Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-173 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 - 60 Victoria St NStaff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: May 6, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, 519-783-8924 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 11, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-173 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 60 Victoria Street North Demolition of Additions with Retention in Full of 1913 Building RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 for the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North BE APPROVED to permit the demolition of three additions while retaining in full the 1913 building, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage permit; 2. That the final Structural Condition Assessment Report be submitted and approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals in consultation with the City's Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of a heritage permit; 3. That the Final Risk Management Plan be submitted and approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals prior to the issuance of a heritage permit; 4. That the final Temporary Protection Plan, including Demolition and Stabilization Plan, be submitted and approved by the Director of Development and Housing Approvals in consultation with the City's Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of a heritage permit; 5. That the retained Heritage Consultant inspect and certify that the measures outlined in the approved Conservation Plan, Risk Management Plan, and Temporary Protection Plan have been undertaken prior to and after *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 270 of 732 demolition in accordance with good conservation practice and to the satisfaction of the Direction of Planning; 6. That the final demolition permit be reviewed, and heritage clearance provided by Heritage Planning staff prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; and 7. Should the Owner suspect or become aware of any structural damage to the retained portion of 60 Victoria Street North during the demolition, the Owner agrees to stop work in the vicinity and notify the Consulting Engineer, the Heritage Consultant, and the City's Heritage Planner so that corrective action can be taken to the satisfaction of the City's Heritage Planner. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to present a proposal for partial demolition of the building on the subject property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North. The partial demolition seeks to remove three additions, while retaining in full the original 1913 portion of the building. The key finding of this report is that the demolition of the additions is not anticipated to impact the heritage attributes identified in Designating By-law Number 2024-141, as they relate specifically to the 1913 portion of the building which is to be retained in full. The submitted supporting studies provide further direction and recommendations which will assist in the short, medium, and long-term protection and conservation of the heritage resource. There are no financial implications associated with this report. Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener Committee This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 proposes partial demolition of the building municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North. Specifically, three contemporary additions which were constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968 respectively will be removed. The original portion of the building constructed c. 1913 will remain as well as a non -original staircase constructed c. 1968. This property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By-law Number 2024-141. In reviewing the merits of this application, Heritage Planning staff would note that the demolition retains in full the heritage attributes identified through the designating by-law, as they pertain only to the original 1913 portion of the building. Further, appropriate studies have been completed with recommendations and strategies to be implemented which will aid in the continued conservation of the heritage value and significance of the subject property. These studies have been completed by qualified consultants and include a Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan, Structural Condition Assessment, Risk Management Plan, and Temporary Protection Plan with Stabilization and Demolition Plan. A summary of each of the submitted supporting materials is provided in this report. BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of a complete Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-V-010 for the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North. The applicants are seeking permission for the partial demolition of the building on Page 271 of 732 site. Specifically, they are looking to demolish three additions, while retaining in full the original 1913 portion of the building. The purpose of this proposal is to prepare for an anticipated adjacent future transit hub, known as the Kitchener Central Transit Hub. A Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. with John MacDonald Architect Inc. for 60 Victoria Street North, 16 Victoria Street North, 50 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West as part of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-aw Amendment Application. At the time this Heritage Study / HIA was written, the subject property was listed on the Kitchener Inventory of Heritage Buildings but not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. Through the HIA, the heritage value and significance of 60 Victoria Street was assessed and conservation recommendations made. The heritage attributes identified within the HIA related specifically to the 1913 portion of the building. Recommended conservation measures included the retention of the 1913 portion of the Rumpel Felt building for adaptive re -use, as well as additional measures to be followed in the design of the adjacent transit hub and redevelopment of the Rumpel Felt building including ensuring that appropriate setbacks, stepbacks, etc. be incorporated. The HIA was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on October 2, 2012. Comments from several members included a desire to see the 1913 portion of the building protected via designation prior to site plan review. In March 2024, a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act was issued for 60 Victoria Street North. The Region of Waterloo was in support of the proposed designation, as indicated through conversations with regional staff and formally demonstrated through a Letter of Support dated February 9, 2024, which was provided by the Region during the NOID process. As part of the NOID, the Region also sought preliminary input and/or recommendations from the Heritage Kitchener Committee on the anticipated partial demolition and retention of the original 1913 portion of the factory for adaptive re -use. Comments were received regarding salvage of material for re -use where feasible. In July 2025 the Designating By-law was passed by Council. REPORT: 60 Victoria Street North is located on the northwestern corner of the Victoria Street North and Duke Street West intersection. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and contains an original 1913 three-storey brick factory with three contemporary additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968 respectively. Page 272 of 732 9 1% 3,� 28 @»0 283 C) �501 A 48 \44. OPE HIU R ON PARK57,. 510 C 17( C P-1 E F. <: I A L C LE �\ « d�� / 70 A Figure 1: Location Map of Subject Property �� Figure 2: Front Facade of Subject Property Page 273 0 732 I i -L F- T i A Figure 3: Additions (1913 in Green, 1942 in Orange, 1962 in Blue, 1968 in Purple) Per Designating By-law No. 2024-141, 60 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. The 1913 portion of the building is a representative example of the vernacular industrial architectural style, characteristic of early twentieth-century industrial complexes that were built in then -Berlin. The historical and associative value of the subject property lies in its connection to the felt manufacturing industry and notable industrialists within the community. The building also has ties to regionally significant themes such as transportation, industrialism, and urban development. Rumple Felt Co. Limited, then known as the Berlin Felt & Boot Company, was originally established by George Rumple on the adjacent property municipally addressed as 50 Victoria Street North in 1875. The existing 1913 factory at 60 Victoria Street North was built by Walter Rumple, who succeeded his father George as manager of the company in 1916. The building was intentionally constructed in proximity to the rail corridor to support the transportation of raw material for processing into the factory, and the exportation of manufactured goods out to the rest of the country. In terms of its contextual value, the building maintains its physical, visual, and historical link to the surrounding area and supports the character of Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). This CHL is characterized by a number of remaining industrial factories, including by not limited to the former Kaufman Rubber Company (410 King Street West), and former Mitchell Button Company (97 Victoria Street North). Page 274 of 732 The primary resource of the subject property is the original 1913 portion of the factory. The following list are the heritage attributes that have been identified by the designating by-law, supported by the findings of the 2012 HIA. Interior elements including: o Riveted shear plate column construction; and o Goods lift (circa 1913) Exterior attributes related to the vernacular industrial architectural style of the building, including: o The massing of the original 1913 portion of the building; o North, south, and west facades of the original 1913 portion of the building; o Red brick walls; o Wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); o Entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; o Multi -paned windows with metal mullions and pivoting panels; o Painted sign above the first storey of the front fagade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited"; o Painted sign below the roof line of the rear fagade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited Felts for Every Purpose" Elements that relate to the building's contribution to the remaining industrial landscape known as the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape; including: o The north -south orientation of the building; o The massing of the building fronting onto Victoria Street North; o The proximity to the rail line. Proposed Demolition Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 is proposing the demolition of the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions of the building. The 1913 portion of the building in its entirety is to be kept, as well as the staircase constructed with the 1942 addition. Restoration of the east wall of the 1913 portion of the building will be required, as it currently forms part of the 1942 addition. Infilling select openings will be required, where structural connections of the additions are severed at the original building. In addition, localized repairs to masonry will be completed on the other facades of the original factory, where brick and mortar have experienced deterioration. Page 275 of 732 Figure 4: Area Proposed for Demolition Identified in Red Required Studies The following sections provide a summary of the studies and plans that were requested as part of a complete Heritage Permit Application for the proposed demolition. The intent of these documents is to provide a detailed explanation of the work proposed, the methodology involved to carry out the work proposed, the short and medium-term protection and conservation measures to be applied to the heritage resource during the duration of work, and the long-term protection and conservation measures to be applied until a final use is determined and the site is redeveloped. All studies and plans are currently in a draft stage. Revisions to address comments of Heritage Planning staff and Heritage Kitchener Committee are anticipated prior to final approval of these studies and plans. Draft Conservation Plan The Conservation Plan (CP) is intended to address how the 1913 portion of the 60 Victoria Street North will be conserved. It does this by assessing current conditions (outlined in the Structural Condition Assessment Report), identifying appropriate conservation principles, and recommending conservation measures or intervention for the short (pre -construction), medium (during and immediately after construction), and long -terms (including but not limited to regular maintenance after construction). A photo log documenting the property has also been attached as Appendix A. A summary of the measures recommended by the CP is provided in the table below. Page 276 of 732 Term Measure Recommended Short The CP identifies no need for immediate repair or stabilization of the heritage attributes. Shoring and demolition performed as per the requirements of the contract documents prepared by the design team and carried out under the direction of a professional engineer and heritage consultant. Sound brick, similar to that of the existing 1913 building, will be salvaged and cleaned by hand processes to prevent damage. Salvaged brick is to be stored on pallets, protectively wrapped and stored on the ground floor of the 1913 building or an adequate safe location until their reuse. Where existing openings on the east wall are exposed, they will be infilled with localized sheet metal siding, colour and profile to match existing siding infills on other facades. Masonry repairs at beam connection points and other wall openings are to be infilled with masonry. Existing shoring on the third floor is to be reviewed to note original position and conditions and periodically reviewed during demolition. Existing floor slabs in the 1942 addition is to be saw cut and chipped away where it abuts the wall of the 1913 Medium building. Localized masonry repointing and replacement is to be done prior to installing s-girts for the new sheet metal cladding. Build up the lower parapet wall to match the existing height of the 1913 parapet. Carry out a roof investigation. Make roof repairs and install new roofing membrane flashing. Install hoarding enclosure at front entry porch to minimize potential damage. Maintain interior boiler, door hardware, riveted shear plate column connections, goods lift, and other remaining fagades. Maintain painted signage on north and south fagade. All new material shall be submitted for review and