Q) vJ Q) O W z Q) O_ //Q��) •y cJ Q) � N I W O N � Z Lo LL a00 cv) J M O O O U N O co Q) Q UQ c E a o di m $� �- rn 'I a 4 fa s� wB EI a G o c va $ S� ago I� $ m m �s o_,_f D S@� 555 F_ o3p O � y W W C � QQ S W L O 1` y rr��ii LL 1i I-II Rl IL Z Z2 p E c 6Y p, Q I�I -- -i i 1£II®I 1I ------------ ------------ 1 f I I v� 1 1 1 1 1 1 � a� � I 1 , 1 LL — n rc 1 I ag S� L &���^ 8g� €E.me; 1 r�8E& ode �Sb 9 a a�iE;Im ME 51 C.:o PH z � � �8 � LL a00 cv) J M O O O U N O co Q) Q UQ c N N I W O N � Z Lo Co a� U - C\' 0 N � N O � N Co 15- � M v z° I`o z �4 � s a v Q a Z Z Z OC c GC Z OC OC q h t0 C N � S S E 8£+ S S S S °o ® 0 Co F m m m 7l7 ) f I v o ST I V $iVlA g - o W e ;i FE I �m IN- Cp �E�o ---------- aa8 .+ma N N i C2 m o I Q 2 05 Co a� U - C\' 0 N � N O � N Co 15- � M M N ,o 0O O � �Y � o av o y ami W co Q � U y O U Q J Lo LZ N � y O W O_ N co N � � N I W 0 ZLo 00 a Cl) J M to O O O UtoN O to N Q co UQ NQ to O N N O 4 Q)C? 00 c_ 0 v r-+ } N o a a v ri m i � o ••mo co me �4 / / �N�`• Gm ��'`1I� y � v Q� z O __ Ma _ � a z 4� p g N — N rC 'C m � �a Q` o 3 s` I------- _ N �= o x a a3 S�� H m aFeY�y u ° r 00 a Cl) J M to O O O UtoN O to N Q co UQ NQ to O N N O 4 Q)C? 00 c_ N 0 �o a� °Q) QY � o O av o y NW_ N N Q L c Q � U y O U Q (Ti J O)Lo Q 2y O W O N y co N � N I W O N � Z Lo (L32 04 O N � N O � N Q) 00 Q) 15- M c _ 0 Z N z r4 I v a } N a v CL m >� F G` G b � � o � b F f II �I I fns �IVI� O d N 5 g IL ¢ m - 9 LJ Wy ---- >�G� n' I P O �m m m T� C� EL ------- K+9 I �j I- G�� ca awn T �a� u 'ao 2) CL H s LJ05 (L32 04 O N � N O � N Q) 00 Q) 15- M c _ LO N 0 �o a� °Q) QY � o 0 av N y NW_ N N Q L co Q � U y O U Q J O)Lo N y O W O_ N y co N � N I W O N � Z Lo a) L LL 04 O N � N O � N Q) 00 Q) 15- M c _ 0 z I � z r-+ v a N a v CL a >� F G` G b P. � o a b m F f II m o I I �m 'til w I an�x I g Mia a a��q � ------- _ zgqp Mz . CO cr� =m ------- - i 7 W $ i I I I u Q05 a) L LL 04 O N � N O � N Q) 00 Q) 15- M c _ Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 26 4.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS As written in the original HIA, any potential project impacts on identified cultural heritage resources must be evaluated, including positive and negative impacts. The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) InfoSheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006:3) provides a list of potential negative impacts to consider when evaluating any proposed development. The City of Kitchener Scoped Heritage Impact Assessments - Terms of Reference (2021) references impacts which are to considered. Additionally, impacts against policies associated with additions and alterations to existing buildings are outlined in Section 3.3.2. of the CCNHCD have also been included and are outlined in Table 4. The following analysis of project impacts reflects the revised design of the proposed development as outlined in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application and outlined in Section 2.0 of this memo. For clarity and brevity, the analysis found in the tables below are restricted to only address comments received by City Staff as outlined in Table 1. For the full analysis refer to the intial HIA (ARA 2022). September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 27 Table 3: Revised Impact Assessment for Proposed Development Ada ted from MCM 2006:3 Type of Negative Impact Applicable Comments The proposed development includes exterior alterations to single detached dwellings shall be permitted The proposed development includes alterations to the fagade provided such alterations are not within any the front and side yard. Specifically, repainting the painted brick and side elevations of the 19th century Queen Anne building exterior, removal of existing orches and construction of new including repainting the existing painted brick masonry, and modifications to building elements representing modifications made to the building in the mid -20th century which include: the removal of porches, sunroom and storage area, and resizing window openings that had been previously added or modified to the existing building. None of above elements proposed for removal were identified as heritage attributes. The majority of the original windows openings, which are identified as a heritage attribute will be retained. One original window opening on the rear elevation will be infilled as the three-storey addition is constructed. The remainder of the windows openings that are to be altered represent later modifications to the building. Overall, these changes will not detract from the overall legibility of the original building. While the proposed development does include the retention and Alterations to a property that detract restoration of the existing Queen Anne style sash windows with from the cultural heritage values, multi -coloured glass panes on the second and third storey of the attributes, character or visual fagade, the remaining segmentally arched windows are context of a heritage resource, such proposed to be removed and replaced with aluminum frame as the construction of new buildings Yes windows. This represents a loss of a heritage attribute that that are incompatible in scale, detracts from the overall legibility of the building. massing, materials, height, building orientation or location relative to the The proposed development includes the construction of a three - heritage resource. storey addition at the rear of the existing building. Best practice encourages additions to be located at the rear of a historic building to decrease any potential impacts to the surrounding visual context. As outlined in this memo, the subject property represents an irregular corner lot with high streetscape visibility along both side elevations, though historically the building was oriented to face the distinctive 'Five Point" intersection to the south. The decision to position the addition along the north (rear) elevation preserves the fagade view of the existing building as viewed from this intersection. The proposed addition is the same height and follows the same roofline pitch as the existing building. The finish materials will follow a corresponding colour palette to the historic building, however their material difference allows the addition to be clearly distinguishable. Overall, the addition's similarity in height and massing to the existing structure and surrounding properties has been thoughtfully considered to minimize detraction from the character or visual context of the heritage resource and surrounding CCNHCD. Table 4: Revised Policies Considered from Section 3.3.2. Additions and Alterations to Existing Buildings in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan Policies Discussion (a) Minor exterior alterations and additions to The proposed development includes exterior alterations to single detached dwellings shall be permitted elements or features on the existing building which are located on provided such alterations are not within any the front and side yard. Specifically, repainting the painted brick exterior, removal of existing orches and construction of new September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 28 Policies Discussion front or side yard (Section 13.1.2.1 of the porches, replacement of the existing eavestrough with like material Municipal Plan). and style, replacement of the existing soffit, replacement of the existing wooden sash windows and infilling of select existing windows. It should be noted that these alterations do not all represent alterations to heritage attributes. The only alteration to a heritage attribute within the front or side yard of the subject property is the replacement of the existing wooden sash windows. These windows are proposed to be replaced with aluminum frame windows that will match the existing style and shape of the windows and will maintain the size and proportion of the existing window openings. The proposed addition is located at the rear of the existing building however due to the subject property's irregular corner lot shape with high visibility along Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East the addition will be visible along the side elevations. While the proposed three-storey addition is positioned on the rear (north) elevation of the existing building, the subject property's irregular shape with street frontages on both Lancaster Street East and Ellen Street East means the addition is clearly visible from both the side elevations. As was identified in historical research for the 2022 HIA, the existing building was historically oriented to face the "Five Points" intersection to the southeast of the subject property. To supplement this policy, the recommendations on additions in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada was referenced. On additions, the Standards and Guidelines note: (a) Conserve the heritage value and character - defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. (b) Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and (d) Additions shall be subordinate to the distinguishable from the historic place (Standards and Guidelines original structure to allow the original heritage 2010:34). Regarding (b), the Standards and Guidelines provides features and built form to take visual further details about what defines a subordinate addition, stating precedence on the street. This is best understood to mean that the addition must not detract from the historic place or impair its heritage value. Subordination is not a question of size, a small, ill-conceived addition could adversely affect an historic place more than a large, well-designed addition (Parks Canada 2010:24). With this understanding in mind, the addition was positioned to preserve the view of the existing building's historical facade as viewed from the "Five Points" intersection. Further design choices such as the addition's massing and roof pitch and use of differing finish materials with a corresponding colour palate are also efforts to create a harmonious yet still differentiable portion of the building that allows the fagade to remain visually balanced. Further, the removal of some of the 20th century additions, as outlined in the proposed development, will positively contribute to the visibility of the buildings original Greek Cross floor plan. Table 5: Recommended Practices and Guidelines Considered from Section 6.4 Nirerarions or the Lavic cenrre rveianaournooa ncu Tian Recommended Practices and Guidelines Discussion New doors and windows should be of similar The proposed development includes the removal of the existing style, orientation and proportion as on the wooden sash windows with segmental arches which have been existing building. Where possible, consider noted as being heritage attributes. Replacement doors and the use of appropriate reclaimed materials. windows are proposed to be aluminum frame but will maintain the size and proportions of the existing openings. Further the September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 29 Recommended Practices and Guidelines Discussion Additions that are necessary should be replacement windows are proposed to maintain the existing sash sympathetic and complementary in design and, if style oft e windows. possible, clearly distinguishable from the original The proposed replacement features includes the replacement of the Building facades at the street level should existing doors and windows. This decision was made by the client Where replacement of features (e.g. — doors, citing financial considerations associated with restoration of the windows, trim) is unavoidable, the existing wooden windows and ongoing maintenance concerns replacement components should be of the associated with the future use of the building as a multi -unit rental same general style, size, proportions, and building. The replacement doors and windows are proposed to be material whenever possible. aluminum frame but will maintain the size and proportions of the existing building and/or adjacent buildings to existing openings. Further the replacement windows are proposed ensure that the addition does not dominate the to maintain the existing sash style of the windows. Locate loading, garbage and other service The proposed addition's height and overall massing is informed by elements (HVAC, meters, etc.) away from the the existing building. The proposed addition matches the height of front fagade so they do not have a negative the existing building and the proposed roof pitch corresponds with Incorporate similar building forms, materials, the existing roofline. scale and design elements in the alteration streetscape. Additionally, a 1.8 -meter -high wood privacy fence that exist on the original building. Window openings located on the west and east elevation of the proposed addition and therefore visible along Ellen and Lancaster Streets East will be rectangular and sized to make reference to the ro ortion of the openings on the existing building. Table 6: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.9.3. Area Specific - Ellen Street East of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HCD Plan Guideline Discussion Additions that are necessary should be The guideline indicates that a step back should be incorporated sympathetic and complementary in design and, if if required to establish a cohesive streetscape. The height and possible, clearly distinguishable from the original roofline of the proposed building is in keeping with the existing Building facades at the street level should building and the height of the residences in the surrounding incorporate consistent roof lines and step backs streetscape and is positioned at the rear of the existing building. if required to establish a cohesive streetscape With this in mind, ARA is of the opinion that a step back is not appropriate transition between additions and required in this context. The addition has a gable roof that original structures. follows the pitch of the existing building which is in keeping with The height of any addition should be similar to the the original buildings architectural style and does not detract existing building and/or adjacent buildings to from the surrounding area. ensure that the addition does not dominate the The initial design proposed locating garbage and recycling Locate loading, garbage and other service storage along Ellen Street East however, in consultation with elements (HVAC, meters, etc.) away from the City Staff, the revised design places garbage and recycling front fagade so they do not have a negative storage along the northern property boundary to better align with visual impact on the street or new building / this guideline and ensure there is no negative impact to the addition. streetscape. Additionally, a 1.8 -meter -high wood privacy fence is proposed along the property line to minimize any impact of these amenities on the neighbouring ro erties. Table 7: Guidelines Considered from Section 6.5.1 Additions of the Civic Centre Nei hbourhood HCD Plan Guideline Discussion Additions that are necessary should be The addition will be clearly distinguishable from the original sympathetic and complementary in design and, if house through materials and form. The proposed use of a possible, clearly distinguishable from the original corresponding colour palette on the rear addition provide a construction by form or detail. The use of cohesive visual appearance that remains distinguishable. The traditional materials, finishes and colours rather proposed addition seeks to use new materials which are than exact duplication of form, can provide intended to visually present as a traditional material (clapboard). appropriate transition between additions and The texture and material composition of the two different original structures. materials will ensure that they are visually distinctive. The height of any addition should be similar to the The height of the rear addition is proposed to be the same as existing building and/or adjacent buildings to the existing building. The proposed addition will be visible from ensure that the addition does not dominate the side elevation due to the nature of the irregular lot; however, the existing historic building will remain prominent and highly visible. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 30 Guideline Discussion original building, neighbouring buildings or the streetsca e. The proposed three-storey addition will result in the loss of one segmental arch window opening on the rear (north) elevation. The statement of CHVI identified all of the segmental arch window openings with brick voussoirs heritage attributes and as such, the proposed development doesn't meet this guideline. However, it is important to note that the proposed development Additions should not obscure or remove will not alter or obscure any of the segmental arch windows on important architectural features of the existing the fagade, east and west elevation which are the elevations building. with visible street frontage. The proposed addition seeks to remove the wooden sash windows (with the exception of the multi -coloured Queen Anne style wooden sash windows on the fagade) which were identified as heritage attributes in the statement of CHVI. As such, this guideline is not being met. The proposed three storey addition does extend further east than the existing east elevation which, when compared to the original 19th century design of the building could be interpreted as an impact to the symmetry of the Greek Floor plan. However, it is important to note that several mid -20th century additions to the building have already obscured this floor plan and the building currently has an irregular footprint. Additions should not negatively impact the The addition, which is positioned along the rear (north) addition, symmetry and proportions of the building or preserves the view of the existing building's facade as viewed create a visually unbalanced facade. from the "Five Points" intersection. The addition's massing and roof pitch and use of differing finish materials with a corresponding colour palate creates a harmonious yet still differentiable portion of the building that allows the fagade to remain visually balanced. Further, the removal of some of the 20th century additions, as outlined in the proposed development, will positively contribute to the visibility of the buildings original Greek Cross floor plan. 5.0 IMPACTS AND REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified As outlined in the 2022 HIA, the proposed development will have adverse impacts on some heritage attributes of the subject property as defined by MCM Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (2006). Additional factors identified in the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD were also considered in the HIA. The revised design and subsequent revisions to the impact analysis outlined in the previous section provided further information and clarification on the impacts identified in the 2022 HIA, however no additional impacts were identified in this process. Further, the revised design resulted in the removal of two previously identified impacts. The impacts associated with the proposed revised development are: • Impact 1 - The proposed development involves the removal of the original wooden sash windows. • Impact 2 - The potential for accidental damage to heritage attributes during the construction process and/or as part of the removal or alteration of openings • Impact 3 - The proposed development includes alterations to all elevations which do not directly impact heritage attributes but result in the loss of historic materials. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 31 Impact 4 - Due to constraints of the irregularly shaped lot and high visibility from Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East the location of the three-storey addition has the potential to detract from the character of the streetscape. There are positive impacts associated with the proposed development. They include: The property will undergo maintenance to ensure its ongoing viability; The property respects the low height profile of the neighbourhood while increasing density and providing affordable housing options to the neighbourhood; The distinct facade windows emblematic of the Queen Anne architectural style will undergo restoration. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 5.2 Revised Mitigation Measures 32 The 2022 HIA identified eight mitigative measures, some of them are no longer applicable to the revised design and some have already been implemented. A summary of the status/applicability of the 2022 mitigative measures has been provided below. 1. Mitigative Measure 1: Reuse and Salvage of Materials This mitigation measure is still recommended. Please refer to the 2022 HIA for full details. 2. Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report As outlined in the 2022 HIA, ARA believes that the 2022 HIA provided adequate documentation to satisfy this recommendation. 3. Construction Fencing This mitigation measure is still recommended and is proposed to be implemented by the property owner. Please refer to the Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan for further information. 4. Masonry Repointing and Painting This mitigation measure is still recommended and is proposed to be implemented by the property owner. The property owner has retained a qualified mason who will be provided with the guidance outlined in the 2022 Conservation Plan. Please refer to the Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan for further information. 5. Conservation Plan This mitigation measure was fulfilled with the submission of the 2022 Conservation Plan and this subsequent memo. 6. Vegetative Screening The relocation of the garbage and recycling area as part of the revised design has removed the need for this mitigation measure. 7. Design Considerations The revised design was completed in consultation with City Planning Staff which has removed the need for this mitigation measure. 8. Vibration Monitoring This mitigation measure was undertaken as part of the Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan. Please refer to the Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan for further information. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 33 6.0 CONSERVATION PLAN REVISIONS 6.1 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada In comments received on the 2022 CP, City Heritage Planning Staff requested that the report be revised to further elaborate on how the each relevant standards and guidelines outlined in the Standards and Guidelines of Historic Places in Canada (Standards and Guidelines) were applied to the proposed development and the material conservation recommendations outlined within the CP. The Standards and Guidelines provides the recommended practices for the following materials on historical structures: Guidelines for Materials o All Materials o Wood and Wood Products o Masonry o Concrete o Architectural and Structural Metals o Glass and Glass Products o Plaster and Stucco o Miscellaneous Material Of this list, the following are relevant to maintaining the cultural heritage significance of the subject property as outlined in the Statement of CHVI and were considered when making conservation recommendations for the proposed development: • Guidelines for Materials o All Materials o Wood and Wood Products o Masonry o Glass and Glass Products The following tables outline the recommended guidance for the above materials and the CP section where it was addressed (see Table 8 to Table 11). Table 8: General Guidelines for All Materials (Adapted from the Standards and Guidelines 2010:214) Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Understanding the materials that comprise the historic place CP Section 3.2 — Statement of Cultural Heritage and how they contribute to its heritage value Value or Interest and specifically in 3.2.3 — Heritage Attributes Documenting all interventions that affect materials, and ensuring that the documentation is available to those CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Conditions responsible for future interventions. Determining the appropriate level of investigation required to understand the properties and overall condition of the CP Section 2.5 — Limitations material. Assessing materials fully to understand condition, evolution over time, deterioration and mechanical and chemical properties. This should be done early in the planning CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Conditions process so that the scope of work is based on current conditions. Testing and examining materials and coatings to determine N/A — not within scope of CP, though their properties and causes of deterioration, damage or recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 align with this guideline. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 34 Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section distress, through investigation, monitoring and minimally CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Attribute invasive or non-destructive testing techniques. Conditions. Specifically, 4.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate Soffit and 4.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors replacement materials, quality of workmanship and N/A — not within scope of CP, though methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 align with products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up. this guideline. Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as the proposed intervention. CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. Maintaining materials on a regular basis, as described in the CP Section 6.0 — Conservation Work Timeline relevant material subsection. 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Carrying out regular monitoring and inspections of materials CP Section 6.3 — Long Term Conservation Actions to proactively determine the type and frequency of (Ongoing Maintenance and Monitoring) maintenance required. CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. Developing a maintenance plan, where appropriate, that CP Section 6.3 — Long Term Conservation Actions includes schedules for monitoring and inspection. (Ongoing Maintenance and Monitoring) Table 9: General Guidelines for Wood and Wood Products (Adapted from the Standards and Guidelines 2010:219) Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Understanding the properties and characteristics of wood CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Attribute and its finishes or coatings, such as its species, grade, Conditions. Specifically, 4.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and strength and finish, or the chemical make-up of its coating Soffit and 4.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Documenting the location, dimension, species, finish and CP Section — Current Built Heritage Attribute condition of wood before undertaking an intervention. Conditions. Specifically: 4.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and 4.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Protecting and maintaining wood by preventing water penetration; by maintaining proper drainage so that water or CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. organic matter does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and accumulate in decorative features; and by preventing 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors conditions that contribute to weathering and wear Creating conditions that are unfavourable to the growth of fungus, such as eliminating entry points for water; opening CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. vents to allow drying out; removing piled earth resting Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and against wood and plants that hinder air circulation; or 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors applying a chemical preservative, using recognized conservation methods. Inspecting coatings to determine their condition and CP Section — Current Built Heritage Attribute appropriateness, in terms of physical and visual Conditions. Specifically: 4.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and compatibility with the material, assembly, ors stem. Soffit and 4.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate replacement materials, quality of workmanship and Testing was not undertaken as part of the CP. methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing Conservation recommendations as provided in CP products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Section 5.0 are based on an understanding of Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as appropriate conservation measures. the proposed intervention. Retaining coatings that help protect the wood from moisture, ultraviolet light and wear. Removal should be considered N/A only as part of an overall maintenance program that involves reapplying the protective coatings in kind. Removing damaged, deteriorated, or thickly applied CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. coatings to the next sound layer, using the safest and Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and gentlest method possible, then recoating in kind. 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Using the gentlest means possible to remove paint or CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. varnish when it is too deteriorated to recoat, or so thickly Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and applied that it obscures details. 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Applying compatible coatings following proper surface N/A preparation, such as cleaning with tri -sodium phosphate. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 35 Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Ensuring that new coatings are physically and visually CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. compatible with the surface to which they are applied in Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and durability, chemical composition, colour and texture 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Applying chemical preservatives to unpainted wood N/A elements that are not exposed to view. Specifically: 4.1 — Stone Foundation and 4.2 — Brick Preventing the continued deterioration of wood by isolating Masonry and Section it from the source of deterioration. For example, blocking N/A windborne sand and grit with a windbreak, or installing wire CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. mesh over floor joists in a crawls ace to thwart rodents. Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 Treating active insect infestations by implementing an N/A extermination programspecific to that insect. Retaining all sound and repairable wood that contributes to CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. the heritage value of the historic place Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and masonry repairs, alternative design solutions or flashings 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Stabilizing deteriorated wood by structural reinforcement, CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and required, until repair work is undertaken 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors Repairing wood by patching, piecing -in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood, using recognized N/A conservation methods. Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of wood elements, based on documentary and physical N/A evidence. Replacing in kind the entire panel of an extensively deteriorated or missing modular wood product, such as N/A plywood, on a unit -by -unit basis. Repairing wood elements by patching, piecing -in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the wood, using recognized conservation methods. Repair might include the limited replacement in kind, or replacement with compatible CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. substitute material, of extensively deteriorated or missing Specifically: 5.3 Eaves, Frieze Board and Soffit and wood, where there are surviving prototypes. Repairs might 5.4. Gable Ends, 4.5 Windows and Doors also include dismantling and rebuilding a timber structure or wood assembly, if an evaluation of its overall condition determines that more than limited repair or replacement in kind is required. Replacing in kind an irreparable wood element, based on N/A documentary and physical evidence. Table 10: General Guidelines for Masonry (Adapted from the Standards and Guidelines 2010:225) Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Understanding the properties and characteristics of the CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Conditions. masonry of the historic place. Specifically: 4.1 — Stone Foundation and 4.2 — Brick Masonry and Section Documenting the form, materials and condition of masonry CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Conditions. before undertaking an intervention. For example, identifying Specifically: 4.1 — Stone Foundation and 4.2 — Brick the particular characteristics and source of the type of stone Masonry and Section or brick used, and the composition of the mortar. Protecting and maintaining masonry by preventing water CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. penetration, and maintaining proper drainage so that water Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 or organic matter does not stand on flat surfaces, or Brick Masonry accumulate in decorative features. Applying appropriate surface treatments, such as breathable coatings, to masonry elements as a last resort, only if CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. masonry repairs, alternative design solutions or flashings Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 have failed to stop water penetration, and if a maintenance Brick Masonry program is established for the coating. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo - Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 36 Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Sealing or coating areas of spalled or blistered glaze on terra CP Section 4.0 - Current Built Heritage Attribute cotta units, using appropriate paints or sealants that are N/A - No terra cotta units on subject property. physically and visually compatible with the masonry units Doors Cleaning masonry, only when necessary, to remove heavy CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. soiling or graffiti. The cleaning method should be as gentle Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 as possible to obtain satisfactory results. Brick Masonry Carrying out masonry cleaning tests after it has been N/A - Testing was not stipulated in the CP as the determined that a specific cleaning method is appropriate. recommended cleaning practices prioritized gentle cleaning methods. Inspecting painted masonry surfaces to determine whether CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. paint can successfully be removed without damaging the Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 masonry, or if repainting is necessary. Testing in an Brick Masonry inconspicuous area may be required. Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. sound layer, using the gentlest method possible; for Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 example, hand scraping before repainting. Brick Masonry Re -applying compatible paint or coatings, if necessary, that CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. are physically compatible with the previous surface Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 treatments and visually compatible with the surface to Brick Masonry which they are applied. Retaining sound and repairable masonry that contributes to N/A - No removal of masonry is proposed. the heritage value of the historic place. Stabilizing deteriorated masonry by structural CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken. Brick Masonry Repairing masonry by repointing the mortar joints where CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. there is evidence of deterioration, such as disintegrating or Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 cracked mortar, loose bricks, or damp walls Brick Masonry Removing deteriorated or inappropriate mortar by carefully CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. raking the joints, using hand tools or appropriate Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 mechanical means to avoid damaging the masonry. Brick Masonry Using mortars that ensure the long-term preservation of the masonry assembly, and are compatible in strength, porosity, absorption and vapour permeability with the CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. existing masonry units. Pointing mortars should be weaker Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 than the masonry units; bedding mortars should meet Brick Masonry structural requirements; and the joint profile should be visually compatible with the masonry in colour, texture and width. Duplicating original mortar joints in colour, texture, width CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. and joint profile. Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 Brick Masonry Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts CP Section 5.0 - Conservation Recommendations. of masonry elements, based on documentary and physical Specifically, Section 5.1 Stone Foundation and 5.2 evidence Brick Masonry Table 11: General Guidelines for Glass and Glass Products (Adapted from the Standards and Guidelines 2010:241) Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Understanding the properties and characteristics of glass CP Section 4.0 - Current Built Heritage Attribute and glass products, such as age and thickness, and the Conditions. Specifically, Section 4.5 - Windows and composition of any applied coatings. Doors Documenting the composition, colour, texture, reflectivity, CP Section 4.0 - Current Built Heritage Attribute treatment and condition of glass and glass products before Conditions. Specifically, Section 4.5 - Windows and undertaking an intervention. Doors Identifying all of the different types of glass and glass CP Section 4.0 - Current Built Heritage Attribute products used and their unique properties. Conditions. Specifically, Section 4.5 - Windows and Doors September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 37 Standards and Guidelines Recommendation Relevant CP Section Assessing and treating the causes of glass damage, CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Attribute breakage, or deterioration of its frame or structure. Conditions. Specifically, Section 4.5 — Windows and Doors Protecting glass from breakage, chipping and abrasion CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. caused by ongoing maintenance S ecificall , Section 5.5 Windows Assessing the impact of previous maintenance practices on CP Section 4.0 — Current Built Heritage Attribute glass and adjacent materials. Conditions. Specifically, Section 4.5 — Windows and Doors Identifying the type of glass and the most appropriate CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. cleaning method, and testing it in an inconspicuous area to Specifically, Section 5.5 Windows ensure an appropriate level of cleanliness. Retaining sound or deteriorated glass elements that can be CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. repaired. S ecificall , Section 5.5 Windows Securing and protecting deteriorated glass by structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe N/A — not within scope of CP conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken. Repairing parts of glass elements by patching, piecing -in, or otherwise reinforcing, using recognized conservation N/A — not within scope of CP methods Replacing in kind irreparable or missing glass, based on N/A — not within scope of CP, though documentary and physical evidence. recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 align with this guidelines. Repairing a glass element using recognized conservation methods. Repairs might include the limited replacement in N/A — not within scope of CP, though kind, or replacement with an appropriate substitute recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 align with material, of extensively deteriorated or missing glass this guidelines. elements, where there are surviving prototypes. Replacing in kind an irreparable glass element based on N/A documentary and physical evidence Additional Guidelines for Restoration Projects Repairing, securing and conserving fragile glass from the restoration period using appropriate methods and CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. materials. Repairs should be physically and visually Specifically, Section 5.5 Windows compatible and identifiable on close inspection for future research. Replacing in kind a glass element from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair, based on CP Section 5.0 — Conservation Recommendations. documentary and physical evidence. The new work should Specifically, Section 5.5 Windows be well documented and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. 6.2 Short Term Works In comments received on the 2022 CP, City Heritage Planning Staff requested that the report be revised to include cost estimates for any short-term works identified, if any. The conservation plan identified the following short term conservation work: • Repair/clean gutters and downspouts where necessary, ensure drainage runs an adequate distance from the building; • Monitor areas showing brick masonry deterioration for any changing conditions The items listed above represent maintenance using the existing materials and ongoing monitoring prior to construction. Therefore, no cost estimates were provided. It should be noted however, that a 2024 Structural Assessment was completed by Tacoma Engineers Inc. to determine if the building on the subject property has the structural capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Tacoma's 2024 Structural Condition Assessment also provided short-, September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 38 medium- and long-term remedial actions recommended for the building on the subject property. The following short term remedial actions were recommended by Tacoma: 1. Hire a professional engineer to review the structural capacity of the fire escape. 2. Check and fasten exterior deck and stair boards to framing (Tacoma Engineers Inc. 2024:15). The second listed item was completed by the property owner as part of regular maintenance on the building and as such, a cost estimate was not outlined. The first item, which requires the professional assessment of an engineer is underway. The property owner received a cost estimate for this work from Tacoma via which totaled $1500.00+HST (see Appendix B). September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2024 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan - - 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. 2022 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment - 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. 2022 Conservation Plan - 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. City of Kitchener 2024 Heritage Planning Staff CP Review Comments. Comments provided by Deeksha Choudry on June 18, 2024 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application - SP22/154/L/BB, 115 Lancaster St E/58- 60 Ellen St E Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc - 001. 2022 Heritage Planning Staff HIA Review Comments. Comments provided by Deeksha Choudhry on January 20, 2022. 2007 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/building-and-development/heritagedistricts.aspx#Kitcheners- heritage-conservation-districts. Government of Ontario 2006 Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2018a Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90o18 e.htm 2018a Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/ statute/9003. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) 2006 Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. Parks Canada 2010 The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 2nd Edition. Accessed online at: www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+q-eng- web2.pd. Tacoma Engineers Inc. 2024 58-60 Ellen Street & 115 Lancaster Structural Condition Assessment. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 40 Appendix A:Wood Windows vs Aluminum Windows — Cost Comparison Wood Windows ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Reg Ogilvie{ogilvie@quadro.net> Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 8:50 AM Subject: RE: Wood Windows -58 & 60 Ellen St E! 115 Lancaster St E, Kitchener To: Mark Benjamins mark _ benjaminsreatty.com> Hi Mark A 34x 75 Accoya 1/1 wood window unit, single hung, single glasswith putty, rectangular frame with arched top glass and arched brick mould with matching 2 lite arched storm window and 1/2 height screen all in primer onlyfor budgetary purposes you are about $3150 each. No installation, hardware or paint. Delivery and hst extra. Reg Ogilvie Ogilvie's Planing Mill (1974) Limited o/a: Hoffineyer's Mitt PO BOX 70 189 Huron Rd Sebringville, ON , Canada NOK 1X0 519 393 51 01 www.hoffmeyersmill.com From; Mark Benjamins mark@benjaminsreilty.com> Sent: September 25, 202411:14AM To: sales@hoffineyersmitt.on.ca Subject: Re: Wood Windows -58 & 60 Ellen St E/ 115 Lancaster St E, Kitchener Good Morning Reg, To follow-up on our conversation yesterday, I have compiled more detailed information aboutthe windows. Here it is: There are 19windows with rough brick openings measuring 34" x 75". These are ane -aver -ane windows with a slight arch at the tap. The depth of the window jambs is 9", and the window stiles are 2". September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 41 There are two sets of windows with rough brick open! ngs measuring 60" x 80" inches. These are one -over -one wi ndows side-by-side with an arch top. The depth of the window jambs is 9", and the window stiles are 2". One window has rough brick openings measuring 50"x 70". The depth of the window jambs is 9 inches. Thew!ndow does not open. W Three basement windows with rough brick openings measuring 32" x22". Thew!ndows do not open. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 42 Two attic gable windows with rough openings measuring 42"x48". These are both one -over - one windows side-by-side. The depth of the window jambs is 7". The window stiles are 2". Hopefully, this is enough information to put together a rough ballpark quote. Thanks, Mark Benjamins Realty Inc. Broker and Partner Direct: 519-580-8541 Bus: 519-575-9092 Email: mark@beniaminsrealty.com Office: 26 River Valley Dr. Kitchener, N2C 2V6 (side entrance) www.Beniam nsRealtyxom September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 43 On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:32 AM Mark Benjamins <mark@benjaminsrealty.com> wrote: Hi Reg, We spoke on the phone Tuesday afternoon about a property I own in downtown Kitchener. We are working on a site -plan approval to restore a six -unit multifamily building that is designated heritage. Since the property will be tenanted, we will replace the original wood windows with aluminum ones. This will add durability (Scratches and damage) and save money, as the project is already quite expensive. We must submit a heritage impact assessmentfor the proposed work as part of the site plan approval process. In the assessment, we need to demonstrate why refurbishment or replacement with new wood windows is not feasible doto the cost. Could Hoff ineyersmill estimate the cost of replacing allthe originalwindows on the building so we can include it in our assessment? In our phone conversation, you mentioned thatyou would likely provide a ballpark range, which I think is satisfactory. Would you be able to do that on a quote or company letterhead? I appreciate your help. I understand this doesn't seem tofallwithin your everyday business. Please let me know if there is any cost associated with your time. Feel free to call me anytime if you have questions. 519-580-8541. Here are some pictures of the windows: I 4 !ft -a Ifs September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 44 Aluminum Windows ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jeremy Martin <jeremy@conestogocarpenters.ca> Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 8:12 AM Subject: Everlastwindows To: Mark Benjamins <mark - benjaminsrealty.com> Good morning Mark, as discussed , attached are the aluminum clad window specs. The extra cast to upgrade from Strassburger windows per attached is $25,738.99+HST (total window cost is $58,388.73+HST) Hopefullythis helps ! Regards, Jeremy Martin Gan ogo Office 519.664.2642 EXT 3 1020 Old Scout Place StJacobs, ON NOB 2N0 www.canestogocarpenters.ca September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Everlast Group of Companies (West) ■■ EVERLAST O/A Alberta Vinyl Windows & Doors Ltd ■s 299 Carlmgview Drive Etobicoke Toronto, Ontario, M9W 5G3 customer: Gentek - Kitchener 45 Goodrich Drive, Unit Bl, Kitchener, ON, N2C OBS 519-748-2475 Jim hergott@gentek.ca Tag: JEREMY- 60 ELLEN ST Quote T027i43 Quote T027543 1-800-897-5118 everlastproducts.ca Supply Only Viewed Outside Consultant: Vince Porcelli Quote Created: Sep 26 2024 A 2 A301 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 30 x 66 R.O. (Rough Opening) 31 x 67 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal IS 0 / Argon Fill Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Fihn Egress 23.6875 x 27.5; 4.53 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-I80,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:0.2913tu142-F / 1.65W/m2-Y,Solar Heat Gain: 0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, I B 2 A301 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 2- 2 OSM (Actual Outside *) 28 x 72 Frame Size) 56x72 R.O,(Rough Opening) 57 x 73 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 21.6875 x 30.5; 4.6 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor.0.29Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 15'21 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Pa,,e t of t t 45 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # LMY Location Style Product � W x H inches- -C 1 A301 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 2- 2 *) 24 x 48 OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 48 x48 R -O- (Rough Opening) _ 49 x 49 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 17.6875 x 18.5625; 2.28 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical ShderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor.0.29Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance: 0. 59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration: 0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, D 1 A301 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 2- 2 OSM (Actual Outside *) 21 x 48 Frame Size) 42 x48 R.O. (Rough Opening) 43 x49 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Pruned Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 14.6875 x 18.5625; 1.89 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:0.29Bm/h-ft2-F / 1.65WInr2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, E 1 A301 SIDE Series 100-300 Low Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 18x R.O. (Rough Opening) 19x43 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 20 1/4 x 44 1/4 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Deduct 1/4" for hybrid box frame windows Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Black Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Glazing Option: Glazed IG Protection: Protect Window Film Energy Star 100 Series Low Picture100-DS-LF-CLR-ARG-180-3-IM,Reference Code:NR6924- 40727109-ES5, Reference Code 2:EVR-K-20-00027-00002, ER Number:38, U- Factor:0.28Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.59W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transmittance:0.68, Air Infiltration: 0.4, Air ExfUtration:0.4, Sep 26 2924 1521 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca pave 2 of t t 46 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches F 1 A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 32x50 R.O. (Rough Opening) Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE 33x51 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 25.6875 x 19.5; 3.49 sq.ft * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical ShderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor.0.29Btu/h-ft2-F 1 1.65W/m2-K Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance: 0. 59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration: 0.2, Air Extiltration:0.2, G I A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 3-3 OSM (Actual Outside *) 24 x 48 Frame Size) 72 x48 R.O. (Rough Opening) 73 x49 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Pruned Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 17.6875 x 18.5625; 2.28 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:0.29Bm/h-ft2-F 1 1.65WIm2-K Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Inifiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, H 1 A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 2- 2 OSM (Actual Outside *) 22 x 48 Frame Size) ® 44 x 48 R.O. (Rough Opening) 45 x49 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOGS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 1801 Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 15.6875 x 18.5625; 2.02 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:0.29Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance: 0. 59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 15'21 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Pace 3 of t t 47 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches I 4 A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 30 x 68 R -O- (Rough Opening) 31 x 69 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 1801 Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 23.6875 x 28.5625; 4.7 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor.0.29Btu/h-fr2-F / 1.65W/m2-K Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance: 0. 59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration: 0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, J I A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 3-3 OSM (Actual Outside *) 22 x 44 Frame Size) 66 x44 R.O. (Rough Opening) 67 x45 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 68 114 x 46 114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 114" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 15.6875 x 16.5625; 1.8 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical ShderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:0.29Btu h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air hrfiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 1521 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Pa,,e 4 of It 48 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location style Product W x H inches K 1 A302 SIDE Series 100-300 Low Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 30x30 R.O. (Rough Op -mg) 31 x 31 OSM BM (Bricicmold Size) 32114x32114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Deduct 114" for hybrid box frame windows Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Black Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Glazing Option: Glazed IG Protection: No Protection Film Energy Star 100 Series Low Picture100-DS-LF-CLR-ARG-180-3-1M,Reference Code:NR6924- 40727109-ES5, Reference Code 2:EVR-K-20-00027-00002, ER Number:38, U- Factor:0.28Biwh-ft2-F / 1.59W/m2-Y,Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transmittance:0.68, Air Infiltration:0.4, Air Exfiltration:0.4, L 3 A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 6 28 x 68 R.O. (Rough Opening) 29x69 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 /Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 114" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 21.6875 x 28.5625; 4.3 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:029Btu/h-ft2-F / I.65W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 1521 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Pa,,e 5 of 1 t 49 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches M 3 A302 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 18x54 R-0-(RoughOpening) 19x55 OSM BM (Briclunold Size) 20114x56114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 1801 Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 11.6875 x 21.5625; 1.75 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-00027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:0.2913tu/h•ft2•F / I.65W/m2•K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, N 2 A302 SIDE Series I50-350 V -Slider Single Hung Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 114" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 11.6875 x 18.5625; 1.51 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-I80,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:029Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/nr2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transrnittance:0.59, Air Leakage: 0.2, Air hif ltration:0.2, Air Exfrltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 1521 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 18 x48 R.O. (Rough Opening) 19 x49 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 20 114 x 50 1/4 Pave6of It 50 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto # Qty Location Style Product O 4 A303 SIDE Series 100-300 Awning 3-3 _ *)28x54 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Deduct 114" for hybrid box frame windows Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Black Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal I80 / Argon Fill Glazing Option: Glazed IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 0.0625 x 0.0625; 0 sq.ft, * Not compliant Quote T027543 WxHinches OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 84 x 54 R -O- (Rough Op -inn) 85x55 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 86114x56114 1 P 1 A303 SIDE Series 150-350 Pic Low -Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 16x54 R.O. (Rough Opening) 17x55 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 18114x561/4 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film 150 Series Low PlctureCCI-arg97-180 3-3I ga,Reference Code:EVR-K-20-00001-00001, ER Number:40, U-Factor:0.27Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.53W/m2-Y– Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transmittance: 0. 68, Condensation Resistance:61, Air Leakage:0.4, Q 1 A303 SIDE Series 100-300 Awning OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 22 x 54O R.O. (Rough Opening) 23x55 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 24 114 x 56 114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Deduct 1/4" for hybrid box frame windows Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Black Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Glazing Option: Glazed IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 0.0625 x 0.0625; 0 sq.ft, * Not compliant Sep 26 2924 1521 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelh@everlastpmdu is ca pa,,e '. of t t 51 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches R 1 A303 SIDE Series 100-300 Awning 2-2 OSM (Actual Outside *) 29 x 64 Frame Size) T' 58x64 R -O- (Rough OPanmS) I✓ 59 x 65 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 60114x66114 I Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Deduct 1/4" for hybrid box frame windows Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Black Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal I80 / Argon Fill Glazing Option: Glazed IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 0.0625 x 0.0625; 0 sq.ft, * Not compliant S 1 A303 SIDE Series I50-350 V -Slider 2- 2 OSM (Actual Outside *) 21 x 52 Frame Size) 42x52 R.O. (Rough Opening) 43x53 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 44 1/4 x 54 1/4 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress I4.6875 x 20.5; 2.09 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-0 0027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:0.29Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/nr2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage: 0.2, Air In6ltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, T 1 A303 SIDE Series 150-350 Pic Low - Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 54 x24 R.O. (Rough Opening) 55 x25 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 56 114 x 26 114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal I80 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film 150 Series Low PlctureCCI-arg97-180 3-31 ga,Reference Code:EVR-K-20-00001-00001, ERNumber:40, U-Factor:027Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.53W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transrnittance:0.68, Condensation Resistance: 61, Air Leakage:0.4, Sep 26 2924 15'21 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Page 8 of t t 52 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches U 1 A304 SIDE Series 150-350 Pic Low -Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) ® 36 x 30 R.O. (Rough Opening) 37x31 OSM BM (Brickmold Size) 38114x32114 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 7/8" Sash Briclanould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film 150 Series Low PictareCCI-arg97-180 3-31 ga,Reference Code:EVR-K-20-00001-00001, ER Number:40, U-Factor:0.2713tu/h42-F / 1.53 W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transmittance:0.68, Condensation Resistance: 61, Air Leakage:0.4, V I A304 SIDE Series 150-350 Low Pic 2-0 OSM (Actual Outside a) 36 x 22 Frame Size) b) 36 x 60 36 x 82 R-0- (Rough Opening) 37x83 OSM BM (Brickmold rE Size) 38114x84114 Colour Out/Fimsh: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: Hybrid Exterior 718" Sash Brickmould Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 1801 Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film 150 Series Low P1ctureCCl-arg97-180 3-31 ga,Reference Code:EVR-K-20-00001-00001, ER Number:40, U-Factor:0.27Btu/h-ft2-F 1 1.53W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Transmittance:0.68, Condensation Resistance: 61, Air Leakage:0.4, W I A304 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider 3-3 OSM (Actual Outside *) 22 x 52 Frame Size) 66x52 R.O. (Rough Opening) 67x53 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 518" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 1801 Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 114" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 15.6875 x 20.5; 2.24 sq.ft, * Not compliant 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-00027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:02913t"42-F / 1.65W/nr2-K, Solar Heat Gain: 0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:02, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2924 15'21 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Pace 9 of t t 53 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto # Qty Location Style _ Product X 1 A304 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single Hung Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Law -E Cardinal I80 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 23.6875 x 29.5; 4.86 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-00027.00001, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:029Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Transmittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Y 1 A304 SIDE Quote T027543 WxHinches OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 30 x 70 R -O- (Rough Opening) 31 x 71 FIT] Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 36 x 48 R.O. (Rough Opening) 37 x 49 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 29.6875 x 18.5625; 3.82 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-00027-0000 1, ER Number: 33, U-Factor:0.29Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/m2-K Solar Heat Gain: 0.51, Visible Transmittance: 0. 59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Irrfrltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Z 6 A304 SIDE Series 150-350 V -Slider Single OSM (Actual Outside Hung Frame Size) 32 x 68 R,O,(Rough Opening) 33 x 69 Colorer Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film Egress 25.6875 x 28.5625; 5.1 sq.ft 150 Series Vertical SliderClr-ARG-180,Reference Code: EVR-K-22-00027-0000 1, ER Number:33, U-Factor:029Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.65W/na2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.51, Visible Trammittance:0.59, Air Leakage:0.2, Air Infiltration:0.2, Air Exfiltration:0.2, Sep 26 2024 15'21 wtivwcinrlastpindwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastprodu is ca Page 10 of 11 54 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Everlast Toronto Quote T027543 # Qty Location Style Product W x H inches_ Al 2 A304 SIDE Series 150-350 Pic Low -Picture OSM (Actual Outside Frame Size) 36 x24 R.O. (Rough Opening) 37 x 25 Colour Out/Finish: Hybrid - Custom Colour BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Colour In: White Exterior Options: No Fin NO FIN OR BM SHOWN ON PROVIDED DOCS Interior Options: Primed Pine 7 5/8" wall depth Glass Spacer: Warm Edge Spacer Glass: Dual Pane- Low -E Cardinal 180 / Argon Fill Frame Depth: 4 1/4" IG Protection: No Protection Film 150 Series Low PictureCCI-arg97-180 3-31 ga,Re€erence Code:EVR-K-20-00001-00001, ERNumber:40, U-Factor:0.27Btu/h-ft2-F / 1.53W/m2-K, Solar Heat Gain:0.59, Visible Trammittance:0.68, Condensation Resistance:61, Air Leakage:0.4, A2 1 F LFO Miscellaneous Items Colour n/a 17 r Setup Charge BENJAMIN MOORE OC -55 PAPER WHITE Total Qty 47 Sep 26 2924 15'21 wtivw mTrlastpmdwts ca Vince_porcelli@everlastpmdu is ca Page 11 of 11 55 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Appendix B: Cost Estimate for Subject Property Short Term Works G -all Mark Benjamins <mark@benjaminsrealty.coms (question about Vibration Monitoring - 60 and 58 Ellen St E / 115 Lancaster St E Site Plan Michael Zwart <m-zwartt@tacomaengineers_com> Wed, Sep 18,'2024 at 10.35 AM To: Marie Benjamins <mark@benjaminsrealty.ccm> Hi IN -lark, Our fees for analyzing the fire escapes will be $1500+HST If reinforcements are required, there will be additional design fees of approximately $1000-$2000 depending on the extent of reinforcements required_ If we find that significant reinforcements are required, we may suggest that full replacement is a more cost effective option_ Puoted text hidden] 56 September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 57 Appendix C: Key Team Member Biographies and Qualifications Kayla Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP, Director- Heritage Operations Kayla Jonas Galvin has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public -sector clients to fulfil the requirements of provincial and municipal legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties and municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Historic Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla was an editor of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory and has worked on Municipal Heritage Registers in several municipalities. Kayla has drafted over 150 designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham -Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitch urch-StouffviIle. Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead forARA's roster assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties according to Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Kayla is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and sits on the board of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Amy Barnes, MA, CAHP - Project Manager Amy Barnes, a Project Manager with the Heritage Team, has over 15 years of experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and leading community engagement. Amy has extensive experience working with provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Ms. Barnes has completed over fifty heritage related projects including 150+ cultural assessments and has been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Amy has worked in the public and private sector where her duties included project management, public consultation, facilitator, research, database and records management, and report author. Amy has worked with the Town of Oakville, City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener, Niagara -on -the -Lake, City of London, and the City of Kingston on projects which range in size, scale and complexity. Amy Barnes holds an M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Amy has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation, the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation, and Indigenous Awareness Training through Indigenous Awareness Canada. Amy is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and formerly served as the Vice - Chair of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee. Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, BA. Dip. Heritage Conservation - Project Manager/Conservator Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, a Heritage Project Manager and Conservator has five years of experience in evaluating cultural heritage resources, conducting historical research and providing conservation recommendations on a variety of projects. She holds an Honours BA in Sociology from the University of Guelph as well as a post -graduate certificate in Urban Design from Simon Fraser University. Building on these experiences, Aly received a graduate Diploma in Heritage Conservation from the Willowbank School of Restoration Arts. Aly has gained substantial experience in provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Aly has gained considerable experience in evaluating historic materials, assessing potential impacts and recommending mitigation strategies for a variety of resources September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 Memo — Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 58 such as farmsteads, bridges, houses, churches, cultural heritage landscapes and heritage districts in urban and rural areas. September 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -384-2021 ARA File #2021-0338 1§ AMR6=FARA ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION FINAL Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo Lot 3, German Company Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. — 001 c/o John MacDonald Architect Inc. 195 King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON N2G 1 B1 Tel: (519) 579-1700 Email: matthew(aDiohnmacdonaldarchitect.ca By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 50 Nebo Road, Unit 1 Hamilton, ON L8W 2E3 Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 286-0493 www.araheritage.ca HR -517-2024 Project #: 2023-0269/2023-0269 2024-10-01 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener 5 Map 2: Image Locations on Current Aerial 13 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 3 1.1 Report Requirements 3 2.