approval by a professional CAHP member. All restoration is to be performed under the direction of the Engineer of Record and a professional CAHP member. The property is to be regularly reviewed and maintained in keeping with good conservation practices until plans for future adaptive reuse or redevelopment are in place. If redevelopment is delayed, the property is to be reviewed Long by the Heritage Professional at least every two years to confirm the structure remains stable and no immediate repairs are needed. Page 277 of 732 Draft Structural Condition Assessment Report A Structural Assessment was completed for the building in October 2011 by MTE. This report concluded that the roof framing and supporting columns of the third storey of the 1913 building were insufficient and recommended reinforcement be put in place. Otherwise, it determined that the building masonry was in good condition without significant signs of structural distress. A copy of the 2011 structural assessment can be found in Appendix B of the submitted Conservation Plan. An updated Structural Assessment was requested as part of the CP, to determine what changes might have occurred to the condition of the Rumple Felt building in the intervening fourteen years and ensure there would be no negative structural implementations as a result of the proposed partial demolition. This work was undertaken by MTE in April 2025. Both interior and exterior inspections were completed. The 1913 structure was found to be in generally good condition, with the primary structural system intact. Some localized deterioration in bricks as well as leaking spots in the roof were identified. It is recommended that the roof member and leak sites be further investigated for deficiencies. The front entrance stair and canopy structure were also determined to be in poor condition, with restoration required. Further investigation is recommended to identify the extent of damage and appropriate restoration or replacement measures. In the meanwhile, it is recommended that a hoarding enclosure be placed as soon as possible to protect this area from further deterioration. Draft Combined Risk Management Plan, Temporary Protection Plan with Demolition and Stabilization Plan A combined Risk Management Plan, Temporary Protection Plan and Demolition and Stabilization Plan has been prepared by MTE. The purpose of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) is to identify and assess potential risks to the 1913 portion of 60 Victoria Street North as part of the proposed partial demolition. In addition to risk identification, the RMP is also intended to provide appropriate protocols or measures to be implemented to avoid or mitigate risks as well as outline emergency procedures or responses should a risk event occur and result in unintended damage or destruction. The RMP that has been prepared as part of this application focuses on minimizing vibration risks during demolition activities. Recommendations for mitigation include using smooth -wheel rollers to compact backfilled soil and implementing continuous vibration monitoring as well as regular site visits by the retained heritage professional and structural engineer to review for any impact, shifting, or new deterioration. If damage to the heritage resource does occur during demolition, the RMP recommends that work in that area of the structure be stopped immediately and a restoration plan be developed by the heritage professional and structural engineer. Work will not continue until the contractor has assessed the cause for damage and developed updated procedures to prevent further occurrences. Per the Temporary Protection Plan and Stabilization and Demolition Plan, building bracing is to be designed by the contractors engineer to support the additions. The steel structures are to be shored in place during demolition to prevent possible movement of steel Page 278 of 732 connected to the original 1913 structure which may in turn cause damage to the original construction. Demolition is to be carried out generally from east to west. A sequence of demolition has been developed, and is outlined in writing within the combined plan and supported by detailed engineered drawings which are attached as Appendix A. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010, Heritage Planning staff would note the following: • The building on the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through Designating By-law Number 2024-141. • Designating By-law Number 2024-141 identifies the 1913 portion of the building alone as having cultural heritage value or significance. The heritage attributes identified within the designating by-law were informed by the 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment. • Per the 2012 Heritage Study and HIA, the changes that have occurred to the building over time (such as the additions) have not become character defining elements but rather have comprised the heritage character of the 1913 structure. • The proposed partial demolition follows the recommendations of the 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment. Specifically, it complies with the following: o Retain the Rumpel Felt building (at least the 1913 portion) for adaptive re- use; o Salvage building materials such as brick to be used in repairs, o Match brick and mortar in repair/ restoration work; o Complete and implement a Conservation Plan for the 1913 portion of the building to ensure heritage attributes are brought to an acceptable minimum standard in the short-term and that guidelines are in place to ensure any alterations follow good conservation principles and practice. • Several other recommendations contemplate designs which either retain and re -use the Rumple Felt additions or replace with new construction. This demonstrates that partial demolition was considered at the time the 2012 study was completed and determined to be an acceptable intervention provided the 1913 portion of the building and its character defining elements are maintained. • The entirety of 1913 portion of the building is to be retained. • The submission of supporting plans and studies, summarized in this report, details the specifics on how the identified heritage resources and its attributes will be adequately protected and conserved pre -construction, during construction, and after demolition until redevelopment occurs. • The supporting plans and studies have been completed by qualified professionals. Heritage Planning Staff have also assessed the proposed work against The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The document is a pan - Canadian collaboration between different federal, provincial, and territorial governments. While it does not constitute legislation, it does provide sound and practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice. It is a tool that has been adopted by many governing bodies of different scales. The proposed work for 60 Victoria Street North complies with the following general standards identified within the document: • Standard 1: Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements. Do Page 279 of 732 not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. • Standard 2: Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. • Standard 6: Protect, and if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. • Standard 7: Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. • Standard 8: Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. • Standard 9: Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. In regard to Standard 1 and Standard 2, as per the 2012 Heritage Study / HIA the additions are not considered character defining elements but may instead compromise the character of the 1913 portion of the building. The 1913 portion of the building, and associated heritage attributes on its exposed fagade as well as some interior elements, have been identified by the Designing By-law Number 2024-141. These elements are being kept in their entirety and are not contemplated as part of the partial demolition. Regarding Standard 6-9, the original 1913 portion of the building is stable and will be protected from damage during demolition of the additions. Through the heritage studies and plans that have been requested as part of this partial demolition application, additional measures to help conserve, maintain, and/or repair identified heritage attributes of the original 1913 portion of the building have also been developed and are anticipated to be implemented. Additional Requirements The approval of an application under the Ontario Heritage Act is not a waiver of any of the provisions of any legislation, including but not limited to the requirement of the Ontario Building Code and Kitchener's Demolition Control By-law. In this regard, the applicant is advised that full a demolition permit is still required. Furter redevelopment of the site will entail additional requirements, including another Heritage Permit Application. This is anticipated to occur as part of a complete development application made under the Planning Act. 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. Page 280 of 732 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — The Heritage Kitchener Committee will be consulted regarding the subject Heritage Permit Application. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 Notice of Intention to Designate 60 Victoria Street North, March 5, 2024 Multi -Modal Hub Heritage Impact Assessment, October 2, 2012 REVIEWED BY: Sandro Bassanese, Manager of Site Plan Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Heritage Permit Application HPA-2025-IV-010 Form Attachment B — Draft Cultural Heritage Conservation Plan, MTE, revised April 8, 2025 Attachment C — Draft Structural Condition Assessment, MTE, April 3, 2025 Attachment D — Draft Temporary Protection Plan and Risk Management Plan, MTE, revised April 8, 2025 Attachment E — Draft Stabilization and Demolition Plan, MTE, revised April 8, 2025 Attachment F — Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment, the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. with John MacDonald Architect Inc, November 22, 2012 Attachment G — Designating By-law Number 2024-141 Page 281 of 732 olmz�g Up- MTE Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener Draft Heritage Conservation Plan Project Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON Prepared for: Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 4th Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 February 28, 2025 Revised: April 8, 2025 MTE File No.: 33223-301 Page 282of 732 0-11'LlMTE Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................1 2.0 Owner Contact Information..............................................................................................2 3.0 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................2 4.0 Heritage Resources.........................................................................................................3 4.1 Heritage Description....................................................................................................3 4.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest..........................................................3 4.3 Heritage Attributes.......................................................................................................3 5.0 Conservation Principals and Guidelines..........................................................................4 5.1 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada..............4 5.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties .....................7 5.2.1 Conservation Approach and Recommendations.......................................................7 6.0 General Conservation Plan..............................................................................................8 6.1 Short Term Conservation Work....................................................................................8 6.2 Medium Term Conservation Work................................................................................8 6.3 Long Term Conservation Work..................................................................................10 7.0 Report Preparer.............................................................................................................10 8.0 Summary.......................................................................................................................11 Appendices Appendix A Photographic Log Appendix B Structural Assessment Report, dated October 11, 2011 Appendix C Structural Assessment Report Update, dated April 3, 2025 Page 283 of 732 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MTE Consultants, Inc. has been retained by the Region of Waterloo to prepare a Heritage Conservation Plan for the existing building at 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener. The subject property contains the Rumpel Felt building, a three-storey felt factory that was built c. 1913 with three additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968, respectively. The Region of Waterloo desires to demolish the three additions while preserving the 1913 building in preparation for the adjacent future transit hub (Kitchener Central Transit Hub). The existing additions will impede the plans for the Transit Hub and the demolition will allow the transit hub to proceed while conserving the heritage resource on the site, which is the 1913 structure. The plans for the restoration and redevelopment or adaptive reuse of the original Rumpel Felt building can then proceed separately. The Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. with John MacDonald Architect Inc., outlines the character defining element of the site as the 1913 building which will be maintained during reuse or redevelopment. The remaining additions to the site are not considered to be character defining elements. This Conservation Plan is intended to serve as fulfillment of the requirements of the conditional approval of site Plans application for the following items. Conservation Plan including a condition survey of the existing 1913 fagade and guidance for the stabilization and removals during demolition, as well as guidance on repairs and long term maintenance of the fagade following demolition. This plan, although providing a basis for the development of the reports listed below, does not constitute these reports. These reports shall be provided separately, prior to commencement of any demolition, grading or construction activity on the site. Risk Management Plan commenting on the means and methods to mitigate vibration damage. Temporary Protection Plan, including a Demolition and Stabilization Plan showing the means and methods to be used to minimize potential damage to the existing fagade during construction. Structural Condition Assessment Report showing existing condition of the structure, recommendations for repairs needed to address deterioration, and its capacity to withstand the proposed changes As part of this plan, a structural condition assessment of the existing fagade was completed in 2011 and an updated report completed April 2025. These reports are included in Appendix B and Appendix C of this plan. This assessment focuses on the original 1913 building fagades, select interior original components, and the massing of the original structure for its contribution to the spatial and historical experience for the public, which represent the heritage resource of this building. This conservation plan outlines the means by which these heritage resources, in the form of the existing fagades, shall be conserved and the requirements for that conservation for the short, medium and long term. As preservation of the fagades were deemed the method of conservation to be employed for this site, protecting and shoring the structure in place during the demolition of the additions is necessary. Necessary repairs for preservation are recommended to stop worsening deterioration from roof leaks and weathering as part of this project. This plan is outlined in the descriptions below. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 284 of 732 2.0 OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION Multimodal Hub Project Coordinator- Christa De Wys CDeWvsnreaionofwaterloo.ca Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is a three-storey felt factory located at 60 Victoria Street North in Kitchener, Ontario. The original building was built in 1913 and has three later additions built in 1942, 1962, and 1968. The original 1913 structure is a combination of load bearing brick masonry and steel framing bearing on steel columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete floor slabs. The original 1913 roof is constructed with sloped steel beam and purlin framing with joist infill. There are large arched openings around the building fagade with a combination of various window vintages and infilled sections of split face architectural concrete block, along with red metal cladding. The Boiler house portion of the original building is of similar construction. The 1942 addition was constructed with similar techniques however the floors are panel -formed in contrast to the board -forms of the original structure. The west face of this addition has been removed with the additions of the 1962 and 1968 sections. The foundation wall can still be observed at the main floor level. The south wall now serves as an interior wall. Part of this addition contains a large brick chimney that is not part of the original 1913 construction. The 1962 and 1968 additions are steel framed and the exterior perimeter walls are not load bearing which can be seen through the continuous architectural strip windows and fiberglass translucent panes. Muli-wythe terra cotta masonry units, also known as speedtile, clad the exterior walls. Existing foundations consist of poured in place concrete. On the west side of the 1913 structure, there is an undated shed addition that is not original to the building and detracts from the heritage resources of the fagade. There are also remnants of a salt storage silo. The 1913 building will be preserved with restoration of the east wall, currently forming part of the 1942 addition. As the 1913 building was in place prior to the addition, demolition is not expected to largely affect the structure except where beam and other connections were made along the east wall. There is a stairwell structure part of the 1942 addition which will remain in place and not be demolished. The 1962 and 1968 additions are connected to the 1942 addition and have no sharing walls with the original structure. The east wall of the 1913 building has been generally sheltered from weather and is in serviceable condition; however, localized damage was noted in several areas and repairs are expected when the structural connections of the 1942 addition are removed. The east wall is also finished with green and white paint which will be exposed after demolition takes place. The paint is to remain until the building is repurposed. Along the remaining fagades of the 1913 building there is localized brick deterioration, and the mortar joints are in varying states of repair, with some joints and bricks having been previously repaired with non-matching modern materials. There is noted concrete deterioration of the entrance canopy as well. These are further discussed in the updated Structural Condition Assessment, 2025. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 285 of 732 It is concluded that the existing fagades (north, east, west and south) are adequate to sustain the demolition work required. 4.0 HERITAGE RESOURCES 4.1 Heritage Description 60 Victoria Street North is a three-storey 20th century brick building. The 1913 original building is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Committee Inventory of Heritage Buildings. It is an example of the vernacular industrial construction of its time and contains distinct columns and porch entry. It is located on the corner of Duke Street (formerly Edward Street) and Victoria Street, built tight to the street. The building is located within an area centred around the main rail corridor and industrial sector where many factory sites, worker housing, and prominent industrialists once lived. Buildings along this landscape typically contain the physical character of the main building being constructed close to the public way which it fronts, bearing an architectural design highlighting the main entrance. It is within the Warehouse District of the City of Kitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the building. The legal description is PT LOTS 10, 11 &12, LTS 13,14 &15, PT LANE CLOSED BY BY-LAW #971978 PL374, PTS 2-9 58R6453: Kitchener. S/T INT IN 983885. S/T983887. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 60 Victoria Street North is recognized for its design/physical, and historical/associative value The Property at 60 Victoria Street North demonstrates design or physical value as an early example of an early 20th century vernacular industrial construction. The building has many intact original elements including brick, original boiler, door hardware, arched window openings, load bearing brick walls and original entry porch. The Property has historical and associative value because it is an example of an industrial building in this section of Victoria Street North and contributes to the public spatial and historical experience of the rail corridor. Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes supporting the cultural heritage value of the Property are represented in the c. 1913 three-storey, brick building. As reported in the Heritage Impact Assessment, they include: • Original 1913 fagade (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side); • Riveted shear plate column construction; • Goods lift (circa 1913); • Door hardware; • Original boiler; • Wood timbers (presently used as the top course of the north retaining wall to the north parking lot, further discussion below on the removal of these timbers); • Multi -paned window with metal mullions and pivoting panels; MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 286 of 732 • Red brick walls; • Painted sign above the first storey of the front facade that reads "The Rumpel Felt Co. Limited"; • Painted sign below the roof line of the rear facade that reads "The Rumpel Felt Co. Limited Felts for Every Purpose"; • Entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; • The massing of the building itself, fronting onto Victoria Street north, for its larger contribution to public spatial and historical experience; • The north -south orientation of the building; and, • The proximity to the rail line. 5.0 CONSERVATION PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES This Plan follows recognized heritage conservation standards and guidance from the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (S&G), and Ontario's Eight Guiding Principles for the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Eight Guiding Principles). The applicable standards from the S&G and the applicable principles from the Eight Guiding Principles are identified below. 5.1 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada The S&G has been adopted by most federal agencies, provinces, heritage agencies, and many municipalities as the guiding document for heritage work. They are considered best practice guidance for heritage conservation in Canada. The S&G document is a tool to help guide change for cultural heritage resources. It provides an overview to the conservation decision-making process, identifies appropriate conservation treatments, and provides standards and guidelines appropriate for conservation. In the context of the S&G, conservation is understood to embrace several key concepts including preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. These terms are defined as follows: Conservation: All actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character -defining elements of an historic place so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physical life. This may involve Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, or a combination of these actions or processes; Preservation: The action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of an historic place, or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value; Rehabilitation: The action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value; and. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 287 of 732 Restoration: The action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. The proposed redevelopment is a Preservation project. Preservation involves the maintaining and protecting a building's heritage value by retaining the heritage attributes of the place. Preservation is considered as a primary approach when materials, features and spaces of the historic place are essentially intact and convey the historic significance without extensive repair or replacement. The preservation standards applicable to this project are identified in the table below. Standard # Standard 1 Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. • The 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions, the chimney, the salt delivery I system, three sheds, and a concrete beam over two concrete pillars on the north side are being demolished. These elements do not have heritage value. Wood timbers found over a retaining wall were noted as having heritage value in the HIA however; they were referred to as wooden pipes. After site review, it has been determined these are not pipes, ratherjust additional timbers forming the top of the wall. As these are not connected to the 1913 building nor do they form part of the building's construction, these will be removed in the demolition process. The original 1913 structure is to remain intact with minimal restoration after the demolition. 2 Conserve changes to an historic place that over time, have become character - defining elements in their own right. • Per the HIA, there are no changes over time that have become character defining, although the additions over time have compromised the character of the original building. Through demolition of the additions, minor masonry restoration will be carried out on the east wall where structural connections of the building additions will be severed from the original 1913 structure. Wall openings will also be infilled with salvaged brick from the chimney. The east wall is currently painted green and white which will remain and the brick repairs and infills will be the colour of the chimney brick. A section of the east wall will also be overclad with sheet metal siding to match the siding at infill areas on the other fagades. Three sheds will be removed, as well as the salt delivery system and the chimney which have not been deemed heritage attributes. • Reversing past changes on other facades is reserved for the planned future developer. 3 Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. 'Canada's Historic Places, "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Place in Canada," Second Edition, 2010, https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+q-enq-web2.pdf, 15-16. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 ° Page 288 of 732 Standard # Standard • As per the HIA, intervention will likely be required to adaptively re -use the building. This is currently unknown and outside the scope of the demolition project as the original building will remain in place and unoccupied after demolition. However, in the future redevelopment, the 1913 building is to remain in full and in-situ. It is recommended that the new construction be compatible with but distinct from the exiting architectural design complete with appropriate setbacks and stepbacks so focus is retained on the heritage resource. Conservation of the heritage resource is expected to inform future site design and follow best conservation practices 4 Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. • Temporary sheet metal siding is to be installed over part of the east brick fagade where it will become exposed during the demolition of the additions. This will be used as temporary protection of the fagade until the final redevelopment plans are completed. New cladding is to match already installed sheet metal cladding infills of windows at other facades. This is in addition to other brick infills on the east wall and repairs where the existing beams connect to the building. 5 Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character -defining elements. • Temporary sheet metal siding to be installed over the east existing brick fagade where it will become exposed during the demolition of the additions. Cladding is to match already installed sheet metal cladding infills of windows at other fagades. Additional masonry infills and repairs on the same east elevation will be completed using the salvaged masonry from the chimney. 6 Protect, and if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. • The original 1913 structure was built as a stand-alone structure and is inherently stable. The 1913 building is being protected from any damage that could result from the demolition. The building will be maintained by the Region until the redevelopment/reuse plans are implemented. 7 Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements [heritage attributes] to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. • Temporary sheet metal siding to be installed over the existing brick fagade where it will become exposed during the demolition of the additions. Cladding is to match already installed sheet metal cladding infills of windows at other fagades. No other significant alterations are planned for the remaining fagades. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 289 of 732 Standard # Standard 8 Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character - defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. • The building is currently unoccupied and generally maintained by the Region. The roof has several leaks which are recommended for immediate repair to mitigate deterioration of the building. Shoring is also installed on the third floor to support the roof structure from current snow load. This shoring will remain in place during demolition and be monitored. Brick from the chimney demolition will be used to infill the beam pockets on the east fagade. 9 Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. The updated structural condition Assessment has outlined recommendations for future intervention at the time of adaptive reuse. These include repairs to the front porch canopy, removing the vines over the brick, and completing localized brick and mortar repairs. More immediate recommendations include roof membrane repairs to mitigate ongoing leakage. 5.2 Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties The Eight Guiding Principles, compiled by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (now the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism) are useful as a tool to help guide change to cultural heritage resources. These principles are intended to provide a basis for decisions concerning "good practice" in heritage conservation. The applicable principles are identified in the table below. 5.2.1 Conservation Approach and Recommendations The General Conservation Plan outlines the conservation approach and recommendations for short-, medium -and long-term conservation work. This section incorporates recommendations based on the professional experience and expertise of this Plan's author and reviewers. Principle # I Principle 1 Respect for documentary evidence: Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such as historic photographs, drawings and physical evidence. (Please see the H/A for documentary evidence.) 2 Respect for the original location: do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes the cultural heritage value considerably. (The building is planned to remain in its original location.) 3 Respect for historic materials: repair/conserve—rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 290 of 732 Principle # Principle intervention maintains the heritage content of the built resource. (Original materials will be repaired and reused.) 4 Respect for original fabric: repair with like materials. Repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity. (Like materials shall be utilized in all repairs.) 6 Reversibility: alteration should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique, e.g. When a new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. (Original materials shall be salvaged and stored.) 7 E: Legibility: new work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. (New work will be part of the redevelopment plan for the site and is beyond the scope of this portion of the current project.) Maintenance: with continuous care, future restoration work will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided. (Maintenance and upkeep plan will be part of the future adaptive reuse or redevelopment.) 6.0 GENERAL CONSERVATION PLAN J It is the intent of the conservation plan to protect the original 1913 building during the demolition of the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions. As part of the demolition, masonry repairs and infilling select openings will be required where structural connections of the additions are severed at the original building. This is to take place only on the east fagade. All other fagades of the 1913 building will remain. In order to better illustrate the conservation plan, we have broken it down into short-, medium - and long-term requirements. 6.1 Short Term Conservation Work 1. There is no need for immediate repair or stabilization of the heritage attributes and, therefore, there is no cost associated with this work. 6.2 Medium Term Conservation Work 1. Shoring and demolition shall be performed per the requirements of the contract documents prepared by the design team. These plans are attached for reference. 2. Shoring and demolition shall be performed under the direction of both a professional engineer and the Heritage Professional. Sound brick, similar to the existing 1913 building, will be salvaged from the demolished chimney in a secure manner. Brick shall be covered and protected from weather. Bricks shall be segregated between sound and unsound brick. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 291 of 732 3. Where existing doorways and openings along the east wall are exposed, they are to be infilled as per the demolition details with localized sheet metal siding, colour and profile to match the other existing siding infills at other fagades. As sheet metal siding is not being installed over the entirety of the east fagade, there will be masonry repairs at beam connection points and other wall openings will be infilled with masonry. Full thickness wall infills are to match the exiting adjacent wall construction. These are detailed in the demolition drawings. • Where beams connect to the 1913 masonry wall, unbolt beams and remove clips. Cut away beam and infill pocket left behind by the removed beam with salvaged brick. Salvaged brick from the chimney will be used to complete infills where there are currently beam connections to the 1948 addition, and for other fagades that require brick repairs. 4. Existing shoring on the third floor of the original building is to be reviewed to note original position and conditions. It is to be periodically reviewed during demolition to ensure the shoring remains sound. The shoring is currently in place to provide additional support to the roof structure to manage current snow loads. 5. Saw cut and chip away existing floor slabs in the 1942 addition where it abuts the wall of the 1913 building. Care is to be taken to minimize damage to existing wall masonry. Complete localized masonry repairs with salvaged brick. Match mortar type, hardness and colour. Match grout colour and joint profile. The contractor will be required to do a mock-up for review and approval by a Professional Member of the CAHP. 6. Complete localized masonry repointing and replacement prior to installing the z-girts for the new sheet metal cladding to ensure sound anchorage of the cladding system. 7. At the roof level, build up the lower parapet wall to match the existing height of the 1913 parapet following details and tie-ins as per the demolition details. 8. All new materials proposed for use in the restoration of the fagade shall be submitted for review and approval of a Professional Member of CAHP prior to incorporation into the design of the new fagade. Metal cladding is to match profile and color of existing metal cladding located around the 1913 building. 9. Restoration shall be performed under the direction of the Engineer of Record and a Professional Member of CAHP. 10. No changes will be made to the painted signage on the north and south fagade. 11. The front entry porch architecture will receive a hoarding enclosure to minimize potential of damage from the removal of rubble and debris from demolition. Recommended repairs indicated in the updated Structural Assessment are to be undertaken in the future and are not required for the demolition process. 12. Interior boiler, door hardware, riveted shear plate column connections, goods lift, and other remaining fagade will remain unaltered from their existing conditions. • Make repairs to the roof around drains and any noted open seams to address water leakage. Install new roofing membrane flashing where the parapet wall is to be built up. • Carry out a roof investigation to fully assess the roofing membrane and structural deck members at leak locations of the 1913 building. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 292 of 732 6.3 Long Term Conservation Work 1. The property shall be regularly reviewed and maintained in keeping with good conservation practices until plans for future adaptive reuse or redevelopment are in place. If redevelopment plans are delayed, the property shall be reviewed by the Heritage Professional at least every two years to confirm the structure remains stable and is not in need of any immediate repairs. 7.0 REPORT PREPARER This report has been authored by Kurt Ruhland, P.Eng., CAHP and Cassandra Fusato, P.Eng., CAHP-Intern. Kurt has been a professional consulting engineer in the building industry for over 30 years and a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) since 2016. Kurt has been involved in the structural restoration of dozens of designated and non- designated heritage buildings across Southern Onterio. Notable projects include the Elora Mill restoration in Elora, the restoration of Devereaux House in Halton Hills and the renovation of Creelman Hall at the University of Guelph. Cassandra has 10 years of industry experience within building restoration and building science. She has been a CAHP Intern since 2024 and has worked on building and fagade restoration of various types. She has been involved in helping with the heritage restoration planning of the Kingston City Hall clock tower and front entrance stone stairs along with the Kingston Courthouse entrance column capitals. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 293 of 732 The property at 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener contains a three-storey felt factory that was built c. 1913 with three additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968, respectively. It is understood that the intention is to demolish the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions while maintaining the original 1913 Rumpel Felt building which contains heritage value. The demolition serves as preparation for Region of Waterloo to develop a future transit hub (Kitchener Central Transit Hub). The plans for the restoration and redevelopment or adaptive reuse of the original Rumpel Felt building can then proceed separately (after the demolition). It is proposed to preserve the heritage of the 1913 building by completing repairs to its east fagade where structural connections to the additions are removed. Additionally, existing openings along the east fagade are to be infilled and sheet metal cladding installed to make the building weather tight for protection until full restoration and redevelopment is planned for the building. All of which is respectfully submitted, MTE Consultants Inc. DRAFT Cassandra Fusato, P.Eng., CAHP-Intern Manager, Project Coordination & CAD Resources 905-639-2552 ext. 2408 cfusatoa-mte85.com CMF:axd DRAFT Kurt Ruhland, P.Eng., CAHP Chief Operating Officer 519-743-6500 ext. 1236 kruhlandl.7mte85.com cc: https:Hmte85.sharepoint.com/sites/33223-301/Shared Documents/Heritage/Conservation Plan/Conservation Plan/33223-301_rpt_Hertitage Conservation Plan Draft Rev.01.docx MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 294 of 732 014MTE Appendix A Photographic Log Page 295 of 732 4 1r. I> o -no31P m - F ML li wo= � a � u r'I i i Z f�a RUMPEL FELT CO. LTD. '' FEA5A81 LITY STUDY �- GROUNDFLOOR FIn 1.4 Photograph No. 1 — 60 Victoria Steet North Additions 0 rf 0 QQ �T r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 1 Page 296 of 732 !�� • .i ` T P � � '� � � .�� yrs � ' � 101 Ole QQ S Y 40 dL s 11� Photograph No. 2 — 60 Victoria Steet North within the Warehouse District (Photo retrieved from the HIA completed by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd) MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 2 Page 297 of 732 Photograph No. 3 — Character Defining Painted "Rumpel Felt Co. Limited Felts for Every Purpose" on the Original 1913 Building Photograph No. 4 — Character Defining Front Porch and Entrance Tight to Victoria Street North MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 298 of 732 f S 0 0 QQ S n 0 QQ [. _. � ?Iii I �� _ I -...� � � � �•!� �1� a Photograph No. 5 — Overview of the 1913 Building with Addition on the Right Photograph No. 6 — Overview of the Original 1913 (left) and 1942/1968 Addition (Right) MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 4 Page 299 of 732 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Photograph No. 7 — Overview of Non-matching Split Face Architectural Block and Red Sheet Metal Cladding Window Infills Photograph No. 8 — Third Floor Interior Shoring (within Original Building) to be Monitored during Demolition MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 5 Page 300 of 732 ` _---------------------; C Photograph No. 9 —Chimney to Be Demolished and Brick Salvaged for Reuse Photograph No. 10 — 1942 Addition Beams Bearing on the 1913 East Wall S 0 0 QQ _S n r c°Q MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Heritage Conservation Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 6 Page 301 of 732 Appendix B Structural Assessment Report, 014MTE dated October 11, 2011 Page 302 of 732 3 MTE More Than Engineering October 11, 2011 MTE file: 33223-300 Kari Feldmann, P. Eng. Sr. Project Manager, Environmental, Corporate Properties Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick St., 5th Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Dear Mr. Feldmann: Re: Structural Assessment Rumpel Felt Building 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON Per your request we have conducted a structural assessment of the above noted building and are pleased to provide the following report. It is our understanding that the Region of Waterloo wishes to convert the use of the former Rumpel Felt building from factory to office and would like to ascertain the feasibility of doing so as well as investigating the feasibility of adding floors to the existing structure. A new main entrance on Victoria St. with atrium is envisioned as well as making fapade changes and adding new windows. We understand that primarily the original building has had some interest by some to become listed as a heritage building but it has not presently been designated as such. Our scope of work includes a structural assessment of the existing building, foundations and soil bearing with respect to the proposed addition of up to three additional floors above the existing three floors. It is assumed that the existing roof will be converted to or replaced by a new floor. Our scope of work does not include a review of the required exiting facilities, the life safety systems, and early warning and evacuation systems. Budgetary cost estimating for the structural work was deleted from our scope. Please note that our descriptions of the building orientation reference the long side of the building (parallel with Victoria St.) as running east -west. MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2B 3X9 Phone: 519-743-6500 Fax: 519-743-6513 Page 303 of 732 % MTE More Than Engineering 1.0 EXISTING STRUCTURE The existing 3 storey building was constructed in 4 stages: the original portion of the factory was built in 1913 with three additions in 1942, 1962 and 1968. The Region of Waterloo has provided some structural drawings for the additions. However, no drawings were available for the original building. We have enclosed sketches based on these plans to illustrate the various additions; please refer to the ground floor plan, sketch SK1.0, as well as partial framing plans and a south elevation, sketches SK1.1, SK1.2, SK1.3. The factory has several pits on the ground floor but the building does not have a basement. The building is comprised of poured in place concrete floors on steel beams and columns with load-bearing and non load-bearing masonry wall construction. 2.0 THREE STOREY OFFICE BUILDING The following is our assessment of the existing building and comments regarding the conversion of the building to office occupancy without the addition of floors. 2.1 Floors above Ground The Ontario Building Code specifies floor loading for office areas (not including record storage and computer rooms) to be 4.8kPa (100psf) for the first storey and 2.4kPa (50psf) for floors above the first storey. The drawings for the 1968 addition indicate a design live load of 200psf (9.6kPa) for the second and third floors; and a design live load of 48psf (2.3kPa) for the roof. The drawings also state that the footings were to be placed on natural undisturbed soil capable of safely sustaining 3000psf. Based on our site measurements of the beams and columns in the 1962 and 1942 additions it appears that the floor framing was designed for this live loading as well (200psf). We have reviewed the steel floor framing in the original 1913 portion of the building, assuming a steel grade typically used for this period (Fy = 210 MPa) and estimate that the floor framing was designed for a minimum of 100psf (4.8kPa). Several cracks were observed in the floor slabs throughout the building (see Picture 16). It is our opinion that these cracks do not require repair and that the floor is capable as -is to support the proposed office floor loading. The floors should be reviewed again for specific areas if the Region wishes to place higher loads than those noted above, such as for computer rooms or high density shelving or storage. Structural Assessment -2- MTE File No.:33223-300 Rumpel Felt Building 10/11/2011 Page 304 of 732 MT E 3' More Than Engineering 2.3 Roof Framing The roof framing and supporting columns in the third storey of the 1913 building are insufficient to support the current design snow load (see Picture 17). We recommend that these columns and beams be reinforced. Alternatively it is recommended that shoring jacks be placed temporarily under the roof beams to reduce the load on the columns and the stresses in the beams until reinforcement can be done. Upon your request, MTE can provide a reinforcement design or shoring plan. The roof framing and columns in the remainder of the building additions are adequate to support the current snow load without reinforcement. 2.4 Stairway and Elevators There are two stairways within the 1913 building. The main stairway is constructed of wood and is in fair to poor condition and will need to be replaced with non combustible construction when converting the building to Office Use. We could not review the one stairway to the front office area due to limited accessibility. It is anticipated that additional stairs will be required at other locations within the building to satisfy egress and exiting from the building. The elevator in the 1913 building area was inoperable and inaccessible and as such we did not review the applicable structure or pit for its suitability for reuse. A second mechanical lift is located within the 1962 addition on the east wall, serving all three floors (see Picture 22). Review of this mechanical lift system was not part of our scope. The present opening through the floors could possibly be used for stairs. 2.5 Foundations LVM was employed to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the existing soil supporting the footings and ground floor slab. Their report is included in the Appendix. As there was no design information available for the 1913 building we employed a contractor to excavate down to the existing footings at 5 locations to determine the footing size as well as provide opportunity for LVM Geotechnical Engineers to assess the soil capacity. Excavations were made to reveal three (3) interior footings, which were measured to be tapered piers approximately 48" square x 46" tall (see Picture 9). However, assuming a soil bearing capacity of 3000psf this footing size is insufficient to support the gravity load of the building. This leads us to believe there may be deeper foundations units such as caissons or piles of greater capacity supporting the piers that we were unable to detect and measure at the time of excavation. LVM determined through test pits and boreholes that fill, unsuitable for bearing, exists at and below these footings which could also suggest that caissons or piles may be present. Structural Assessment Rumpel Felt Building -3- MTE File No.:33223-300 10/11/2011 Page 305 of 732 'il-%MTE 1�1 More Than Engineering Excavations at two other locations in the 1913 building were made to uncover (from one side) strip footings supporting the masonry walls. Based on the projection of the footing beyond the wall and the masonry wall thickness we estimate the strip footing to be approximately 42" wide x 12" thick (see Picture 23). Again, no caissons were observed in the excavation. Despite not having complete foundation information for the 1913 building, we can reasonably assume, given the historical performance, that the foundations that supported the original floor and roof loads will continue to support the proposed office floor and roof loads. However, without further investigation to determine the presence and capacity of the probable caissons we cannot recommend that additional load of floors be added. 2.6 Slab on Grade The geotechnical investigation suggests that the floor slab on grade is supported in areas on fill and that voids within the fill were also detected. Settlement of this fill may be partially responsible for several cracks observed in the floor slab throughout the building. LVM states that the successful reuse of the existing ground floor slab "as -is" will depend on the floor finish as there is potential for future cracking and settlement given the nature of the supporting material. If carpet is proposed the floor may be re -used without noticeable problems. However if ceramic tile or other floor finishes susceptible to cracking are proposed, complete replacement of the existing fill and slab on grade is recommended. An alternative to the removal and disposal of the existing fill material is to construct a new reinforced concrete structural floor slab, in place of the existing, supported on helical piers (see LVM's recommendations in their report). A cost comparison should be done between this option and a simple slab on new compacted fill. There is a difference in floor elevation between the 1913 building and the rest of the building additions. As well, the floor steps down approximately 8" within the north east portion of the 1913 area (i.e. boiler room adjacent to the chimney). The majority of the 1913 floor slab is badly cracked, has several pits and raised machine pads as well as the excavations made for the present geotechnical investigation. It is envisioned that the entire floor slab within the 1913 building will be removed and replaced. The supporting fill will need to be sub -excavated at this time as well. 2.7 Existing Pits There are several pits within the 1913 and 1962 building areas. These will need to be filled in to provide a level office floor. See LVM's recommendations in their report (enclosed). 2.8 Lateral Load Resisting System The lateral load resisting system is comprised of unreinforced masonry in which the majority of lateral load is resisted by the interior north -south and east -west shear walls located in the mid section of the building, located along the east limit of the 1913 building. The balance of lateral Structural Assessment -4- MTE File No.:33223-300 Rumpel Felt Building 10/11/2011 Page 306 of 732 F MT E More Than Engineering �i5'-7[f1�5 load will be resisted by the exterior masonry walls. The existing unreinforced masonry shear walls do not meet the seismic load requirement and reinforcement provisions of the 2006 Ontario Building Code. OBC 11.4.2.1 (Renovation) states that the structural performance level of an existing building is reduced where after the proposed construction: 1. The major occupancy will change to a different major occupancy, 2. The occupant load will increase by more than 15%, or 3. The live load will increase due to change in use, and where the structural floor and roof framing systems are not adequate to support the proposed dead loads and live loads. As such the performance level of the building will be reduced and a new lateral load resisting system will be required for the building in order to make the change in use. Some cracks were observed in the brick masonry (see Picture 13). In addition bricks were cut and/or removed to make passages for doorways and ducts (See Picture 21). Generally the building masonry appears to be in good condition without significant signs of structural distress. The drawings for the 1968 building addition indicate a steel braced frame introduced for this addition adjacent to the adjoining east wall of the 1913 building. We were unable to confirm the presence of this bracing as there is masonry or other finishes covering this area (see Picture 18). We have checked the design loads labeled on this "wind" brace (as it is called on the drawings) and it does not have sufficient capacity to meet the current seismic design forces. 2.9 Chimney/ Proposed New Entrance and Atrium Though not an absolute requirement at this stage, it is recommended to remove the existing chimney above the existing roof to reduce the need for continued future maintenance as well as reducing the seismic load and hazard to the building. Consideration has been given by the Region to add a new entrance and atrium to the building along Victoria St. The most logical place appears to be the sheltered receiving area mid way along the building where the exterior wall steps back within the 1968 addition. It should be noted there is a 13' deep truss spanning approximately 45' supporting the second and third floors over this receiving area along the exterior wall. If the new entrance and atrium is to be taller than the ground floor storey height (approximately 15) significant structural modification to this exterior wall will be required. 3.0 ADDITIONAL FLOORS Part of our scope is to comment on the feasibility of adding up to three floors to the existing building. This would include the conversion or replacement of the existing roof framing to floor flaming. Structural Assessment -5- MTE File No.:33223-300 Rumpel Felt Building 10/11/2011 Page 307 of 732 9 MT E ' More Than Engineering Due to the nature of this proposal a thorough structural analysis of the building will be required including the design of new elements as well as a building reinforcement plan which is beyond the scope of our assessment. As the proposal will add building height and mass as well as replace some exterior masonry with office windows, it is our opinion that a new lateral load resisting system will be required in both north -south and east -west directions, including new foundations or supplements to the existing foundations. We have reviewed the structural capacity of the existing footings and columns in the building for the proposed addition of up to three (3) floors and have identified which elements are adequate or will require reinforcement. Refer to Table 1 in the Appendix. Table 1 a indicates that without further investigation into the existing foundations it is not feasible to add floors to the 1913 building. If the foundations have sufficient capacity the second and third floor columns will need to be reinforced. The exterior walls have sufficient capacity to add one floor. Also note that if additional storeys are added only to other areas of the building adjacent to the 1942 building it will create a potential for snow drifting and accumulation on the 1942 building roof, for which the 1913 foundations and building structure will need to be assessed. We have no foundation information available for the 1942 building addition. Table 1b indicates what footing sizes would be needed depending on how many floors are added. The columns have sufficient capacity for the addition of up to 3 floors. Table 1c indicates for the 1962 building addition that the exterior footings have sufficient capacity for the addition of up to 2 floors; while some of the interior footings would require some underpinning and enlargement for the addition of one more floor. The interior columns have sufficient capacity for the addition of one floor. Some columns would require reinforcement for the addition of a 5th and 6th floor. Table 1 d indicates for the 1968 building addition that the exterior footings have sufficient capacity for the addition of up to 3 floors, while some of the interior footings would require some underpinning and enlargement for the addition of two or three floors. The interior columns have sufficient capacity for the addition of one floor. Some columns would require reinforcement for the addition of a 5th and 6th floor. Note that the existing Brace (3 storey braced frame) at the west limit of the 1968 building addition does not have adequate strength for any of the additional floor options. As mentioned earlier in our report the 45' long span truss will not accommodate additional load from new floors above. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. A new lateral load resisting system will be required given the change of use of the building to Office. With the exception of the 1913 roof framing, there is sufficient capacity to support gravity loads for the conversion of the existing three storey building to office space. Structural Assessment -6- MTE File No.:33223-300 Rumpel Felt Building 10/11/2011 Page 308 of 732 t���MTE %1- S More Than Engineering 2. The roof framing and supporting columns in the third storey of the 1913 building are insufficient to support the current design snow load. We recommend that these columns and beams be reinforced. Alternatively it is recommended that shoring jacks be placed temporarily under the roof beams to reduce the load on the columns and the stresses in the beams until reinforcement can be done. 3. Generally the building masonry appears to be in good condition without significant signs of structural distress. 