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 6 2.1 Subject Property Condition Assessment 6 2.1.1 Conservation Recommendations 7 2.2 Adjacent Properties Assessment 8 3.0 PROTECTIVE MEASURES 9 3.1 Construction Fencing 9 3.2 Vibration Monitoring 9 3.3 Work Stoppage 10 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 12 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener 5 Map 2: Image Locations on Current Aerial 13 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Along Ellen Street 14 Image 2: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Frontage on Ellen Street 14 Image 3: 54 Ellen Street East Fagade 15 Image 4: Subject Property Boundary with 54 Ellen Street East 15 Image 5: 54 Ellen Street East — East Elevation from Subject Property 16 Image 6: 54 Ellen Street East — East Elevation from Subject Property 16 Image 7: View of 54 Ellen Street Through Subject Property from Lancaster Street East 17 Image 8: Subject Property and 111 Lancaster Street East on Lancaster Street East 17 Image 9: Subject Property and 111 Lancaster Street East Frontage on Lancaster Street East 18 Image 10: 54 Ellen Street East Fagade 18 Image 11: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East 19 Image 12: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East 19 Image 13: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East 20 Image 14: Subject Property Boundary with 111 Lancaster Street East 20 Image 15: Subject Property Boundary with 111 Lancaster Street East 21 Image 16: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property 21 Image 17: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property 22 Image 18: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property 22 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cultural Heritage Protection Plan Terms of Reference 3 Table 2: Temporary Protection Plan Terms of Reference 4 APPENDIX Appendix A: Adjacent Property Photographs 13 Appendix B: Tacoma Engineers Inc. Reports 23 Appendix C: Key Team Member Biographies and Qualifications 44 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ARA —Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. CCNHCD — Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District CHPP — Cultural Heritage Protection Plan CHVI — Cultural Heritage Value or Interest CP — Conservation Plan HIA— Heritage Impact Assessment JMA —John MacDonald Architect Inc. OHA —Ontario Heritage Act O. Reg. — Ontario Regulation TOR — Terms of Reference TPP —Temporary Protection Plan PERSONNEL Principal: P.J. Racher, MA, CAHP Director- Heritage Operations: K. Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCI P, CAHP Project Manager. A. Barnes, MA CAHP Field Survey: A. Barnes Technical Writer. A. BousfieId- Basted o, BA, Dip. Heritage Conservation Cartographer. A. Bailey (GIS), M. Johnson (GIS), K. Crotty (GIS) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT The City of Kitchener has requested that Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) complete a Cultural Heritage Projection Plan (CHPP) and Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) for the proposed development at 58-60 Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East to satisfy the conditions outlined in the May 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application. The Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application relates to the proposed development on the subject property in which the existing six -unit dwelling will be renovated and expanded with a three-storey addition containing an additional five units to create an eleven -unit multi unit rental building. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on the subject property was completed by ARA in March 2022. The HIA included a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06). This evaluation determined that the property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. A Conservation Plan (CP) on the subject property was developed in August 2022 which provided an identification and assessment of the subject property's cultural heritage resources and heritage attributes and provided an identification of short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures. An update memo for the HIA and CP was completed and submitted to City staff in September 2024. As outlined by the City in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application, this CHPP and TPP will comment on the means and methods to minimize potential damage to the subject property and identify any protection measures recommended for the adjacent properties at 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East (see Map 1). 1.1 Report Requirements ARA consulted with City of Kitchener's Heritage Planning staff who provided a terms of reference (ToR) for the CHPP and TPP. In conversation with City staff, it was determined that the CHPP and TPP could be submitted as one document and components of the ToR were clarified. Details are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1: Cultural Heritage Protection Plan Terms of Reference City of Kitchener Minimum Requirements CHPP ToR Relevant ARA Section Identification of all adjacent to the cultural heritage resource(s) City staff outlined to ARA that that identifying 111 Lancaster Street 1.0 Project Context 2.0 Cultural Heritage Resources East and 54 Ellen Street East as adjacent cultural heritage resources protected under Part V of the OHA is sufficient Pers. Comm. 2024). Identification of protective measures to be applied to adjacent cultural heritage resources. This includes, but is not limited to, protecting fencing to ensure construction activities do not damage these resources, vibration monitoring plan, etc. 3.0 Protective Measures City staff confirmed that the City does not have specific guidance regarding acceptable vibration levels or a zone of influence. City staff outlined that obtaining the professional advice of a qualified engineer on this matter would suffice Pers. Comm. 2024). Identification of measure to be applied in case unwanted damage does happen to adjacent resources during construction. City staff indicated that this section should provide general guidance 3.0 Protective Measures in the event damage occurs and incident -specific recommendations are not required Pers. Comm. 2024). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario An assessment of the current condition of the adjacent cultural Relevant ARA Section heritage resources. The CHPP needs to provide a basic current condition report of the existing resources. The CHPP must identify the 3.0 Protective Measures physical condition and integrity of the cultural heritage resources, with a view toward making recommendations regarding appropriate repair and maintenance, in keeping with good conservation practice. 2.1 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment City staff confirmed the CHPP is only to include basic documentation Appendix A: Photographs of the adjacent properties prior to any construction work as viewed 2.1 Subject Property Condition Assessment from the subject property and public realm and does not need to provide commentary on the current condition of the adjacent structures. No interior photographs will betaken. This documentation is to serve as a record of the existing conditions Pers. Comm. 2024). 3.0 Protective Measures Identification of the short- and medium- term recommendations the conservation of the adjacent heritage resources, and of the specific conservation measures to be undertaken in the short and medium. Such measures shall describe the documentation, stabilization, repair, monitoring and maintenance strategies required to be undertaken for Appendix C: Key Team Members Biographies each phase (pre-, during and immediately post -construction) and shall 3.0 Protective Measures reference the qualifications for anyone responsible for undertaking such work. City staff confirmed that in the event of unwanted damage to the adjacent properties identifying a work stoppage in the CHPP is acceptable (Pers. Comm. 2024). The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the CHPP shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The professional should be registered with the Appendix C: Key Team Members Biographies Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and in good and Qualifications standing. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Table 2: Temporary Protection Plan Terms of Reference City of Kitchener Minimum Requirements TPP ToR Relevant ARA Section Identification of protective measures to be applied to the cultural heritage resource during construction. This includes, but is not limited 3.0 Protective Measures to, protecting fencing to ensure construction activities do not damage this resource, vibration monitoring Ian, etc. The TPP also needs to comment and focus on measures to protect and stabilize the cultural heritage resource during construction and what, if any, stabilization and repair work needs to be done post- 2.1 Subject Property Condition Assessment construction. The TPP needs to comments on how the resource shall be protected as the openings are altered, the additions are built, and the partial demolition of the resource takes place. Identification of measures to be applied in case unwanted damage 3.0 Protective Measures does happen to cultural heritage resource during construction. The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the CHPP shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The professional should be registered with the Appendix C: Key Team Members Biographies Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and in good and Qualifications standing. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Subject Property - Adjacent Property - 111 Lancaster Street East Adjacent Property - 54 Ellen Street East AkvARA N 1:365 0 5 10m �aiap�5auree�Firs€Basi 5atuuans �� coremm.enr �irence-anra� Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES The subject property and adjacent properties at 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East are located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) and are all designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The CCNHCD applies groupings for properties within the HCD; Group A or Group B represent "fine or very fine" examples of an architectural style and Group C properties are properties that have attributes that "contribute value to the heritage environment of the district" (City of Kitchener 2007:27). It should be noted that there is some inconsistency within the CCNHCD regarding the subject property's grouping as the property includes multiple municipal addresses. Appendix B of the CCNHCD has identified 60 Ellen Street East as Class B and 115 Lancaster Street East as Group A, however an overview map of the Civic Centre neighbourhood identifies the entire property as Group A. The adjacent properties at 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street are rated B and C respectively. 2.1 Subject Property Condition Assessment An architectural description and overview of the condition of the subject property and its heritage attributes was provided in ARA's 2022 HIA and CP. A structural condition assessment on the subject property was conducted in July 2024 by Tacoma Engineers Inc. (Tacoma) to determine if the building on the subject property has the structural capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Tacoma's structural condition assessment has been provided in Appendix B. Related to the subject property's current condition, Tacoma's report outlined the following: In general, the building exterior is in fair good condition. Typical deterioration for a building of this age was observed. The paint on the mass brick exterior walls likely masks minor deficiencies and maintenance items. Removal of the paint will allow the brick walls to breath as they were intended to, however, the process of removing the paint must be completed with care to avoid additional damage to the masonry. Approximately half of the interior rental units were recently upgraded. These units were in good condition. The rest of the unit finishes were in fair to poor condition as can be expected with delayed building upgrades (Tacoma Engineers Inc. 2024:i). Regarding the building's ability to accommodate the proposed addition, Tacoma's report outlined: Tacoma Engineers was asked to review the feasibility of the existing building to accommodate the proposed three storey addition on the north side of the existing building. In general, any immediate and short-term remedial actions should be completed prior to the proposed addition. The medium-term and long-term remedial actions may be completed as part of the proposed addition. The proposed 3 -storey addition has a footprint of approximately 500 sgft. The addition is anticipated to be constructed with wood framed walls and conventional concrete foundations on spread footings. Conventional excavation equipment is anticipated to be used for foundation construction. This building is a good candidate for the proposed addition to the north of the existing structure. (Tacoma Engineers Inc. 2024:15). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2.1.1 Conservation Recommendations ARA's 2022 CP provides short-, medium- and long-term conservation recommendations to best conserve the subject property's building and its heritage attributes. These recommendations are detailed in the CP however a summary of the report's recommendations are outlined below Short -Term (Stabilization Measures) Repair/clean gutters and downspouts where necessary, ensure drainage runs an adequate distance from the building; Monitor areas showing brick masonry deterioration for any changing conditions Medium -Term (Construction Phase) • Clean brick and stone masonry; • Restore and repair any deteriorated masonry elements and mortar joints; • Rehabilitate or restore wooden windows and doors (ideally within the first two years); and • Clean and repaint wooden frieze board and gable ends. Long-term (Ongoing Maintenance and Monitoring) The long-term conservation of all heritage attributes and rehabilitated and restored elements require routine maintenance to prevent decay even following the building's restoration. This is achieved through maintenance and regular monitoring to extend the life of the attributes. The table below lists the periodic, monthly, and annual tasks that are suggested to ensure that the property is in good order and that the heritage attributes do not deteriorate. Timeline Maintenance Measure • Check gutters and downspouts. Clean if necessary. Periodic Clean-up seasonal buildup including snow and vegetation and ensure surroundings are tidy and not resting against masonry. • Monitor and maintain/clean gutters and downspouts Semi -Annual Monitor the roof and gable ends • Clean and inspect the wooden window frames from the interior and exterior • Do an exterior check of brick and stone masonry to ensure cracking, freeze thaw, sinking of flagstone, spalling, and mortar erosion has not increased or occurred in a previously Annual unidentified area • Complete an exterior check of painted wood heritage features or elements for cracking, flaking, peeling, mildew, and wood rot • Update maintenance and repair records document • Reapplication of paint to wooden heritage features or elements • Identified heritage elements/features should be safely cleaned, Every two to five when necessary, with the correct protocol in accordance with the material years Inspect the roof for loose or missing shingles. • Conduct a heritage attribute check to assess for any forms of incurred damage Tacoma's 2024 Structural Condition Assessment also provided short-, medium- and long-term remedial actions recommended for the building on the subject property. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Items requiring short-term remedial action: 1. Hire a professional engineer to review the structural capacity of the fire escape. 2. Check and fasten exterior deck and stair boards to framing. Items requiring medium-term remedial action: 1. A comprehensive restoration strategy should be developed to maintain the structural integrity of the brick walls. 2. Capital planning should be made for 25% of the mortar joints to be replaced within the next 10 years. 3. In addition to repointing, deep pointing will be necessary in areas of high deterioration. 4. Adjust flat roof membrane to drain water. 5. Replace deteriorated facia and install metal facia where missing. 6. Install counter flashing where missing. 7. Patch rodent holes to prevent water ingress. 8. Refasten the loose wood soffit. 9. Review all eavestroughs and downspouts and repair as necessary. Ensure water is deposited 6'-0" minimum away from the building on soil graded to drain water away from the building. 10. Replace deteriorated window frames with new window frames. New frames should consist of a durable material fashioned to maintain the current appearance. 11. Investigate the sloping floors in Unit 3 and repair as necessary. 12. Replace the basement concrete stair walkout. Items requiring long-term remedial action: 1. The comprehensive restoration strategy should include removal of the paint using the least invasive method possible or anticipate an accelerated brick maintenance schedule. 2. Repair deteriorated rafter tails with the next roof replacement (Tacoma 2024:15). Tacoma's report noted that "In general, any immediate and short-term remedial actions should be completed prior to the proposed addition. The medium-term and long-term remedial actions may be completed as part of the proposed addition" (Tacoma 2024:15). 2.2 Adjacent Properties Assessment As outlined by City staff, a field survey to document the existing condition of the adjacent properties was required and was conducted on September 9, 2024. 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East were viewed and photographed from within the subject property's boundary and from public realm only. These photos were taken prior to initiation of construction activity and are intended to serve as a record of conditions. ARA was accompanied by the property owner and City of Kitchener Heritage staff. Photographs from the field survey are provided in Appendix A. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.0 PROTECTIVE MEASURES 3.1 Construction Fencing As recommended in the 2022 HIA, construction fencing is to be erected around the perimeter of the subject property to protect adjacent properties during the construction period of the proposed new addition. The fencing will be 6'0" metal panel construction fencing and will have silt fence installed along the bottom. The fencing will be erected two feet from the property boundary lines with the adjacent properties to ensure that there will be no direct or indirect impacts because of the construction activities or equipment. 3.2 Vibration Monitoring The 2022 HIA outlined that the proposed development has the potential to create vibrations that could impact the cultural heritage resources on the subject property and adjacent property. As noted in the HIA, the City of Kitchener does not have a defined Zone of Influence (ZOI) or specific policies that outline when vibration monitoring is required. In consultation with City staff, it was determined that the property owner should seek the professional opinion of a qualified engineer on if vibration monitoring is required for the subject property and adjacent properties over the course of construction. Tacoma Engineers Inc. produced a Vibration Monitoring Report in August 2024 that outlined that vibration monitoring would not be required for the subject property or either adjacent properties. Tacoma's report outlined: The proposed 3 -storey addition has a footprint of approximately 500 sgft. The addition is anticipated to be constructed with wood framed walls and conventional concrete foundations on spread footings. Conventional excavation equipment is anticipated to be used for foundation construction. The undersigned reviewed the site on June 17, 2024. Based on the proposed construction processes and the site review, the following measures are recommended to be undertaken as requested by the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application in addition to the pre -condition assessment report (58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East Structural Condition Assessment, Tacoma Engineers, dated July 25, 2024) that was completed by the undersigned and issued separately.- Vibration eparately.Vibration monitoring of each of the above noted addresses is not required. The construction work is anticipated to utilize conventional residential construction techniques. As such, the expected vibration is anticipated to be below a threshold that could damage any of the buildings at the addresses noted above. • Should the contractor or owner become aware of any structural damage to the building, they will stop work in the vicinity and notify the undersigned, the owner's Heritage Consultant, and the City's Heritage Planner so corrective action can be taken to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner (Tacoma Engineers Inc 2024:1) Tacoma's full report is provided in Appendix B. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 10 3.3 Work Stoppage Should the contractor or property owner become aware of any damage to the subject property or adjacent properties they will stop work in the vicinity immediately and contact the property owner's Heritage Consultant (ARA) and the City's Heritage Planner so corrective action can be taken to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner. As outlined in Tacoma's Vibration Monitoring Report, if any incident involves structural damage to the subject building, the contractor or property owner shall stop work and contact those listed above as well as Tacoma Engineers Inc. (Tacoma 2024:1). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 11 4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The subject property at 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East and the adjacent properties at 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East are all located within the CCNHCD and designated under Part V of the OHA. A HIA was completed on the subject property in March 2022 which determined that the property has CHVI and met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. The CP for the subject property was developed in August 2022 which provided an identification and assessment of the subject property's cultural heritage resources and heritage attributes and provided an identification of short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures. This CHPP and TPP has identified and outlined the necessary protective measures that should be implemented to minimize potential damage to the subject property and adjacent properties at 111 Lancaster Street East and 54 Ellen Street East. A Structural Condition Report completed by Tacoma Engineers Inc. found that the building on the subject property is capable of supporting an addition as outlined in the proposed development. Further, Tacoma Engineers Inc. completed a vibration monitoring report that outlined that the expected vibrations associated with the proposed development would not exceed the threshold that could cause damage to the adjacent properties. Tacoma's vibration monitoring report concluded in their professional opinion that vibration monitoring for the adjacent properties is not required during the course of construction. With these findings in mind, it is recommended that the protective measures outlined in this CHPP/TPP be implemented: including construction fencing and orders of contact in the event of a work stoppage. These recommendations should be implemented alongside the recommendations outlined in the 2022 HIA and CP. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 12 5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2022 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. 2022 Conservation Plan — 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. City of Kitchener 2007 Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/building-and-development/heritagedistricts.aspx#Kitcheners- heritage-conservation-districts. 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Data Sheets. Accessed online at: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study App endix 6 CHL Data Sheets.pdf 2014 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Accessed online at: , https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN CHL Study Re port. pdf 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application — SP22/154/L/BB, 115 Lancaster St E/58- 60 Ellen St E Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc — 001. 2024 Ellen/Lancaster Meeting Minutes (June 5, 2024). Meeting minutes provided by ARA and Approved by Deeksha Choudry on June 7, 2024. 2024 Ellen/Lancaster Heritage Components. Comments provided by Deeksha Choudry on July 24, 2024 Government of Ontario 2006 Ontario Regulation 9/06 made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2018a Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. Accessed online at: www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90o18 e.htm 2018a Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Accessed online at: www.ontario.ca/laws/ statute/90P13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) 2006a Heritage Property Evaluation: A Guide to Listing, Researching and Evaluating Cultural Heritage Property in Ontario Communities. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006b Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2021 List of Heritage Conservation Districts. Accessed online at: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ heritage/heritage conserving list.shtml. Tacoma Engineers Inc. 2024 58-60 Ellen Street & 115 Lancaster Structural Condition Assessment. 2024 Vibration Monitoring Report — 58-60 Ellen Street and 115 Lancaster Street. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 13 Appendix A: Adjacent Property Photographs Map 2: Image Locations on Current Aerial (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 i � /33iy 1 17 16 5 9 1 7 • C4i r �•� m 7U m m Y F4S T ' t 1 Q Image Location Subject Property 1:340 0 5 10 m A s mio�m„ ic«,.s•e •ne.r ms op.� ��.m��r ��ce - ani�nn a� #lap Smra� Firt Bane Solutlms Map 2: Image Locations on Current Aerial (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 14 Image 1: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Along Ellen Street (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) Image 2: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Frontage on Ellen Street (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northeast) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 •`��, �€ "kbl. `kms,$ 4 fa' n'. Fiat 7 ftw Image 1: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Along Ellen Street (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) Image 2: View of Subject Property and 54 Ellen Street East Frontage on Ellen Street (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northeast) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 15 Image 3: 54 Ellen Street East Fagade (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing Northeast) Image 4: Subject Property Boundary with 54 Ellen Street East (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 16 Image 5: 54 Ellen Street East — East Elevation from Subject Property (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) Image 6: 54 Ellen Street East — East Elevation from Subject Property (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 17 Image 7: View of 54 Ellen Street Through Subject Property from Lancaster Street East (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing West) Image 8: Subject Property and 111 Lancaster Street East on Lancaster Street East (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 9: 9: Subject Property and 111 Lancaster Street East Frontage on Lancaster Street East (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing West) Image 10: 54 Ellen Street East Fagade (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) 18 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 19 Image 11: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) Image 12: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 20 Image 13: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East (Photo taken on September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) Image 14: Subject Property Boundary with 111 Lancaster Street East (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 21 Image 15: Subject Property Boundary with 111 Lancaster Street East (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing Northeast) Image 16: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 22 Image 17: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing North) Image 18: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 H Lill �r 1 i 1 Image 18: Detail of 111 Lancaster Street East from Subject Property (Photo taken September 9, 2024, Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 23 Appendix B: Tacoma Engineers Inc. Reports Structural Condition Assessment 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Structural Condition Assessment Rev1 58-60 Ellen St E & 115 Lancaster 5t. E Kitchener Ontario Prepared by: TAC(,MA ENGINEERS 155 Frobisher Drive Waterloo, ON TW -01551-24 August 30, 2024 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment Rev1 TW -01551-24 58-60 Ellen & It 5 Lancaster August 30, 2024 Kitchener Ontario Executive Summary Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Mark Benjamin of Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. to carry out a structural condition assessment of their 2 112 -storey masonry building located at the shared address of 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East in Kitchener. The Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. owns the building in question, and Tacoma Engineers is being retained as a Consultant directly by the Owner. This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner and is intended to form part of the heritage permit requirements for a proposed addition to the building. This report is not being prepared as a response to an Order, recommendations, or request by any regulatory body. The residence at this address is located at the southeast corner of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Onterio Heritage Act. Most buildings in this neighbourhood were constructed between 1880 and 1917 according to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. The owner reported this building was constructed in the 1890s. The building was constructed as a 2 1/2 -storey masonry building, complete with assumed wood -framed floors and partition walls. Note that most the spaces in the building have applied finishes that preclude a direct visual assessment of the structural systems. Limited areas are unfinished, and a review of the primary structure was possible in these areas. A site visit was carried out by Michael Zwart, P.Eng., on June 17, 2024, accompanied by Mark Benjamin of Benjamin Real Estate Holdings Inc. A visual review of all accessible spaces was completed on this date, and photographs were taken of all noted deficiencies. In general, the building exterior is in fair good condition. Typical deterioration for a building of this age was observed. The paint on the mass brick exterior walls likely masks minor deficiencies and maintenance items. Removal of the paint will allow the brick walls to breath as they were intended to, however, the process of removing the paint must be completed with care to avoid additional damage to the masonry. Approximately half of the interior rental units were recently upgraded. These units were in good condition. The rest of the unit finishes were in fair to poor condition as can be expected with delayed building upgrades. This building is a good candidate for the proposed addition to the north of the existing structure. Most remedial action recommended may be completed in conjunction with the proposed construction work. The Cultural Heritage Protection Plan and the Temporary Protection Plan require vibration monitoring during construction to ensure the heritage asset is protected during construction activities. The undersigned will prepare a vibration monitoring plan prior to construction 24 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 2024 Table of Contents Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background.........................................................................................................................1 3. Building History .................................................................................................................. 1 4. Scope and Methods........................................................................................................... 1 5. Definitions............................................................................................................................2 6. General Structural Conditions........................................................................................ 3 6.1. Exterior ......................................................................................................................... 3 6.2. Unitinteriors.............................................................................................................. 10 6.3. Basement...................................................................................................................13 7. Addition Construction Feasibility................................................................................ 15 8. Summary of Recommendations................................................................................... 15 9. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................15 List of Photographs Photograph 1: Ellen Street Elevation..... ..................................................................................5 Photograph 2: Corner Elevation....................................................................................................................................5 Photograph 3: Missing Facia and Flashing and Access to Attic....................................................................................6 Photograph4: Loose Soffit............................................................................................................................................6 Photograph 5: Lancaster Street Elevation................................................................................................................ 7 Photograph 6: Missing Eavestrough and Shingle Issue.................................................................................................7 Photograph 7: Defective Downspout....-.......................................................................................................................8 Photograph 8: Deteriorated and Missing Bricks...................•........................................................................................8 Photograph 9: Missing Counter Flashing.....................................................................................................................9 Photograph 10: Deteriorated Wood Window Frame and Rubblestone Foundation.......................................................9 Photograph11: Unit 4 Interior. ................ .................................. ................................................................................ 10 Photograph 12: Deterioration of Rafters...................................................................................................................... l l Photograph 13: Unit 5 Plaster Crack...........................................................................................................................1 L Photograph 14: Unit 3 Sloping Floors.........................................................................................................................12 Photograph 15: Unit L Deteriorated Finishes...............................................................................................................12 Photograph 16: Typical Basement Conditions............................................................................................................13 Photograph 17: Localized Reinforcement...................................................................................................................14 Photograph 18: Basement Walkout Stair Deterioration...............................................................................................14 M 25 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30. 2024 1. Introduction Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 1 L5 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Mark Benjamins of Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. to carry out a structural condition assessment of their 2 'I2 -storey masonry building located at the shared address of 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East in Kitchener. Following initial discussions in early 2024, Tacoma Engineers was retained in April 2024. The undersigned attended the site on June 17, 2024, accompanied by Mark Benjamins of Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. This report includes a summary of the following items for the building: • major structural systems; • existing structural conditions and areas of potential concern; • conceptual repair options for any areas that may require remedial work; and • potential risks to the building related to future development. 2. Background The Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. owns the building in question, and Tacoma Engineers is being retained as a Consultant directly by the Owner. This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner and is intended to form part of the heritage permit requirements for a proposed addition to the building. This report is not being prepared as a response to an Order, recommendations, or request by any regulatory body. This report is based on a visual inspection only and does not include any destructive testing. Where no concerns were noted, the structure is assumed to be performing adequately. The structure is assumed to have been constructed in accordance with best building practices common at the time of construction. No further structural analysis or building code analysis has been carried out as part of this report unless specifically noted. No previous work has been completed by Tacoma Engineers on this building for this or any other owner. No sub -consultants have been retained to participate in this assessment. 3. Building History The residence at this address is located at the southeast corner of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Onterio Heritage Act. Most buildings in this neighbourhood were constructed between 1880 and 1917 according to the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. The owner reported this building was constructed in the 1890s. The building was constructed as a 2 1/z -storey masonry building, complete with assumed wood -framed floors and partition walls. 4. Scope and Methods The following documents were provided to the undersigned prior to the preparation of this report: • Proposed Site Plan, John MacDonald Architect, Feb 26, 2024 • Multi -Residential Renovation Plans (6 pages), John MacDonald Architect, April 26, 2024 • Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application, City of Kitchener, May 8, 2024 • Cultural Heritage Protection Plan Terms of Reference, City of Kitchener • Temporary Protection Plan Terms of Reference, City of Kitchener 26 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 2024 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario The assessment of the building is based on a visual assessment from grade. It was determined that a visual assessment would provide an adequate level of detail for the purposes of this report. Note that most the spaces in the building have applied finishes that preclude a direct visual assessment of the structural systems. Limited areas are unfinished, and a review of the primary structure was possible in these areas. A site visit was carried out by Michael Zwart, P.Eng., on June 17, 2024, accompanied by Mark Benjamin of Benjamin Real Estate Holdings Inc. A visual review of all accessible spaces was completed on this date, and photographs were taken of all noted deficiencies. 5. Definitions The following is a summary of definition of terms used in this report describing the condition of the structure as well as recommended remedial actions. Detailed material condition definitions are included in Appendix A of this report. Condition States': 1. Excellent —Element(s) in "new' condition. No visible deterioration type defects present, and remedial action is not required. 2. Good — Element(s) where the first sign of minor defects are visible. These types of defects would not normally trigger remedial action since the overall performance is not affected. 3. Fair — Element(s) where medium defects are visible. These types of defects may trigger a "preventative maintenance" type of remedial action where it is economical to do so. 4. Poor — Element(s) where severe or very severe defects are visible. These types of defects would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if the extent and location affect the overall performance of that element. Immediate remedial action'. these are items that present an immediate structural and/or safety hazards (falling objects, tripping hazards, full or partial collapse, etc.). The remedial recommendations will need to be implemented immediately and may include restricting access, temporary shoring/supports or removing the hazard. Priority remedial action': these are items that do not present an immediate hazard but still require action in an expedited manner. The postponement of these items will likely result in the further degradation of the structural systems and finishes. This may include interim repairs, further investigations, etc. and are broken down into timelines as follows: 1. Short-term: it is recommended that items Listed as short-term remedial action are acted on within the next 6 months (before the onset of the next winter season). 2. Medium-term: it is recommended that items listed as medium-term remedial action are acted on within the next 24 months. 3. Long-term: it is recommended that items listed as long-term remedial action are acted on within the next 5-10 years. Many of these items include recommendations of further review/investigation. ' Adapted from "Structural Condition Assessment', 2405, American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute 27 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 2024 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario • Routine maintenance': these are items that can be performed as part of a regularly scheduled maintenance program. In addition to the definitions listed above, it should be noted that the building in question is located in a Heritage Conservation District as defined under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada provide direction when a structural system is identified as a character -defining element of an historic place. They also provide direction on maintaining, repairing, and replacing structural components or systems. Refer to the General Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration to further inform the development of more detailed remedial actions. 6. General Structural Conditions The building was constructed as a 2 %-storey masonry building, complete with assumed wood -framed floors and partition walls. Exterior walls are constructed with mass brick masonry, finishes precluded the review of the interior load bearing wall construction, and the roof and floors were constructed with wood framing. Due to the layout of the building, and the extent of finishes throughout, this report has been arranged by Unit interiors, basement, and exterior, with specific attention called to rooms or areas where deficiencies were noted. 