4. Further investigation of the foundations of the 1913 building will be required if additional loading is proposed on this portion, including new snow accumulation and drifting from additional new storeys built on the adjacent building additions. 5. A new lateral load resisting system will be required if new floors are added to the building. 6. It is recommended that preliminary reinforcement design plans be drawn up and a cost estimate for the proposed structural work of any of the options be completed prior to moving forward. Structural Assessment Rumpel Felt Building FA MTE File No.:33223-300 10/11/2011 Page 309 of 732 MT E More Than Engineering 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) at the request of Region of Waterloo. The material in it reflects the best judgment of MTE in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. Responsibility for detection of or advice about pollutants, contaminants or hazardous materials is not included in our mandate. In the event the Consultant or any other party encounters any hazardous or toxic materials, or should it become known to the Consultant that such materials may be present on or about the jobsite or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of the Consultant's services, the Consultant may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of its services under this Agreement until the Client retains appropriates consultants to identify and abate or remove the hazardous or toxic materials and warrants that the jobsite is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Budget figures are our opinion of a probable current dollar value of the work and are provided for approximate budget purposes only. Accurate figures can only be obtained by establishing a scope of work and receiving quotes from suitable contractors. Any time frame given for undertaking work represents an educated guess based on apparent conditions existing at the time of our report. Failure of the item, or the optimum repair/replacement process, may vary from our estimate. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub -Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. Structural Assessment -8- MTE File No.:33223-300 Rumpel Felt Building 10/11/2011 Page 310 of 732 MT E 3'S _ More Than Engineering If you require any further information please contact our office. Yours truly, MTE CONSULTANTS INC. 4QpFESSfQAy��r P.A. SLATER90379660 m Paul Slater, P.Eng. f009 o Structural Engineer `/N pF Attach: Table 1 Photograph Lag LVM, Geotechnical Report Structural Assessment -9- Rumpel Felt Building MTE File No.:33223-300 10111/2011 Page 311 of 732 MTE 7� 1�r More Than Engineering 4"S 2010 TABLE1: FEASIBILITY OF ADDING FLOORS Page 312 of Table 1: Rumpel Felt Building Assessment - Feasibility of Adding Floors Table 1a 1913 Original Building Table 1b) 1942 Addition Footings Masonry Walls Columns allowable soilca acit = 3000 sf assumed allowable soil capacity a acit = 3000 psf assumed Exterior Fy = 210 MPa assumed Extorke Exteriortntericr Interior Exlenor Size Evaluation InNiior Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Re 'd size (site measurement)_(gravity loads site measurement Existing Building Existing Building N/A NIA 4'-0" x 4'-0" N.G. Vanes O.K. W200x52 (1st floor) O.K. O.K. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) (B) T-0" x T-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) WF 7x7 (2nd floor) O.K. O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) O.K. W100's 3rd floor N.G. 1 additional storey N/A N/A 4'-0" x 4'-0" N.G. Vanes O.K. W200x52 (1st floor) O.K. O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. (A)9' -0"x9'-0" N.G. N/A N/A WF 7x7 (2nd floor) N.G. W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. (B)8' -8"x8'-8" O.K. along grid Cx W100's 3rd floor N.G. 2 additional storeys NIA N/A 4'-0" x 4'•0" N.G. Vanes O.K. W200x52 (1st floor) N.G. N/A (A) 8'-0" x 8'-0" I O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. WF 7x7 (2nd floor) N.G. WA W310x97 (lstfloor) (B) T-0" x T-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. W310x97 (2nd floor) W100's 3rd Floor N.G. Table 1b) 1942 Addition Table 1W 1962 Addition Footings Columns Truss S Brace allowable soilca acit = 3000 sf assumed F = 230 MPa assumed Exterior Interior Extorke Interior Interior Interior Size Evaluation I Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size &qrd sire Size Re 'd size site measurement site measurement Existing Building NIA 6'-0" x 6'-0" N/A (A) 8'-0-x 8'-0" W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. O.K. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) (B) T-0" x T-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) O.K. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. 1 additional storey N/A 6'-0" x 6'-0" NIA (A) 9'-0" x 9'-0" W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. (A)9' -0"x9'-0" N.G. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) (B) 8'-0" x 8'-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. (B)8' -8"x8'-8" O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) O.K. W250x73 Ord floor O.K. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. 2 additional storeys WA 7'"6" x 7'-6' N/A (A) 8'-0" x 8'-0" W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. N.G. NIA WA W310x97 (lstfloor) (B) T-0" x T-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) N.G. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. 3 additional storeys N/A 8'-0" x 8'-0" N/A (A) 8'-0" x 8'-0" W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. N.G. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) (B) T-0" x T-0" W310x97 (2nd floor) O.K 0131007 (2nd floor) O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) N.G. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. W250x73 3rd floor O.K. Table 1W 1962 Addition Table 1d) 1968 Addition Footings Columns Truss S Brace allowable soil capacity= 3000 psf assumed Fy = 280 MPa assumed Exterior Interior Interior Exterior Interior Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation site measurement Existing Building Vanes O.K. Vanes O.K. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. Truss O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) O.K. Brace N.G. W200x36 3rd floor W200x46 3rd floor OR 1 additional storey Vanes O.K. Vanes (A)9' -0"x9'-0" N.G. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. Truss N.G (B)8' -8"x8'-8" O.K. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) O.K. Brace N.G. W200x36 Ord floor W200x46 3rd floor O.K. 2 additional storeys Vanes O.K. Varies N.G. NIA WA W310x97 (lstfloor) O.K. Truss N.G. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) N.G. Brace N.G. W200x36 Ord floor W200x46 3rd floor O.K. 3 additional storeys Varies N.G. Vanes N.G. N/A N/A W310x97 (1st floor) O.K. Truss N.G. along grid Cx O.K. W200x46 (2nd floor) N.G. Brace N.G. (except Cx/9 W200x46 3rd floor N.G. Table 1d) 1968 Addition Rumpel Felt Buldling Assessment MTE File 33223.300 October, 2011 Page 313 of 732 Footings Columns Truss S Brace allowable soil apacity = 3000 psf assumed FV = 300 MPa (assumed) (Fy = 300 MPa) Exrerior Interior Exterior intorinr Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation Size Evaluation site measurement) Existing Building Vanes O.K. Varies O.K. W200x52 (1st floor) O.K. Varies (lstfloor) O.K. Truss O.K. W200x36 (2nd floor) O.K. W200x42 (2nd floor) O.K. Brace N.G. W200x36 3rd floor O.K. W200x42 (3rd floor O.. K. l additional storey Vanes O.K. Vanes - O.K. W200x52 (1 st floor) O.K. Varies (1 st floor) O.K. Truss N.G W200x36 (2nd floor) O.K.(except@Ax/8,9) W200x42 (2nd floor) O.K.(except@Bx/6) Brace N.G. W200x36 Ord floor OX W200x42 3rd floor O.K. 2 additional storeys Vanes O.K. Varies (A) g' -3"x 9'-3" N.G. W200x52 (1st floor) O K (except@Ax/8,9,10) Vanes (1st floor) O.K. Truss N.G. (B)9' -0"x9'-0" O.K. W200x36 (2nd floor) N.G. W200x42 (2nd floor) N.G. Brace N.G. W200x36 Ord floor N.G. W200x42 3rd floor O.K. exce t Bx/6 _ 3 additional storeys Varies O.K. Vanes N.G. W200x52 (1st floor) N.G. Varies (1st floor) N.G. Truss N.G. W200x36 (2nd floor) N.G. W200x42 (2nd floor) N.G. Brace N.G. W200x36 3rd floor) N.G. W200x42 3rd floor) N,G. Rumpel Felt Buldling Assessment MTE File 33223.300 October, 2011 Page 313 of 732 MTIE S` More Than Engineering TABLE 1:FEASIBILITY OF ADDING FLOORS Page 314 of 732 Z' NS(996 G - -IbUlVd) ON 6�'M°' JNIVIVW WOIJ MJIHl L LU `L '}OO a}Da ONIMV80 01!! DUD}UO 'JauayD}IN yyDN }aaJ}g oIJD}D� 09 svd UMDJ )a,nis inievsviA 0007Z6Ez2 w'd 'all '00 1-IIIJ 1I d W n d 'DN }*afOJd 1: Mld 0 N 0 wor a w•mmm � UOisinia saan}onJ;g Buipp9a, o�ozs��sda 3.LWl U T Q O N O N O --6 a—JU «0—,0a .0—,os «0—,0a «0—,0z C7 li w d U m Q -N NOliVA313 Hinos Ltoz 'L -100 .;D(l ONIMWJ(] 0,18 OIJDJUO -j@uaqo;!>t WON 1(0 umoic 09 SYd kanis ;,inieVSV3 � 000—z69Z£ Wd *ail *oo 1-131 �3cjmn8 'ON 4zlerOJd 1 103rONd z 0 i— woo-gealw-mmm UOISIAIC] sainjonjIS Buippga) 31W �rN 4T MTE ,�J, Ial Ic ,- More Than Engineering PHOTO LOG Page 318 of 732 Picture 1: Building South Elevation - 1 Picture 2: Building North Elevation Page 319 of 732 M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc at North East )r (1913 portion) existing column base to column footing in the 1913 )uilding Page 320 of 732 10 Steel Beam Rivet Connection (19 13 Portion) Picture 11 Steel Column Splice with Rivets (1942 Portion) Picture 12 Interior Load Bearing Shear Wall M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc Page 321 of 732 m,. lift r M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc icture 13 ;rack in the load bearing shear wall 'icture 14 russ at second floor in 1962 Portion Picture 15 Truss connection Page 322 of 732 .�J M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc icture 13 ;rack in the load bearing shear wall 'icture 14 russ at second floor in 1962 Portion Picture 15 Truss connection Page 322 of 732 W ■ Picture 16 Crack in the floor slab Picture 17 Roof Framing (1913 portion) Sloped roof with wood deck Slender columns Picture 18 J Exposed steel framing at the building south f entrance from Victoria St. i f Steel braced frame location as shown in 1968 drawings, possibly hidden by brick r•_ M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc Page 323 of 732 M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc rick facade in 1968 Portion interior loading dock of 1968 Page 324 of 732 1 M:\33223\33223-300\Reports\33223-300 Photolog.doc Picture 21 Holes made through masonry 1942 addition Picture 22 Opening through floors for mechanical lift 1962 addition, east wall. Picture 23 Strip footing under interior masonry wall (east wall, 1913 building) Page 325 of 732 MTUri 1 FS re Than Engineering orf More 9 9 - $$ 2010 LVM, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Page 326 of 732 Region of Waterloo c% MTE Consultants Inc. Rumpel Felt Building 60 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario Geotechnical Investigation Report Date; October 6, 2011 Ref. N°; 160 -P041895 -0100 -GE -0001-00 1961 2011 Page 327 of 732 os55i[]ftr,94 W, A P LOGHRIN :TJ 10014390 �P U�NCEOFQ y�0 Q����SS10�i [tea D. S. NAYLOR 33646761 .a � ��i7 �() clv of ❑� MR, Region of Waterloo c/o MTE Consultants Inc. Rumpel Felt Building 60 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario Geotechnical Investigation Report Prepared by: ' F William Loghrin, P.Eng. Project Engineer Reviewed by: -C. 1/ Dace 9 -Naylor, P7ineer g. Senior Consulting � 353 Bridge Street East, Kitchener (Ontario) Canada N2K 2Y5 — T 519.741.1313 F 519.741.5422 — www.lvm.ca Page 328 of 732 LYM 1951 IS,I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 1 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................2 2 SUMMARIZED CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................3 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................,....................4 3.1 Foundations.........................................................................................................................4 3.2 Excavation and Backfilling..................................................................................................4 3.3 Floor Slabs................................................................................................ ................5 4 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................6 Appendix t Borehole/Test Pft Logs Appendix 2 Drawings 180 -P041806 -0100 -GE -0001-00 RUNPELPELT 9U11QING? - 60 VICTORIA STREET NOM, KITCHENS, ONTARIO Page 329 of 732 Prop" and Confidentiality 'This engineering document is the work and property of LVM Inc. and, as such, is protected under Copyright Law. It can only be used for the purposes mentioned herein. Any reproduction or adaptation, whether partial or total, is strictly prohibited without having obtained LVM Inc.'s and Its client's prior written authorization to do so. Test resulls mentloned herein are only valid for the sample(s) stated In this report. LVM inc.'s subcontractors who may have accomplished work either on site or in laboratory are duly qualified as stated In our Quallty Manuel's procurement procedure. Should you require any further Information, please contact your Project Manager' Client: Region of Waterloo c/o MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, Ontario N213G 3X9 Attention: Mr. Paul Slater, P.Eng. Revision No Date Modification And/Or Publication Details OA 2011-09-14 Draft Report Issued 00 2011-10-06 Final Report Issued jrnpArn 1 electronic copy 4 copies 1 original MTE Consultants Inc., Mr. Paul Slater, P.Eng. MTE Consultants Inc, File 180 -P041895.0100 -G E-0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO ii Page 330 of 732 LYM 1961 2011 INTRODUCTION LVM inc. (LVM) was retained by the Region of Waterloo (ROW), through MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE), to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the above referenced project. Authorization was provided by Mr. Paul Slater of MTE in an email received on July 27, 2011. The project involves the proposed refurbishment of the former Rumpel Felt factory into a municipal use building, and this may include the addition of as many as two storeys to the structure. The building is located on the fringe of the Kitchener downtown core between Victoria Street and the railway tracks, west of Duke Street, as shown on the appended Location Plan. The current three-storey building was constructed in four parts; the original structure was constructed in 1913; with three additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site. Based on the findings, we have prepared this report with geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed works. 160 -P041895 -0100 -GE -0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO Page 331 of 732 LIVIM Ly\^�J J\ INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY The fieldwork for this assignment was carried out on July 20, August 22, and September 12, 2011. Five test pits and eight boreholes were advanced to depths between 0.9 and 5.0 m below existing grade, at the locations shown on the appended Site Plan. Boreholes 01-11 to 04-11 were advanced at the locations of Test Pits 01-11 to 04-11, respectively. The test hole locations were established by MTE following consultation with LVM. The test pits were advanced using a mini excavator supplied and operated by a local contractor, hired by the client. Seven boreholes were advanced using a GeoProbe 6620 compact tracked drillrig, equipped with percussive casing and continuous flight solid stem augers. The drilling equipment was supplied and operated by a specialist contractor. The floor slab was cored for Boreholes 06-11 to 09-11, in the addition areas, by LVM in advance of drilling. Due to space constraints the planned Borehole 01-11 was completed using manual sampling equipment supplied and operated by LVM. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with bentonite in accordance with the Water Resources Act. The four boreholes in the addition areas were capped with concrete. In the boreholes, soil samples were recovered at regular intervals throughout the depths explored. Split spoon sampling was conducted simultaneously with standard penetration testing (SPT) to assess the strength of the insitu soil. Pocket penetrometer testing was conducted on samples of cohesive soils to determine the undrained shear strengths. The fieldwork was supervised by a member of LVM's engineering staff who directed drilling and sampling operations, documented the subsurface conditions encountered, and processed recovered samples. Samples recovered during the investigation were returned to LVM's laboratory for further visual examination and moisture content testing. The borehole locations were tied in by LVM, and referenced to the finished floor level of the Rumpel Felt Building, Elevation 100.00 (metric, assigned). 160 -P041895 -0100-G E-0001-00 RUMAELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO Page 332 of 732 LIVIM P 7011 2 SUMMARIZED CONDITIONS Reference is given to the appended borehole and test pit logs for details of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy comprised the surficial floor slab, overfill, over layers of native silt and sand, over layered tills. The concrete floor slab in the building ranged from 100 to 260 mm thick at the test hole locations. Voids were frequently encountered directly beneath the slab in the 1913 building area. Granular fill was found under the slab in most test holes; the under -slab granular was 80 to 180 mm thick in Test Pits 02-11 to 05-11 and in Boreholes 06-11 to 08-11. Fill was encountered below the floor slab, and extended to depths between 1.2 and 2.3 m. The fill typically comprised dark brown sand and silt soils with occasional pieces of glass, brick, coal and topsoil. Topsoil was encountered below the fill in Borehole 09-11, from 1.5 to 2.3 m depth. Layered deposits of native sand and silt were encountered below the fill, and extended to depths between 4.6 m and termination depth of the boreholes. These soils were loose to dense with SPT N -values ranging between 9 and 41 blows per 0.3 m of the split spoon sampler. These soils were moist to saturated with laboratory moisture contents between 5 and 22%; however, wet and saturated conditions encountered at the bottom of these deposits above the underlying till. Silt till and clay till were encountered at the bottom of Boreholes 02-11, 04-11 to 07-11. These deposits comprised silt with some clay, clayey silt and silty clay. SPT N -values were between 19 and 47 blows per 300 mm penetration; and, pocket penetrometer shear strengths were greater than 225 kPa. The non -cohesive silt was moist while the cohesive clayey silts and silty clay were about the plastic limit (APL), corresponding to laboratory moisture contents between 12 and 21. Wet to saturated soil conditions were encountered in the native silt and sand deposits, above the tills. This is attributed to surface water which has infiltrated into the native soils, and has become perched on top of the relatively impermeable silt, clayey silt, and silty clay tills. A definitive long- term ground water level was not encountered within the depths explored. Fluctuations in the groundwater level and development perched of groundwater will occur respective to seasonal and short term precipitation events. The existing footings were exposed in the five test pits, excavated in the original 1913 building area; and reference is given to the test pit logs for details of the findings. Fill soils were observed below the footings in Test Pits 02-11, 03-11, and 04-11; below the interior column footings. 160-PO41895-0100-GE-0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO Page 333 of 732 LYM 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 FOUNDATIONS In general, no bearing problems are expected for conventional footings founded on native mineral soils, However, footings underlain by the existing fill or loose deposits may undergo settlement if additional loads are applied. If additional loads are to be applied to the interior column footings in the 1913 building section, underpinning will be necessary to prevent settlement. Only a limited number of the 1913 footings were inspected; so during construction all of the 1913 interior footings should be exposed and examined prior to underpinning. Reference is given to the Typical Underpinning Procedure drawing, appended. Spread footings supported on the compact native sand and silt deposits may be proportioned for a geotechnical bearing resistance of 150 kPa at serviceability limit states (SLS); and, a factored resistance of 225 kPa at ultimate limit states (ULS). Properly constructed/retrofitted footings, proportioned for the SLS bearing resistance noted are expected to undergo settlements of less than 25 mm, with differential settlements less than 12 mm. A Seismic Site Class D may be used for design in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. Helical piers may be considered as an alternative to conventional underpinning, or if higher column bearing resistances are required. For preliminary design, a helical pier founded at 3 m depth in the native sand and silt soils may support a factored load of 150 kPa at ULS. Higher bearing resistances may also be achieved depending on the bearing plate configuration and with deeper founding depths. Reference is given to the Typical Helical Pier Installation drawing for a sketch of a typical helical pier underpinning system. 3.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING Excavations to the existing footing levels will be required to underpin foundations or install helical piers. Excavations will extend trough the existing fills into the underlying sand and silt soils; these would be considered Type 3 soils under the occupational health and safety act. Excavations in Type 3 soils must be cut with a maximum side slope inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical from the base of the excavation. Excavations may extend below the level of existing foundations or buried utilities. The need for underpinning and utility support may be determined from the appended Drawing 5. Minor groundwater inflow into excavations should be expected, and excavations less than 4 m deep may be dewatered using conventional sump pumping techniques. Dewatering rates for underpinning excavations are not expected to exceed 50,000 L per day, and a Permit to Take Water should not be required. 160 -P041895 -0100 -GE -0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO Page 334 of 732 LIVIM 1961 Backfill should be placed as engineered fill, in lifts with a maximum thickness of 300 mm and be compacted to at least 95% SPMDD. The existing fill and native soils may be reused, subject to inspection and approval, and provided they do not become too wet or mixed with other deleterious soils during construction. Otherwise, imported sand and gravel should be used for backfill. 3.3 FLOOR SLABS Voids were frequently encountered below the 1913 building area floor slab. This is attributed to settlement of the existing fill soils. The existing 1913 floor slab should be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation may involve filling the voids with grout or polyurethane foam; however, it should be noted that the existing fill soils may continue to settle and associated cracking of the slab may occur. In the addition areas (Boreholes BH06-11 to 09-11) voids were not found below the slab, very loose fill and topsoil were present. Generally the addition floors appear to have better support (no voids) compared to the original 1913 floor; however, there is still potential for settlement in the additional areas. If potential settlement and cracking cannot be tolerated, full depth reconstruction or a structural slab would be required. Full depth reconstruction would involve removal of the existing floor and fill, placement of engineered fill to establish grades, and construction of a new floor slab. Construction of the structural slab may require removal of the existing floor, installing helical piers into the native soils for support of the new reinforced floor slab. New floor slab construction will be necessary over underpinning excavations, where pits have been backfilled, and in areas where full depth floor reconstruction is planned. In these areas, the new floor slab subgrade materials are expected to comprise onsite soils or imported granular placed as engineered fill. Geotechnically, most of the existing non-organic sand and silt soils should be reusable for engineered fill provided they do not become mixed wet or mixed with other deleterious materials. Imported sand and gravel is recommended if onsite soils can not be reused, and if additional fill materials are required. Engineered fill or foundation backfill below floor slabs should be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 300 mm and be compacted to at least 95% SPMDD. Prior to floor slab construction the subgrade should be proof rolled and inspected, any loose soils should be subexcavated and replaced with engineered fill. Following proof rolling, inspection and approval of the subgrade, a 150 mm thick layer of Granular A should be placed and compacted to 100% SPMDD to provide uniform support for the slab. If a moisture sensitive floor finish is planned, a polyethylene vapour barrier should be placed beneath the slab. 160 -P041895.0100 -GE -0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO 5 Page 335 of 732 LYM 1961 � 1011 4 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS The geotechnical recommendations provided in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text and then only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. Since all details of the design may not be known at the time of report preparation, we recommend that we be retained during the final design stage to verify that the geotechnical recommendations have been correctly interpreted in the design. We also recommend that LVM be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions do not deviate materially from those encountered in the test holes and to ensure that our recommendations are properly understood. The geotechnical recommendations provided in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text and are intended for the use of the project designer. They are not intended as specifications or instructions to contractors. Any use which a contractor makes of this report, or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor must also accept the responsibility for means and methods of construction, seek additional information if required, and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them, It is important to note that the geotechnical investigation involves a limited sampling of the site gathered at specific test hole locations and the conclusions in this report are based on this information gathered. The subsurface conditions between and beyond the test holes will differ from those encountered at the test holes. Should subsurface conditions be encountered which differ materially from those indicated at the test holes, we request that we be notified in order to assess the additional information and determine whether or not changes should be made as a result of the conditions. 160 -P041895 -0100 -DE -0001-00 RUMPELFELT BUILDING - 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH, KITCHENER, ONTARIO Page 336 of 732 Appendix 1 Borehole/Test Pit Logs List of Abbreviations Boreholes 01-11 to 09-11 Test Pits 01-11 to 05-11 LIVIM 1961 rj-\ t011 Page 337 of 732 BoreholeNumber: 01-11 L %- V M Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-09-12 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE DynamlcCons Show Strength (PP) kPa,WP WL 20 40 6,0 80 _ 5O !Q0 1 X50 2QO Water Content Groundwater observations Description (%) and Standpipe DetailsE Sim ndaid Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kPa i 2,0 40 40 $p •5,0 1 QO I 5 2Q0 SP 2p� Ground Elevation 100.00 0.00- FLOOR SLAB: i Portland cement concrete: 225 mm FILL: compact dark brown silt some sand and coal, trace gravel and 1 SS 8 brick moist 1.00 -- ._-•--------------------- - brown .and....d.ark brown silt, some 99.00 - sand and clay, trace gravel and bricks, moist 2 SS B nalfve backfill 3 SS 12 SAND: 1 - 2•2.00—!g compact brown slliy fine sand, 8•00 98,00- moist moist >t'i 4 SS 25 SILT: 3.00- very dense brown fine sandy silt, 97.00- 5 SS 35 molst 6 SS 35 ---------------------- trace clay, very molst to wet SAND: brown fine to medium sand, 7 AS some silt, moist 4,00 96.00 - - - - _ . ; i No free groundwater encouniered Borehole terminated at 3.96 m 5.00- 5.00- 95.00-- Reviewed Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Manual SPT - Sampler Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 338 of 732 Borehole Number: 02-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic X Cone X ShoorStrength(PP)kPu 'k A WP WL E Description _ _1 40 Standard e --� kO Penstra#= 50 1 10 140 200 (FV) 140 290 kPa ■ Water 14 Content (%) 20 30 GroundwalerObservallons and Standpipe Details _ a _.. Shear ■ Strength !.40 000 Ground Elevation 100.00 FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete; 150 mm _ FILL: 1 SS 2 I very loose dark brown, block { and grey slit and sand, some coal, glass, brick and gavel, ;moist 1.00- brown and black sandy silt, 99,00- 2 SS 3 - •• - some coal, tar and gravel, moist j bentonite seal - SILT' 1 3 SS 12 compact brown sandy silt, some I� 2.00- to very moist 9800- 800 _ ---- -------------- ----- ----- some sand, trace cloy 4 SS 19 3.00--- 7.00 _ 97.00- SAND: SAND: compact brown silty fine sand. trace gravel, molst 5 SS 23 4,00- 96.00- 6.00 - - - _ SILT: compact brown sandy silt, moist native cove 6 SS 29 s.00- SILT TILL: 95.00 compact brown and grey silt some clay, trace sand and - - - At dAlling completion, dry cove at 4.57 m gravel, moist Borehole terminated of 5.03 m No free groundwater encountered Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSoufer Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 339 of 732 Borehole Number: 03-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone X X Shoat Strength (PP) Wo I 1 WP wi - 2,0 40 AP 8O !P 190 1 {D water content Groundwater Observolioro Description � t.