6.1. Exterior Construction The exterior of the building is constructed with mass masonry clay brick.. With the rear additions having a combination of EIFS and wood siding, and the main two storey portions having brick exteriors. The brick appears to be double wythe brick, as may be expected for a building of this age. The building is founded on rubble stone foundations of unknown depth. Windows are characterized with decorative shutters, which are mostly intact, but in need of maintenance. Historic Materials Discussion Mass masonry walls, such as the ones present on this building of brick units, are typically mortared together with a natural time -based mortar. The mortar acts to tie the bricks together. Tie bricks are installed at regular intervals to tie the wythes together and ensure that the full thickness of the wall acts as what is known as a composite structural element. This allows a properly constructed brick wall to provide a great deal of structural support. Mass masonry brick watts are typically two to four wythes thick depending on the number of stories in the building. Natural time -based mortars are susceptible to damage from moisture. They deteriorate over time and require regular maintenance to ensure that the wall is stable. Typically, a lime -based mortar joint will last between 50 and 100 years depending on the exposure and original construction quality. In order for the wall mortar and bricks to become damaged, moisture must enter the wall and subsequently dry out. Typically, masonry walls are protected by roof eaves, soffits, and cap stones. In the case of this ' "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada", 2' Edition, 2010, www.historicplaces.ca 28 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 29 Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment Revl TW -01551-24 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster August 30, 2024 Kitchener Ontario building, there were several locations where the bricks were deteriorated. These specific areas will be addressed below in a separate section. Historic mass masonry walls are typically mortared together with a natural lime -based mortar. This mortar was traditionally manufactured with natural lime and sand. Traditional mortar uses a natural chemical process, known as carbonation to cure (harden). This process relies on natural carbon dioxide in the air to chemically react with the mortar. This process occurs continuously and is still active on a building as old as this residence. Since the mid -20th century, modern cement mortars have become more common in the masonry industry. Known as portland cement, these cements are much stronger than the natural lime -based cements used previously. While stronger, the portland cements behave much differently, and must be used in very specific ways when interacting with natural lime mortars. Unlike natural lime mortar, portland based mortars do not allow the free travel of moisture through the mass masonry assembly. If moisture is trapped within the masonry during the freeze -thaw cycles present in the spring and fall months, damage can be significant. Masonry walls must be allowed to dry out before the onset of colder weather to prevent accelerated damage from freeze -thaw. As has been explained previously, lime -based mortars such as that present on this building are sensitive to moisture in the walls. The majority of paint is vapour impermeable, meaning moisture is unable to freely pass through the paint. If moisture is trapped within the masonry during the freeze -thaw cycles present in the spring and fall months, damage can be significant to the masonry units. Masonry walls such as the ones on this building must be allowed to dry out before the onset of colder weather to prevent accelerated damage from freeze -thaw. At patches of initial paint peeling, moisture in the wall migrates to this area to dissipate into the air. The higher concentration of moisture in the wall leads to accelerated levels of deterioration such as brick spatting and mortar degradation. Conditions The exterior walls consisted of painted multi-wythe brick walls. The paint (Photograph 1 & Photograph 2) precluded a direct visual assessment of the brick units and mortar; however, larger deficiencies typically propagate through paint and are apparent for visual review. For Long term durability reasons, paint should be removed from the exterior of the brick walls. The fire escape visible in Photograph 1 was not analyzed for structural conformity to modem building codes. It is anticipated that reinforcements are required for the fire escape to meet 4.8 kPa (100 psf) five load that is required by the Onterio Building Code for exits. Brace anchors to the brick wall at the spaIled brick location should be addressed by replacing the defective bricks. The fire escape visible in Photograph 1 was not analyzed for structural conformity to modem building codes. It is anticipated that reinforcements are required for the fire escape to meet 4.8 kPa (100 psf) live load that is required by the Onterio Building Code for exits. Brace anchors to the brick wall at the spatted brick location should be addressed by replacing the defective bricks. The balcony below the fire escape had a flat roof membrane that was not draining water adequately. This membrane should be adjusted to provide positive water drainage. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 1: Ellen Street Elevation Brick step cracking and previous portland repairs were noted a various locations around the building including above the arched window in Photograph 3. The wood facia boards around the building were largely exposed to the elements and had deteriorated in some locations. Metal facia was installed in some locations, the missing facia was found throughout. Counter flashing was also noted as missing in a few locations (Photograph 3 & Photograph 9). A rodent hole into the eaves was noted and covered with metal wire (Photograph 3). This hole should be patched to prevent water ingress into the building. Photograph 2: Corner Elevation 30 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 3: Missing Facia and Flashing and Access to Attic The painted wood soffit was noted to be loose at one location (Photograph 4). This soffit should be repaired prior to becoming detached from the building. Photograph 4: Loose Soffit 31 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 5: Lancaster Street Elevation The undersigned was informed that the wood additions (Photograph 5) on bath the north and. south sides of the Lancaster Street elevation will be removed in the proposed addition. As such, these areas were not reviewed as part of this assessment. The wood deck and stairs in Photograph 5 and tongue and groove boards that were loose. These boards should be checked and fastened to the framing. On the south side of the Lancaster Street elevation, eavestrough was missing near the valley in the high roof (Photograph 6). Other eavestroughs were noted to be missing such as near the front door (Photograph 7). Several downspouts were noted to be defective around the building (Photograph 7). Downspouts should be leak free and deposit water at least 6'-0" away from the building with soil graded such that water flows away from the building. Photograph 6: Missing Eavestrough and Shingle Issue 32 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 7: Defective Downspout Brick spalling was noted at several locations around the building (Photograph 8). The spalling was typically located where heavy wetting had occurred. The northeast corner of the building showed signs of paint peeling. This was likely caused by a leaking downspout. It is unknown if there is brick or mortar deterioration at this area due to the remaining paint obstructing direct visual observation. A brick was missing above the flat window arch on the north side of the building (Photograph 8). Photograph 8: Deteriorated and Missing Bricks 33 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 9: Missing Counter Flashing The rubblestone foundation had mortar loss near grade as can be seen in Photograph 10. This picture also shows a deteriorated wood windowsill at grade. This was also noted with wood door frames at the second level. Wood building materials are typical not recommended within 6" of grade to decrease deterioration rates. Photograph 16: Deteriorated Wood Window Frame and Rubblestone Foundation Recommended Actions The following short term remedial actions are recommended: • Hire a professional engineer to review the structural capacity of the fire escape. • Check and fasten exterior deck and stair boards to framing. 34 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 35 Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment Revl TW -01551-24 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster August 30, 2024 Kitchener Ontario The following medium-term remedial actions are recommended: • A comprehensive restoration strategy should be developed to maintain the structural integrity of the brick walls. • Capital planning should be made for 25% of the mortar joints to be replaced within the next 10 years. • In addition to repointing, deep pointing will be necessary in areas of high deterioration. • Adjust flat roof membrane to drain water. • Replace deteriorated facia and install metal facia where missing. • Install counter flashing where missing. • Patch rodent holes to prevent water ingress. • Refasten the loose wood soffit. • Review all eavestmughs and downspouts and repair as necessary. Ensure water is deposited 6'-0" minimum away from the building on soil graded to drain water away from the building. • Replace deteriorated window frames with new window frames. New frames should consist of a durable material fashioned to maintain the current appearance. The following long-term remedial actions are recommended: • The comprehensive restoration strategy should include removal of the paint using the least invasive method possible or anticipate an accelerated brick maintenance schedule. 6.2. Unit Interiors Construction Due to applied finishes throughout the rental units, the building structure could not be determined. Photograph 11: Unit 4 Interior Conditions The building contained six rental units located in the 2 1/2 storeys above grade with an unfinished basement below grade. The basement contained largely unfinished storage space. Unit 6 was not accessible at the time of the assessment. Several of the units were refinished in the past approximately 10 years. And example of the condition of these units can be seen in Photograph 11. These units were in generally in good condition. The units that were not refinished showed signs of wall and ceiling deterioration and cracking as would be expected in a building of this age. These conditions can be seen in Photograph 13 and 10 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 15. This deterioration is likely related to typical building movement and not signs of underlying structural issues. These unit finishes were in poor condition. Photograph 12: Deterioration of Rafters Access to the eaves was possible in one unit. Signs of water damage and rafter deterioration was noted near a valley. These rafter tails were in poor condition. The undersigned was informed that the shingles were replaced in approximately 2016. All signs of leaks appeared to not to have active water ingress. These rafter tails should be reinforced with the next roof replacement. Photograph 13: Unit 5 Plaster Crack N 36 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 14: Unit 3 Sloping Floors Sloping floors were noted in Unit 3 on the second floor. Due to applied finishes, the cause of the sloping floors could not be determined. As part of the proposed renovations, the area should be exposed to determine the root cause of the sloping floors. Reinforcement of the floor system should be made as required. Photograph 15: Unit 1 Deteriorated Finishes Recommended Actions The following medium-term remedial actions are recommended: • Investigate the sloping floors in Unit 3 and repair as necessary. The following long-term remedial actions are recommended: • Repair deteriorated rafter tails with the next roof replacement. 12 37 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 6.3. Basement Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Construction The basement floor was a poured concrete floor with rubblestone foundation walls. Interior load bearing walls were mass masonry and concrete block. The main floor was constructed with wood framed floors and beams. Conditions The rubblestone foundation walls and interior mass masonry was found to be in fair condition (Photograph 16). The floor structure was also in fair condition with localized areas previously reinforcement (Photograph 17). Photograph 16: Typical Basement Conditions M 38 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 20124 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario Photograph 17: Localized Reinforcement The basement concrete walkout stairs were in poor condition with spalling occurring on most steps (Photograph 18). These stairs should be replaced in the upcoming renovations.. Photograph 18: Basement Walkout Stair Deterioration Recommended Actions The following medium-term remedial actions are recommended: • Replace the basement concrete stair walkout. 14 39 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. Structural Condition Assessment Revl TW -01551-24 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster August 30, 2024 Kitchener Ontario 7. Addition Construction Feasibility Tacoma Engineers was asked to review the feasibility of the existing building to accommodate the proposed three storey addition on the north side of the existing building. In general, any immediate and short-term remedial actions should be completed prior to the proposed addition. The medium-term and long-term remedial actions may be completed as part of the proposed addition. The proposed 3 -storey addition has a footprint of approximately 500 sgft. The addition is anticipated to be constructed with wood framed walls and conventional concrete foundations on spread footings. Conventional excavation equipment is anticipated to be used for foundation construction. This building is a good candidate for the proposed addition to the north of the existing structure. The Cultural Heritage Protection Plan and the Temporary Protection Plan require a vibration monitoring plan during construction to ensure heritage assets are protected during construction activities. The vibration monitoring plan has been prepared and issued separately by the undersigned. 8. Summary of Recommendations The following provides a summary of the recommendations for the existing structure. Items requiring shori-term remedial action: 1. Hire a professional engineer to review the structural capacity of the fire escape. 2. Check and fasten exterior deck and stair boards to framing. Items reguirinz medium-term remedial action: 1. A comprehensive restoration strategy should be developed to maintain the structural integrity of the brick walls. 2. Capital planning should be made for 25% of the mortar joints to be replaced within the next 10 years. 3. In addition to repointing, deep pointing will be necessary in areas of high deterioration. 4. Adjust flat roof membrane to drain water. 5. Replace deteriorated facia and install metal facia where missing. 6. Install counter flashing where missing. 7. Patch rodent holes to prevent water ingress. 8. Refasten the loose wood soffit. 9. Review all eavestroughs and downspouts and repair as necessary. Ensure water is deposited 6'-0" minimum away from the building on soil graded to drain water away from the building. 10. Replace deteriorated window frames with new window frames. New frames should consist of a durable material fashioned to maintain the current appearance. 11. Investigate the sloping floors in Unit 3 and repair as necessary. 12. Replace the basement concrete stair walkout. Items reauirina lone -term remedial action: 1. The comprehensive restoration strategy should include removal of the paint using the least invasive method possible or anticipate an accelerated brick maintenance schedule. 2. Repair deteriorated rafter tails with the next roof replacement. 9. Conclusions In general, the building exterior is in fair good condition. Typical deterioration for a building of this age was observed. The paint on the mass brick exterior walls likely masks minor deficiencies and maintenance 15 40 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Tacoma Engineers Inc. TW -01551-24 August 30, 2024 Structural Condition Assessment Revl 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Kitchener Ontario items. Removal of the paint will allow the brick walls to breath as they were intended to, however, the process of removing the paint must be completed with care to avoid additional damage to the masonry. Approximately half of the interior rental units were recently upgraded. These units were in good condition. The rest of the unit finishes were in fair to poor condition as can be expected with delayed building upgrades. This building is a good candidate for the proposed addition to the north of the existing structure. Most remedial action recommended may be completed in conjunction with the proposed construction work. The Cultural Heritage Protection Plan and the Temporary Protection Plan require vibration monitoring during construction to ensure the heritage asset is protected during construction activities. The undersigned will prepare a vibration monitoring plan prior to construction Please contact the 6� any further questions or comments. j S ZU+IaRT 100502999 AUG 30 2024 -01551-24 Per ��HcF n ok"P Michael Z ng, CPHD, CARP Intern Structural Engineer, Associate Tacoma Engineers 19 41 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Vibration Monitoring Report TA Ck.. A ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL REPORT REA Vibration Monitoring Report Date: August 30, 2024 No. of Pages: 1 +Encl. Project: 58-60 Ellen & 115 Lancaster Assessment Project No.: TW -01551-24 Address: 58-60 Ellen St E & 115 Lancaster St. E Kitchener Ontario Permit No.: NIA Client: Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. Distribution: Mark Benjamins Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. mark(E),beniaminsrealty.com Background Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. to provide structural engineering for vibration monitoring at 58-60 Ellen St E & 115 Lancaster St. E Kitchener Ontario. An addition to the above noted address is proposed and the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application (SP22/154/L/BB) requires a vibration monitoring plan as per the Cultural Heritage Protection Plan and the Temporary Protection Plan of the following addresses: • 111 Lancaster Street East • 54 Ellen Street East • 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East. Comments The proposed 3 -storey addition has a footprint of approximately 500 sqft. The addition is anticipated to be constructed with wood framed walls and conventional concrete foundations on spread footings. Conventional excavation equipment is anticipated to be used for foundation construction. The undersigned reviewed the site on June 17, 2024. Based on the proposed construction processes and the site review, the following measures are recommended to be undertaken as requested by the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application in addition to the pre -condition assessment report (58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East Structural Condition Assessment, Tacoma Engineers, dated July 25, 2024) that was completed by the undersigned and issued separately: Per Vibration monitoring of each of the above noted addresses is not required. The construction work is anticipated to utilize conventional residential construction techniques. As such, the expected vibration is anticipated to be below a threshold that could damage any of the buildings at the addresses noted above. Should the contractor or owner become aware of any structural damage to the building, they will stop work in the vicinity and notify the undersigned, the owner's Heritage Consultant, and the City's Heritage Planner so corrective action can be taken to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner. �00�ESS2 Michael Zwart, P.Eng., CPHD, CAHP Structural Engineer, Associate Tacoma Engineers Encl. Proposed Site Plan (1 page), John MacDon'9� 155 Frobisher Drive, Suite F220 Waterloo, Ontario fksj d Canada N2V 2E1 ©ft a ". � S ZWART 100502999 , 2024 OF T: 226-647-0109 F: 519-824-2000 ni-zwart@tac,omaengineers.com 42 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 M L N z N U �Y � O o U U 0 (B W L N N O � Q y U O J LO O � U � W N N N co N z N W i O ULO n£$y@1eI k tl € I � II .8 $04 c�3I I EnS�w l I ° I F E tt ytffi I a j za•'''n�e�¢ma'a "�o� so'✓+N cEi,W m �acu€j n3I'ii�}my� nnn�z�E�n�c oli�� £ .o j m W W0 V1 V311 II II II Ild�t�N� II if. n ml uco NPI � go oa a II �g os '. t m l id G Pq g�UP j ao7+ I j Ec I ag n a n E�HtiEE31%x'oS,��s �Cy� °` m Ic I r=ag j I • my � ;;a,l ��5._�i_a�N2s�Y `��'cnv��'�'�vr�� ���¢y�m o a� � jzgn me "ogl R7 `-',°F. aa3sa�`o$'���088 a I g V? LLLLusSwc��m� Qu LLLLmmzzLLLLLL . LLmVU �LL q4a a en o o v +ro e n n EaaE roo E m MOME E EE E+ �$? E E O I%am I gO j LtitiESIIE ohm oil �� j to �� � �������g����� AR MU g2 E m r V 2 C =aaod Seo F- 01% 01S Ex. Sldew154 27.30m (04•-6 7101 w� DL _ P a �e97i p's cL e n e yap 9 f,2§� rn a �o J N y O M O O N co Q N 0 U 4 00 Q) N Q) o Q O N CO U L Q 04 04 N N N LO O LO U 02 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 44 Appendix C: Key Team Member Biographies and Qualifications Kayla Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP, Director— Heritage Operations Kayla Jonas Galvin, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Director - Heritage Operations, has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public -sector clients to fulfil the requirements of provincial and municipal legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties and municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Historic Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla was an editor of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory and has worked on Municipal Heritage Registers in several municipalities. Kayla has drafted over 150 designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham -Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitch urch-StouffviIle. Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead forARA's roster assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties according to Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Kayla is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and sits on the board of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Amy Barnes, MA, CAHP — Project Manager Amy Barnes, a Project Manager with the Heritage Team, has over ten years of experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and leading community engagement. Amy has extensive experience working with provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Ms. Barnes has completed over fifty heritage related projects including 150+ cultural assessments and has been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Amy has worked in the public and private sector where her duties included project management, public consultation, facilitator, research, database and records management, and report author. Amy has worked with the Town of Oakville, City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener, Niagara -on -the -Lake, City of London, and the City of Kingston on projects which range in size, scale and complexity. Amy Barnes holds an M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Amy has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation, the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation, and Indigenous Awareness Training through Indigenous Awareness Canada. Amy is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and formerly served as the Vice - Chair of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee. Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, BA. Dip. Heritage Conservation — Project Manager/Conservator Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, a Heritage Project Manager and Conservator has five years of experience in evaluating cultural heritage resources, conducting historical research and providing conservation recommendations on a variety of projects. She holds an Honours BA in Sociology from the University of Guelph as well as a post -graduate certificate in Urban Design from Simon Fraser University. Building on these experiences, Aly received a graduate Diploma in Heritage Conservation from the Willowbank School of Restoration Arts. Aly has gained substantial experience in provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Aly has gained considerable experience in evaluating historic materials, assessing potential impacts and recommending mitigation strategies for a variety of resources October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan & Temporary Protection Plan 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 45 such as farmsteads, bridges, houses, churches, cultural heritage landscapes and heritage districts in urban and rural areas. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 1§ AMR6=FARA ARCHAEOLOGY I HERITAGE I OUTREACH I EDUCATION FINAL Documentation & Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo Lot 3, German Company Tract Geographic Township of Waterloo Former Waterloo County Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc. — 001 c/o John MacDonald Architect Inc. 195 King Street West, Suite 202 Kitchener, ON N2G 1 B1 Tel: (519) 579-1700 Email: matthew(aDiohnmacdonaldarchitect.ca By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 50 Nebo Road, Unit 1 Hamilton, ON L8W 2E3 Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 286-0493 www.araheritage.ca HR -517-2024 Project #: 2023-0269/2023-0269 2024-10-01 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener 2 Map 2: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property 14 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Context — View Showing Subject Property from Five Points Intersection 15 Image 2: Context — Five Point Intersection, View of Streetscape TABLE OF CONTENTS Image 3: Context — View of Lancaster Streetscape, Subject Property at Centre 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 1 1.1 Report Requirements 1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 3 2.1 Contextual Surrounding 3 2.2 Arrangement of Buildings and Structures 3 2.3 Residence Exterior 3 3.0 MEASURED DRAWINGS 6 4.0 REUSE AND SALVAGE OF MATERIALS 11 5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 13 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener 2 Map 2: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property 14 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Context — View Showing Subject Property from Five Points Intersection 15 Image 2: Context — Five Point Intersection, View of Streetscape 15 Image 3: Context — View of Lancaster Streetscape, Subject Property at Centre 16 Image 4: Context — Lancaster Street East Streetscape 16 Image 5: Context — Ellen Street East Streetscape 17 Image 6: Context — View of Subject Property from Five Points Intersection 17 Image 7: Subject Property — Fagade 18 Image 8: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End/Multipaned Queen - Anne Style Attic Window 18 Image 9: Subject Property — Multi -Paned Queen Anne Style Window on Second Storey with Decorative Woodwork 19 Image 10: Subject Property — Unpainted Brick Area Revealing Buff Brick Construction 19 Image 11: Subject Property — Infilled Window Opening 20 Image 12: Subject Property —Addition on East Corner 20 Image 13: Subject Property — Stone Foundation and Cinder Block Foundation Under One -Storey Addition on East Corner 21 Image 14: Subject Property — East Elevation 21 Image 15: Subject Property — Northeast Elevation 22 Image 16: Subject Property — Modified Openings on Second Storey 22 Image 17: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice 23 Image 18: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice Showing Area Clad with Aluminium Flashing 23 Image 19: Subject Property — Decorative Shingle Work on Gable End 24 Image 20: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Coursed Mortar Parging 24 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 21: Subject Property — Brick Detail Showing Red Glazing and Beaded Mortar Profile 25 Image 22: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches 25 Image 23: Subject Property — Running Cracks Visible in Masonry 26 Image 24: Subject Property — Painted Wooden Sills 26 Image 25: Subject Property — Interior and Storm Windows of Varying Conditions 27 Image 26: Subject Property — Basement Door Showing Modified Opening 27 Image 27: Subject Property —Addition on North Corner 28 Image 28: Subject Property — Window Opening Inside North Addition 28 Image 29: Subject Building — Running Cracks in Masonry and Fallen Arch 29 Image 30: Subject Property — Northwest Elevation 29 Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One -Storey Addition 30 Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues 30 Image 33: Subject Property — Outside Brick Chimney 31 Image 34: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable Ends 31 Image 35: Subject Property — Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 32 Image 36: Subject Property — Brick and Mortar Deterioration/Replacement 32 Image 37: Subject Property — Connection between Initial Residence Design with Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 33 Image 38: Subject Property — Single Masonry Course Laid in Header Pattern on Foundation 33 Image 39: Subject Property — Segmental Arch on Basement Opening 34 Image 40: Subject Property — Flat Arched Basement Opening on Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 34 Image 41: Subject Property — Southwest Elevation 35 Image 42: Subject Property —Attic Storey Dormer and Fire Escape 35 Image 43: Subject Property — Balcony on Second Storey of Two -Storey Addition on West Corner 36 Image 44: Subject Property — First Storey Porch 36 Image 45: Subject Property — Large Window Opening with Flat Arch 37 Image 46: Subject Property — 58 Ellen Street East Entrance 37 Image 47: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End 38 Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches 38 Image 49: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Deteriorated Mortar 39 Image 50: Subject Property — Closet Addition on Second Floor 39 Image 51: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Enclosed Entrance 40 Image 52: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with Segmental Arch 40 Image 53: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with a Segmental Arch and New or Restored Wooden Fixed Storm Window 41 Image 54: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Entrance Door with Decorative Woodwork 41 Image 55: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Porch with Beadboard Wooden Ceiling 42 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 56: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 42 Image 57: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Window with Transom 43 Image 58: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 43 Image 59: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible 44 Image 60: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interior 44 Image 61: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Wooden Trim 45 Image 62: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring 45 Image 63: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door and Wooden Trim 46 Image 64: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door 46 Image 65: 58 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior 47 Image 66: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 47 Image 67: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring and Wooden Sash Windows with Trim 48 Image 68: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Windows with Trim 48 Image 69: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Trim Profile 49 Image 70: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Fireplace Mantle with Tile Hearth 49 Image 71: 60 Ellen Street East Interior —Wooden Sash Window with Trim and Hardwood Flooring 50 Image 72: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Operable Sash Windows 50 Image 73: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interiors 51 Image 74: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Door Leading to Addition on East Corner 51 Image 75: 60 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior Area 52 Image 76: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Kitchen Area 52 Image 77: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring, Wooden Sash Windows, Interior Trim, Four Panel Wooden Door 53 Image 78: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Room with Historic Wooden Sash Windows 53 Image 79: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes 54 Image 80: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 54 Image 81: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 55 Image 82: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows 55 Image 83: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom 56 Image 84: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom 56 Image 85: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim 57 Image 86: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows 57 Image 87: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom, Four -Panel Wooden Door 58 Image 88: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes 58 Image 89: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring 59 Image 90: Basement — Former Barbershop Space 59 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario iv Image 91: Basement —Wooden Paneled Door 60 Image 92: Basement — Unfinished Areas 60 Image 93: Basement — Some Basement Windows Remaining 61 Image 94: Basement —Former Washroom 61 Image 95: Basement — Storm Windows for First and Second Storey Openings in Storage 62 APPENDIX Appendix A: Adjacent Property Photographs 14 Appendix C: Key Team Member Biographies and Qualifications 63 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario v GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ARA —Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. CCNHCD — Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District CHPP — Cultural Heritage Protection Plan CHVI — Cultural Heritage Value or Interest CP — Conservation Plan HIA— Heritage Impact Assessment JMA —John MacDonald Architect Inc. OHA —Ontario Heritage Act O. Reg. — Ontario Regulation TOR — Terms of Reference TPP —Temporary Protection Plan PERSONNEL Principal: P.J. Racher, MA, CAHP Director- Heritage Operations: K. Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCI P, CAHP Project Manager. A. Barnes, MA CAHP Field Survey: A. Barnes Technical Writer. A. BousfieId- Basted o, BA, Dip. Heritage Conservation Cartographer. A. Bailey (GIS), M. Johnson (GIS), K. Crotty (GIS) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT The City of Kitchener has requested that Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) complete a Documentation and Salvage Report for the proposed development at 58-60 Ellen Street East and 115 Lancaster Street East to satisfy the conditions outlined in the May 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application. The Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application relates to the proposed development on the subject property in which the existing six -unit dwelling will be renovated and expanded with a two -and -a -half storey addition containing an additional five units to create an eleven -unit multiple dwelling building. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) on the subject property was completed by ARA in March 2022. The HIA included a Cultural Heritage Evaluation of the property according to Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06). This evaluation determined that the property has Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) and met criteria for physical and design value, historical/associative value and contextual value. A Conservation Plan (CP) on the subject property was developed in August 2022 which provided an identification and assessment of the subject property's cultural heritage resources and heritage attributes and provided an identification of short-, medium- and long-term conservation measures. Update memos on the HIA and CP were completed and submitted to City staff in September 2024. A Cultural Heritage Protection Plan/Temporary Protection Plan (CHPP/TPP) was also completed and submitted to City staff in September 2024. 1.1 Report Requirements ARA consulted with City of Kitchener's Heritage Planning staff who outlined that the Documentation and Salvage Report should be composed of the following three items: 1. Photographic documentation for the existing building 2. Measured elevation drawings of all the elevations of the existing building. 3. Commentary regarding how and where the salvaged elements will be reused (City of Kitchener 2024). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 OL N . Arn n v ,T A � r Y r F� I Subject Property AkvARA N 1:365 0 5 10m �aiap�5eurce�Regiensolwarcnea X20 o'c emmeet licence-ona Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The 2022 HIA provided a description of the subject property and provided extensive photo documentation of the interior and exterior of the building which have provided again in this report for reference. Photos are cross-referenced in the following description and provided in Appendix A. Updated photos of each elevation have also been included in the HIA and CP revisions memo (ARA 2024).There have been no changes to the interior or exterior structure of the building since the initial submission of the HIA and CP. The subject property is an irregular shaped lot and contains a two -and -a -half storey multi -unit residential structure. The structure appears to have initially had a Greek cross floor plan; however the building has been added to over the years which has created an irregular roofline and floorplan. 2.1 Contextual Surrounding The subject property is bounded to the north by the residential properties at 54 Ellen Street East and 111 Lancaster Street East and to the east by Lancaster Street East (see Image 1 and Image 2). The southern boundary is the five -point intersection of Ellen Street East, Lancaster Street East and Frederick Street and the western boundary is delineated by Ellen Street East. The streetscapes in the immediate vicinity to the north, east and south contain buildings of varying ages and uses including residential structures with large lots, a small number of commercial businesses operating out of former single-family residences and several medium density residential structures. Existing civic buildings and the performing arts centre, Centre in the Square, are located to the immediate west of the property (see Image 3 — Image 5). The five points intersection represents a wide variety of newer building of varying heights, styles and uses. Ellen Street is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD), a historic residential neighbourhood that can be linked to several key periods in the development of the City of Kitchener. Within the CCNHCD two-thirds of the existing houses were built between 1880 and 1917 and constructed in Queen Anne, Georgian and Italianate architectural style. 2.2 Arrangement of Buildings and Structures The residence is situated on a triangularly shaped lot with a facade facing the Five Points intersection to the south (see Image 6). The building was initially designed with a Greek cross floor plan, though additions to the initial design have created an irregular roofline and partially obscured this plan. While the building's original facade faces south, modifications to the building's internal layout have resulted in no entrances accessed from the facade. The former single-family residence has been converted to a multi -unit residence with entrances along the building's side elevations fronting Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East. The paved parking area is located along the west elevation. The remainder of the property is covered in grass with some gardens placed around the residence. There are pedestrian sidewalks on both the east and west sides of the property along Ellen Street East and Lancaster Street East. 2.3 Residence Exterior The multi -unit residence is a three -bay, two -and -a -half storey structure built circa 1888. The structure rests on a stone foundation, has an intersecting gable roof clad in asphalt shingles and is constructed of brick that has been painted (see Image 7). The building's Greek cross floor plan October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario creates a projecting wing on each elevation that has a front facing gable. The facade gable is decorated with angled wooden siding and diamond shaped shingles. The 1897 photo of the property, though lacking definition, suggests that this angled wooden siding and diamond shaped shingles is the original gable end design. The attic storey in the gable end contains two window openings with wooden sash windows designed in a Queen Anne style with four small panes of multi -coloured glass located along the top of the upper sash (see Image 8). The residence features a large wooden cornice with a large, molded frieze (see Image 8). The front window opening on the second -storey of the facade also features two Queen Anne style wooden sash windows (see Image 9). These windows are characterized by small coloured panes of glass that frame the exterior of the upper and lower sash. The window openings on the subject residence also contain decorative woodwork located above the sash windows and highlights the opening's segmental arch. A portion of the brick on the residence's facade is currently unpainted and reveals that the building is constructed of buff brick masonry (see Image 10). The shape of the unpainted section of brick also suggests that the facade formerly featured a porch structure with a bell -cast roof (see Image 11). Further, a concrete pedestrian pathway that currently terminates in the centre of the grassed area in front of the structure delineates where the porch stairs would have landed. The first -storey window opening on the facade has been partially infilled and altered from its initial shape and may reflect a former door opening (see Image 11). A one -storey addition has been added to the eastern corner of the residence (see Image 12). While the construction date of this addition is unknown, the addition is built upon a cinder -block foundation, suggesting it was constructed as a later addition and not as part of the residence's initial design (see Image 13). The addition has a flat roof and features a sunroom with a bank of windows along the northeast elevation (see Image 14). The northeast elevation contains similarities to the facade with a central projecting wing as part of a Greek cross floor plan (see Image 15). The northeast elevation would have originally been symmetrical, however additions to the first storey and the addition of new openings on the second storey have been introduced. These new openings are distinguished by flat or jack arches, whereas the original openings feature a segmental arch opening (see Image 16). The wooden cornice with molded wooden frieze continues along this elevation (see Image 17) with a portion that appears to have been covered with aluminum flashing (see Image 18). The gable end on the northeast elevation has been clad in alternating octagonal and rectangular shingles (see Image 19). The attic storey windows on this elevation have been replaced with vinyl sash windows. A portion of unpainted brick on this elevation suggests that the residence may have had dichromatic brick detailing, as bricks with red glazing were visible alongside buff bricks (see Image 20 and Image 21). Inspection of the brick masonry also reveals a beaded mortar profile (see Image 21). The projecting wing on the northeast elevation contains two paired window openings with segmental arches on both the first and second storey (see Image 22). There are signs of deterioration along this elevation, ranging from cosmetic deterioration such as peeling and uneven paint finishes as well as masonry deterioration in the form of running cracks and masonry repointing using inappropriate mortars (see Image 23). The window openings have wooden painted sills of varying conditions (see Image 24). Wooden fixed storm windows have been affixed to the majority of the openings (see Image 25). A concrete staircase leads downward to a basement doorway on this elevation (see Image 26). This egress is supported by concrete retaining walls. A porch and enclosed addition on the north corner of the residence provides access to the Lancaster Street East units. The addition contains an additional doorway opening as well as an opening with a fiberglass window (see Image 27). A first -storey window opening and second door access to the basement has been encased within this addition (see Image 28). The masonry in October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario this portion shows sign of deterioration through running cracks and a fallen arch above the basement door (see Image 29). The rear (northwest) elevation contains fewer openings than the facade and side elevations (see Image 30). The one -storey addition on the north corner contains one window opening on this elevation and contains a six -paned fixed wooden window (see Image 31). Brick discoloration on the residence's north corner and lumber deterioration on the one -storey addition suggest water is not being adequately shed (see Image 32). The northwest elevation contains an outside chimney placed at the centre of the gable end (see Image 33). The gable end on this elevation is clad in rectangular shingles and the two attic window openings contain vinyl sash windows (see Image 34). The wooden soffit and molded frieze have been clad in aluminum flashing on this elevation. The two-storey addition on the west corner of the residence is distinguished by a change in the roofline as well as some discolouration at the intersection of the addition and residence masonry (see Image 35). A portion of the brick masonry has been replaced and repointed along this intersecting line (see Image 36). The addition appears to use similar construction methods as the initial residence, with brick laid in a stretcher pattern and built on a stone foundation (see Image 37). A single header course laid on the stone foundation is seen on both the two-storey addition and the residence (see Image 38). A key difference between the finishes on the two-storey addition and the residence is the framing of the openings, with segmental arches framing the residence's openings and flat or jack arches framing the openings on the two storey addition (see Image 39 and Image 40). The southwest elevation provides the access to units from Ellen Street East (see Image 41). The attic storey features a dormer with a shed roof that connects to an exterior fire escape (see Image 42). There is a balcony and porch on the southwest elevation that spans the width of the two- storey addition on the west corner (see Image 43 and Image 44). A large rectangular window with transom is located on the first storey of the brick addition with a flat arch and wooden sill (see Image 45). The entrance to 58 Ellen Street East has a segmental arch and is located on the first storey porch (see Image 46). The gable end on this elevation is clad in decorative shingles arranged in octagon, rectangular and diamond patterns (see Image 47). The gable end also contains a doorway connecting to an exterior fire escape. The southwest elevation contains paired window openings with segmental arches in the same style as those viewed on the northeast elevation (see Image 48). Portions of the foundation visible from this elevation display deteriorated or missing mortar (see Image 49). A one storey porch with a shed roof is located on the southern half of the southwest elevation (see Image 50). A small addition with a shed roof and wooden siding is located on the second storey. The first storey porch contains an enclosed entrance that features decorative wooden elements applied to the exterior (see Image 51). Window openings along this portion of the southwest elevation are of varying condition, with some showing cosmetic and sill deterioration and without storm windows whereas some appear to have been recently restored or reconstructed with storms (see Image 52 and Image 53). The porch on the southern half of the southwest elevation contains an entrance to the 60 Ellen Street East unit and the porch is finished with a beadboard wooden ceiling (see Image 54 and Image 55). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 3.0 MEASURED DRAWINGS Measured drawings of the interior and exterior existing building on the subject property were produced in 2005 and reflect the current layout of the building (see Figure 1 - Figure 4). October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 ¥ f f 0 \ \ $ \ � 6 C4 ----------------------------- k§\ | jj G | \ : - � ), q i @ $� 2k \ r /) \ sw ■ _ - ! :a zw „ ! | � | . k V E5 K \ \ / ) � � ) \ \ ) N z N Y 0 U W Q) co � U O � N N cl� LOJ N c aW co o o "V a� E W O O 019 Q Lo arn �o J N y O Cl) O 04 O N Q N O O O Q) N N Q) U � 0 O Q) CO U L Q 00 N N N LO O LO U 0 = N X w z 4 cz a Z K wo 0J W LL w F � ' w - _ I I i I ii O I b Q ____________________ Z \I --------------------- _ J _ x - ffJJ o Q o O c Z i t ----� -- --- k fl { I �cwib _____________ I\ fi p 3 I { I � i a� a 00 Z 6 C LC L� Z a w z r= a x � w Oo CI arn �o J N y O Cl) O 04 O N Q N O O O Q) N N Q) U � 0 O Q) CO U L Q 00 N N N LO O LO U 0 = DA Q) z Q) Y 0 U W Q) co L � U O � N N cl� LOJ Q) c N aW coQ) o� a� E W O O U � Q Lo c O N ui Wo +, N ch d CO :On L � V W 0 M 3 LL arn �o J N y O M O O N co O U � O O Q) N N U U- 0 Q O Q) U L Q 00 N N N LO O LO U 0 = W I f zo a I I II II � E II 11 II 11 11 1 I z O Q } y zo - Z¢ o0 0 NzQF p 0 II II w FW 2 �x II U $�Z ! I I I II Z Ln x $ II __J I 11 W L I I LJ LJ L% o w I I II � P7 a F � 5 II II w � R R aa J , I I I' I I I I ' I ' I ' , I ,I , I I ' I' I' I' I CE 1O��yI IIIyII SII I , 6 zem O � ��I cuI ; w W ! ' I cin y I W LU'i ED I' I I -x I c O N ui Wo +, N ch d CO :On L � V W 0 M 3 LL arn �o J N y O M O O N co O U � O O Q) N N U U- 0 Q O Q) U L Q 00 N N N LO O LO U 0 = O N 0 N z Q) U Y 0 U W Q) co � U O � Q cl� LOJ Q c aW �) 0 0 o "V E W 0 U � Q Lo 0 0 0 0 W N ich 0 V zi CO N rA 0 C 0 > to i WN ..a N L 0 arn � J N y O M O O N co Q 0 U � O O Q) N N m U_ Q 0 O Q) m U L Q w I f zQ ii I I wQ Z§z O az 11 W��j II II �o w En I I I I H I I 1 I W F o S� II ¢ ¢ 1P F ri II If 1 I I I II � I J LJ777 - II 1 I II I I �i I I I I I I I I II I! I I I I z b II O F 11 II I I II O 1 I � II I I FP I I I x II � I r 1 I � El II II I I I 1 II � II 1 I I 'AnB J -Al A-:ZL 0 0 0 0 W N ich 0 V zi CO N rA 0 C 0 > to i WN ..a N L 0 arn � J N y O M O O N co Q 0 U � O O Q) N N m U_ Q 0 O Q) m U L Q Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 11 4.0 REUSE AND SALVAGE OF MATERIALS The 2022 HIA outlined that the reuse and salvage of materials as a recommendation and included a list of materials that may be suitable for salvage which has been reproduced below. This recommendation previously included the salvage of brick masonry units that were to be removed as part of the proposed development. The revised design as outlined in the Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application does not involve the removal of any historic brick units and as such, this material has been removed from the following list. As outlined in the 2022 HIA: The subject property contains historic fabric noted as heritage attributes as well as some that have not been identified as heritage attributes, but may be worthy of salvage and reuse. Although not identified as a heritage attribute the reuse of the existing wooden doors is strongly encouraged. The purpose of salvaging building materials is considered good practice and the salvage of interior and exterior materials should be considered as part of the proposed development. The materials listed below provide an example of materials which may be worthy of salvage or reuse: • Wooden windows and doors; • Wood porch materials; • Any interior features proposed for removal with historical, architectural or cultural value, including metal hardware (i.e., return air vents), light fixtures and/or outlet plates, wood floorboards, wood baseboards, decorative wood trim, • Any appliances. The following recommendations for the salvage and reuse of materials are suggested: • A reputable contractor(s) with proven expertise in cultural heritage resource and/or salvage removal should be obtained; o The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) North Waterloo Region maintains a Directory of Heritage Practitioners located in Ontario that claim to have experience with heritage properties. The section dedicated to "House Moving, Dismantling and Salvage" could be referred to for salvage contacts, however, it is recommended that references and/or previous work be assessed before engaging with any of the listed businesses. The ACO directory is available online at: www.aconwr.ca/directory-of-heritage- practitioners/house-moving-dismantling-and-sal vage/ • The ultimate destination of salvaged materials should be determined prior to the initiation of any salvage process; • Materials should only be salvaged if they are suitable for re -use in other buildings or projects, i.e., the material must not be irreparably damaged or infested; • The material must be extracted in a manner that ensures that it is not irreparably damaged; • Consider the incorporation of salvaged materials, such as bricks, stone, timber beams, wood planks, floorboards, etc. into the proposed development, potentially in the form of landscaped features, planters, pavilions/shade structures or lobby features; and October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 12 Any materials not deemed salvageable, but which are still recyclable should be recycled in an effort to reduce the amount of material sent to a landfill (ARA 2022:57). As communicated to ARA, the Queen Anne style windows on the second and third storey of the facade are proposed to be retained and restored. The remainder of the wooden windows on the existing building are proposed to be removed and replaced with a fiberglass frame window. As part of the proposed development the property owner will pursue donating the materials listed above to a salvage or reuse company. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 13 5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) 2024 Cultural Heritage Protection Plan — 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. 2024 Memo — Re: Revisions to Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plan for 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener. 2022 Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment — 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. 2022 Conservation Plan — 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, ON. City of Kitchener 2024 Ellen/Lancaster Heritage Components. Comments provided by Deeksha Choudry on July 24, 2024 2023 Conditional Approval of Site Plan Application — SP22/154/L/BB, 115 Lancaster St E/58- 60 Ellen St E Benjamins Real Estate Holdings Inc — 001. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Hppenaix A: Hajacent vroper[y vnotograpns Q Image Location and Direction Subject Property 3�1 31� 4,010, 14 t A%Iks.�ARA N 1:131 0 2.5 5m Con%ms InkrmaWn —sed under tae open Government Licence -Ontario Map 2: Photo Location Map Detail — Subject Property (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 15 Image 1: Context — View Showing Subject Property from Five Points Intersection (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 2: Context — Five Point Intersection, View of Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 16 Image 3: Context — View of Lancaster Streetscape, Subject Property at Centre (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 4: Context — Lancaster Street East Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 17 Image 5: Context — Ellen Street East Streetscape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 6: Context — View of Subject Property from Five Points Intersection (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 18 Image 7: Subject Property — Fagade (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Image 8: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End/Multipaned Queen - Anne Style Attic Window (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 19 low Image 9: Subject Property — Multi -Paned Queen Anne Style Window on Second Storey with Decorative Woodwork (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Image 10: Subject Property — Unpainted Brick Area Revealing Buff Brick Construction (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 20 Image 11: Subject Property — Infilled Window Opening (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 12: Subject Property —Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 21 Image 13: Subject Property — Stone Foundation and Cinder Block Foundation Under One -Storey Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Image 14: Subject Property — East Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 22 Image 15: Subject Property — Northeast Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 16: Subject Property — Modified Openings on Second Storey (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 23 Image 17: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 18: Subject Property — Molded Wooden Cornice Showing Area Clad with Aluminium Flashing (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, Citv of Kitchener, Ontario Image 19: Subject Property — Decorative Shingle Work on Gable En (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 20: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Coursed Mortar Parging (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) 24 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 25 Image 21: Subject Property — Brick Detail Showing Red Glazing and Beaded Mortar Profile (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 22: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 26 Image 23: Subject Property — Running Cracks Visible in Masonry (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 24: Subject Property — Painted Wooden Sills (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 27 Image 25: Subject Property — Interior and Storm Windows of Varying Conditions (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) Image 26: Subject Property — Basement Door Showing Modified Opening (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing West) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 28 Image 27: Subject Property —Addition on North Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northwest) Image 28: Subject Property — Window Opening Inside North Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 29 Image 29: Subject Building — Running Cracks in Masonry and Fallen Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) Image 30: Subject Property — Northwest Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 30 Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One - Storey Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 .T• -. P %_dind �,� � 0 I 4 or+z y�'ir Image 31: Subject Property — Six -Paned Fixed Window on Northwest Elevation of One - Storey Addition (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 32: Subject Property — Brick Discolouration Showing Water Shedding Issues (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southwest) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 33: Subject Property — Outside Brick Chimney (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southeast) Image 34: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable Ends (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Southeast) 31 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 32 Image 35: Subject Property — Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 36: Subject Property — Brick and Mortar Deterioration/Replacement (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 33 Image 37: Subject Property — Connection between Initial Residence Design with Two - Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 38: Subject Property — Single Masonry Course Laid in Header Pattern on Foundation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 34 Image 39: Subject Property — Segmental Arch on Basement Openinc (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 40: Subject Property — Flat Arched Basement Opening on Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 35 Image 41: Subject Property — Southwest Elevation (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 42: Subject Property —Attic Storey Dormer and Fire Escape (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario �Jk� aii'�y�t 1gt i — Image 43: Subject Property — Balcony on Second Storey of Two -Storey Addition on West Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) •IFj .- " �y��• �_: - -.-,.mac-'�'_ Image 44: Subject Property — First Storey Porch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) 36 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 37 Image 45: Subject Property — Large Window Opening with Flat Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing South) Image 46: Subject Property — 58 Ellen Street East Entrance October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 38 (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 47: Subject Property — Decorative Shingles on Gable End (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) y , Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 'l r y , Image 48: Subject Property — Paired Window Openings with Segmental Arches (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 39 Image 49: Subject Property — Stone Foundation with Deteriorated Mortar (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 50: Subject Property — Closet Addition on Second Floor (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northeast) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 40 Image 51: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Enclosed Entrance (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing Northeast) Image 52: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with Segmental Arch (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 41 Image 53: Subject Property — One -over -one Wooden Sash Window with a Segmental Arch and New or Restored Wooden Fixed Storm Window (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing East) Image 54: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Entrance Door with Decorative Woodwork (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 42 Image 55: Subject Property — 60 Ellen Street Porch with Beadboard Wooden Ceiling (Photo taken December 20, 2021; Facing North) Interior Photos Image 56: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 57: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Window with Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 58: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 43 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 n Image 58: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 43 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 44 Image 59: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring Visible (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 60: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Interior (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 45 Image 61: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 62: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 46 Image 63: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door and Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 64: 58 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wood Panel Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 47 Image 65: 58 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 66: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 48 Image 67: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring and Wooden Sash Windows with Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 68: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Wooden Sash Windows with Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 49 Image 69: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Trim Profile (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 70: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Fireplace Mantle with Tile Hearth (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 50 Image 71: 60 Ellen Street East Interior —Wooden Sash Window with Trim and Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 72: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Operable Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario lk IMF Image 73: 60 Ellen Street East Interior— Modified Interiors (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 74: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Door Leading to Addition on East Corner (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 51 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Rol W-1wr Image 75: 60 Ellen Street East Interior—Addition Interior Area (Photo taken December 20, 2021) ti Image 76: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Modified Kitchen Area (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 52 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario U Image 77: 60 Ellen Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring, Wooden Sash Windows, Interior Trim, Four Panel Wooden Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 4` u Image 78: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Room with Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 53 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 54 r t a 1 i _ ' i s 11 f I I� Image 79: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 80: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 55 Image 81: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trim (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 82: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 56 Image 83: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Y ^ hi .4 I� Image 84: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 57 Image 85: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Trii (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 86: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 87: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Trim and Interior Door Transom, Four -Panel Wooden Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 88: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Wooden Sash Windows with Coloured Glass Panes (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 58 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario Image 89: 115 Lancaster Street East Interior — Historic Hardwood Flooring (Photo taken December 20, 2021) A e�1 I r Image 90: Basement — Former Barbershop Space (Photo taken December 20, 2021) 59 October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 60 Image 91: Basement — Wooden Paneled Door (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 92: Basement — Unfinished Areas (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 61 Image 93: Basement — Some Basement Windows Remaining (Photo taken December 20, 2021) Image 94: Basement — Former Washroom (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 62 Image 95: Basement — Storm Windows for First and Second Storey Openings in Storage (Photo taken December 20, 2021) October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 63 Appendix B: Key Team Member Biographies and Qualifications Kayla Jonas Galvin, MA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP, Director— Heritage Operations Kayla Jonas Galvin, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.'s Director - Heritage Operations, has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public -sector clients to fulfil the requirements of provincial and municipal legislation such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties and municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Historic Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla was an editor of Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory and has worked on Municipal Heritage Registers in several municipalities. Kayla has drafted over 150 designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham -Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitch urch-StouffviIle. Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead forARA's roster assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties according to Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Kayla is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), a Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and sits on the board of the Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Amy Barnes, MA, CAHP — Project Manager Amy Barnes, a Project Manager with the Heritage Team, has over ten years of experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and leading community engagement. Amy has extensive experience working with provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Ms. Barnes has completed over fifty heritage related projects including 150+ cultural assessments and has been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Amy has worked in the public and private sector where her duties included project management, public consultation, facilitator, research, database and records management, and report author. Amy has worked with the Town of Oakville, City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener, Niagara -on -the -Lake, City of London, and the City of Kingston on projects which range in size, scale and complexity. Amy Barnes holds an M.A. in Heritage Conservation from the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. Amy has successfully completed the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Foundations in Public Participation, the IAP2 Planning and Techniques for Effective Public Participation, and Indigenous Awareness Training through Indigenous Awareness Canada. Amy is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and formerly served as the Vice - Chair of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee. Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, BA. Dip. Heritage Conservation — Project Manager/Conservator Aly Bousfield-Bastedo, a Heritage Project Manager and Conservator has five years of experience in evaluating cultural heritage resources, conducting historical research and providing conservation recommendations on a variety of projects. She holds an Honours BA in Sociology from the University of Guelph as well as a post -graduate certificate in Urban Design from Simon Fraser University. Building on these experiences, Aly received a graduate Diploma in Heritage Conservation from the Willowbank School of Restoration Arts. Aly has gained substantial experience in provincial and municipal legislation and guidelines, including the Ontario Heritage Act, Official Plans, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, and the Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Aly has gained considerable experience in evaluating historic materials, assessing potential impacts and recommending mitigation strategies for a variety of resources October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-0268/2023-0269 Documentation and Salvage Report 58-60 Ellen Street East & 115 Lancaster Street East, City of Kitchener, Ontario 64 such as farmsteads, bridges, houses, churches, cultural heritage landscapes and heritage districts in urban and rural areas. October 2024 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. HR -517-2024 ARA File #2024-026812023-0269