�Jn(djardPonelrq�yc 5h� rrJSfr���e�/nJglh�ry(f,/V��)y{�: (X) P V and Standpipe Details 0.00 Ground Elevation FLOOR SLAB: 100.00 Portland cement concrete: 150 mm GranulorIN 100 mm FILL: loose dark brown silt, some sand, trace gravel, pieces of brick 1.00- coal, Carl and topsoil, moist 99.00 1 SS 9 T- , bentonlle seal compact brown silty sand some gravel, moist 2 SS 16 2.00- 8.00 98'00- SILT., SILT.• compact brown fine sandy silt. damp 3 SS 20 3.00 97.00 I t 1 - 4 SS 24 - --------------------- some sand, moist 4.00- 96.00 5 SS 24 - - ' SAND: dense brown silty sand, very moist 6 SS 35 5.00- 95.00- - Borehole terminated at 5.03 m No free groundwater encountered Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 340 of 732 Borehole Number: 04-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic X Cone X Shear A Strength (PP) kPa l WP WL V 4A iA V 19015021 Water Content smundwatarob.ervanon: p 5 Description landprd Pa�]n(�e glow Strength (FV) kPa M and Standpipe Detdls % 191) TCO� TP 20 AO W z i T-� - Ground Elevation 0.00 0 FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete; 150 mm - Grarrutor X 100 mm FILL: loose dark brown silt and sand, trace topsoll and gravel, moist 1.00 -1,00 1 SS 4 - -- - bentonRe seal 2 SS 6 2.00-SILT. -2.00 - - - — - compact grey brown silt, some fine sand and clay, very moist to wet 3 SS 16 3.00 _ .... .... •3,D0 brown sandy silt, moist 4 SS 15 I 4.00 -4.00 I�I i � CLAY TILL: 5 ss n + ' II j 4 5.00 hard grey silty clay, APL Borehole terminated at 5.03 m No free groundwater encountered Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: Sideteer Page 341 of 732 Borehole Number: 06-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cons X X Shear Strength (PP) kPo A A WP WL 2 �0 40 fP 8P 50 100 1 X50 200 Water Content Groundwater Observations Description 5 Standard Penelroliq n •fi�nn ane Shear Strength (FV) kPa a rry�re� rr�� rnynis (%) and Standpipe Details 0.00—.. Ground Elevation _ _ — FLOOR SLAB: 100.00 concrete seal - Porhand cement concrete: 150 mm L;ru,wrrr'A':150mm / l S5 2 FILL: very loose dark brown slit and _ sand, some topsoil, coal, trace _ gravel, moist 1.00— 99.00 2 SS 1 - _ beniontleseol { 1 SILT. - compact brown silt some sand, trace gravel, very moist 3 SS 22 2 00 — 8.00 98.00- - -- - SAND: dense brown silty sand, some gravel, moist i q SS 33 3.00— �+ 97,00— 7.00 SILT. SILT. dense brown sandy slit, some gravel, moist to very moist 5 SS 30 4.00— 96.00 — -- — I SAND: 6 ss 49 5,00 dense brown silty sand, Saturdted 95.00 �' -- — — — Ai drtMg completion, _ SILT TILL: f water level at 4.57 m dense brown and grey silt, some loy. trace sand, moist Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 342 of 732 Borehole Number: 07-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE -I Dynamic Cone X X Shear Shergth (PP) k?o rt A W P WL — 2 40 �0- 891 501190 1(10 290. Water content Groundwater Observations b _7�0 t%) and Standpipe Details Description landoW Penetratin hear Strength (FV) kPa g W Z Z44 5A11W_i�0290 _lp _V _�o - Ground Elevation 100.00 _ _ concrete seal FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete: 120 mm Granular W 100 mm 1 SS l _ FILL: loose dark brown silt and sand. Some topsoil, trace gravel, -moist-, some gravel 1.00 99.00 2 SS 4 - - i I bentonlle seol SILT.' compact brown flne sandy silt, 3 SS 18 trace gravel, moist 2.00- 8.00 98.00- - - . - »--------------- — ---- dense 1 4 SS 32 '� ---------- ---------------------- trace clay, moist to very moist 3.00 ------•- 97.00 some fine sand, trace Cloy, moist 5 SS 41 -------- -- ---- ----- - wet 4,00 96.00 - - - - - native cave -------------- ----------- salUrated so SILT TI��7 6 ss 31 • dense 5•� Sand a 95.00 - _ At drIlling completion, wet caveat 4.11 m water level at 396 m Borehole term Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of i Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 343 of 732 Borehole Number: 08-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Feit Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone x x Sh oar Strength (PP) kPa A Wp WL ?�QO_ p 8C1 501910 1 Water Content Groundwater Observations E' (9i) and Slandplpe Details Description irmdcrd Pen lratio (PV) Sheor Strength kP4 `^-19-01-W-29-010 2a Ao 80 y_ 0 4_�P—. Ground Elevation 100.00 0.00- _ — FLOOR SLAB: - - - — concrete seal Portland cement concrete: 150 mm 150 mm 1 SS 3 FILL: very loose dark brown sandy silt, some topsoil, trace gravel, molst 1.00- 99.00 2 SS — benlonde seal SILT. compact brown fine sandy silt, moist 3 SS 16 very moist r 200 98.00- 8.00 .............. .....--•------ molst to very moist molst 4 SS 27 1 3.00- .- --__ -.___-___ 97.00 — I - - dense, moist 5 SS 36 SAND: ti d _ dense brown silty fine sand, moist v 4 nailve cove 6 SS 47 4.00- l';".a+ 96.00- y - No furt- progress, Borehole terminated at 4.11 m ng re casing refusal a13.65 m due to dense sand, Ai drilling compleflon, dry cove at 3 20 m No free groundwater encountered 5.00- 95.00- - - - Reviewed by: WLoghdn Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Percussive Casing Sheet: 1 of I Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 344 of 732 Borehole Number: 09-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Drill Date: 2011-08-22 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Corte x x Shear Sltenylth (P% kPa I I WP WL £ E Description 2P 4O dP 8(3 rrratl d Pene 5P 1 P 1.�0 290 _ Show S Water Content M Groundwaler observations and Standpipe Details o n W z • • 2P 6P ■ Is _?Q 11Q01§0290 IP 2P 30 0.00- Ground Elevation 100.00 i — concrete seal - -- - FLOOR SLAB: - Portland cement concrate:160 mm I FILL: 1 SS 15 +: R compact brown and dark f brown silty sand, trace coal, glass and gravel, moist 1.00 loose brown sandy silt trace 99.00- grovel, moist 2 SS 4 - bentonhe seal TOPSOIL: loose dark brown to black silt, some sand, moist 3 SS 4 2.00- 98100 - 8.00 SILT: SM T., loose brown fine sandy silt very moist to wet 4 SS 9 3.00- _ --------- compact, wet _......__. 5 ss 29 ------.-....------- tine sand seam, moist 400 96.00- 6.00 SILT SILT TILL: hard grey clayey silt, trace sand and gravel, APL 6 SS 19 500- 95.00 Borehole terminated at 5.03 m w drilling completion, water level at 4.98 m Reviewed by: WLoghrin Field Tech.: DSouter Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: I of 1 Notes: Drafted by: SMeteer Page 345 of 732 �& AV Test Pit Number: 0 1 -11 1h Ar M L Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Excavation Date: 2011-07-19 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE E WP WL Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Description � � �E Measurements (m) £ m E 30 211-- O ---, - - - 0,00— - Ground Elevation 100.00 _ FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete: 260 mm FILL: brown and grey silt, some clay and sand, trace wood and brick, very moist 99150- 1.00— 99.00 dark brown and white layers of silt, some topsoil 9850 SILT: compact brown silt some sand, moist I 2,00 98.00 Upon compleflon of excavation, test pit sidewalls unstable with cave at 1,0 m Test Ptt terminated at 2.2 m No free groundwater encountered Reviewed by: KThrams Drafted by: SMeteer Field Tech: DSouter Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Bottom of tooting at -2.1 m Page 346 of 732 Test Pit Number: 02-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Excavation Date: 2011-07-19 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE WP WL Wafer Content (96) Groundwater Observations and E Description Measurements (m) E z --- -- 20 - 30 Ground Elevation 100.00 000 FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete: 100 mm Air void: 80 mm Granular '9: 100 mm FILL: f dark brown and grey silt, some sand, topsoil, bricks, insulation and gravel, trace wood, moist 99,50- 1 00- 99.00 --------------- 120 mm concrete slab loose granular layer -------------------------------------------- stiff to very stiff dark brown silt, some clay, APL (Possible Fill) Upon completion of excavation, test pit SILT: sldewalls unstable with minor coving In fill compact brown fine sandy silt, moist 98.50 Test PH terminated at 1,45 m i No free groundwater encountered 2.00 98.00 - Reviewed by: KThrams Drafted by: SMeteer Field Tech: DSouter Sheet: i of 1 Notes: Bottom of fooffng at - 1.05 m Page 347 of 732 M AM Test Pit Number: 03-11 L Y IVI Ground Elevation: 100.00 m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Excavation Date: 2011-07-19 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE I WP Water Content (96) VVL Groundwater Observations and E E Description 2 2 Measurements (m) H E z 10 20 30 0 Ground Elevation 100.00 0,00-1 FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete: 110 mm Granular X 80 mm FILL: dark brown silt, some sand molst; black silty sand layers; 0.15 m thick brick layer at 0.45mand 0.85m 99.50- 9.501.00— 1,00- 99.00 slit, some sond and gravel, Trace brick, moist Test Pit terminated at 1.45 m 98.50 Upon completion of excavation, test pit sidewalls unstable with minor cave In southwest walls No tree groundwater encountered 2,00- 98.00 Reviewed by: KThrams Drafted by: SMeteer Field Tech: DSouter Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Bottom of footing at -1.05 m. Native soil was contacted at 1.2 m In the east test pit wall Page 348 of 732 Test Pit Number: 04-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Excavation Date: 2011-07-20 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE f wP wl_ Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Measurements _ E ¢ £ Description (m) Qm W Z 10 20 30 000 Ground Elevation_ 100.00 _ FLOOR SLAB: Portland cement concrete: 120 mm Granular A': 100 mm FILL: brown silt some sand, trace gravel and clay; rootlets, black stained layers 9950- 950- 1,00 1.00- 99,00- --------------------------------------------- 120 mm concrete slab -------------------------------------------- stiff dark brown silt, some clay, APL (Posslble Flll) SILT.• compact brown sandy silt, moist Upon completion of excavation, test pit Test Pit terminated at 1.35 m sldewalls unstable with minor cave In fill 98.50 No free groundwater encountered 2.00- 98.00- Reviewed by: KThrams Drafted by: SMeteer Field Tech: KThrams Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Bottom of footing at - 1.05 m. Page 349 of 732 Test Pit Number: 05-11 LVM Ground Elevation: 100.00m Project: Rumpel Felt Factory Job No.: P041895-100 Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Excavation Date: 2011-07-20 SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE WP WL Water Content (96) Groundwater Observations and E Description c Measurements (m) � oD 10 20 30 Z Ground Elevation_ 100.00 000—� FLOOR SLAB: Porfland cement concrete: 100 mm Air void: 80 mm Granular'A': 180 mm FILL: dark brown silty sand, some brick and gravel, moist 99.50 SILT. compact brown fine sandy silt, very Upon completion of excavation, test pit moist to wet sldewolls stable Test Pit terminated at 0.85 m 1.00 9900— Minor groundwater seepage encountered of north end of excavation 98.50- 2.00— 98,00— Reviewed by: KThrams Drafted by: SMeteer Field Tech: KThrams Sheet: 1 of i Notes: Bottom of footing at -0.75 m. Page 350 of 732 Appendix 2 Drawings Drawing 1: Location Plan Drawing 2: Site Plan Drawing 3: Underpinning Procedure Drawing 4: Typical Helical Pier Installation Drawing 5: Underpinning Requirements GYM _E_ Page 351 of 732 NOTES : 0 100 200 300 400 500 m 1 -REFERENCES : MAPART PUBLISHING, Page 42, Kitchener -Waterloo Map Book (2009). SCALE 1:15000 Project Rumpel Felt Factory 60 Victoria Strccl North, Kifchencr, Oniano Tif Ic LOCATION PLAN LVM inc. LIvim Iz�fuB�I00 Loodwr (OnWio) N62 ST6 TelephF.: $19,685.6/00 Fu :519.685.0943 Prepared KThrans Disciplim GEOTECHNICAL Drawn KThramt scale 1:15000 Mo0hrin Sequence no. Chocked WLoghrin Dale 2011-08.25 01 of 06 M. dept. Project Work pckg. I Sub-w.p. Disc. Drawmgao. Rm 160 P041895 0100 GE 1 100 Page 352 of 732 N O- I T I T 4 T -Q - -CD00 Page -353 of 7321 T T W z I` F- m d :N J W C C J Z j .-. W I I T T � m U 4 J m J v a Tr s (J °0? mU O l U Z F m ZQ t^ T W� FE I ^r- LLJ H d � � m0 r N I � I O (~Z ILIL I tl- m ' = m Q z a C9 r 0% T 0 T O IL Page -353 of 7321 W z F- d :N J W C C J Z j .-. W O H �N do m U J Q J v a a s (J °0? mU O l U Z F m ZQ W� W Z LLJ H ZI U Page -353 of 7321 s u 0 W) M Bottom of eldsttng wall Subgrade ELEVATION Wall wall ro Fooling 1000 mm Fooling i Concrete fomes 10 o 7 Native Undisturbed Soil pmj"• SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C (BEFORE UNDERPINNING) (DURING UNDERPINNING) (COMPLETED UNDERPINNING) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERPINNING 1. The underpinning should be carried out In short panels. A maximum width of 1000 mm is recommended. 2. At all limes, at least two Intact panels must be left between open panels; i.e. only panels denoted with the same letter may be opened at one time. 3. Underpinning may be done by pouring concrete panels up to approximatety 80 mm below the underside of the existing footing. {Ince the concrete has set, the remaining space must be filled lightly with drypack grout. b. Care must be taken to avoid loss of soil behind the footing. 5. Underpinning operations should be inspected by Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd. Rumpel Felt Factory 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Ttlla UNDERPINNING PROCEDURE LVM L� 353, Bridge Street Bnl ICI Lrnc cont.rlo) V121C ZYS Telephma r 119 1313 F-119.741,5422 Pnv.md KThmms Diseiptine GEOTECHNICAL RoJa;tmanager Drawn KThrwm Scale NTS VYLoghrin Segaeaoe pa. Checked WLoghrin Dale 2011-08-26 03 of 05 M. dept ProJeel I Wadcpclrg- Sub-w.p. Disc. I Drawin8noM&O 160 P041 695 01 00 JGEJ3 Page 354 of 732 Wali Footing Drypadc grout —• Concrete r; ,; ..•� . Underpinning SECTION A SECTION B SECTION C (BEFORE UNDERPINNING) (DURING UNDERPINNING) (COMPLETED UNDERPINNING) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERPINNING 1. The underpinning should be carried out In short panels. A maximum width of 1000 mm is recommended. 2. At all limes, at least two Intact panels must be left between open panels; i.e. only panels denoted with the same letter may be opened at one time. 3. Underpinning may be done by pouring concrete panels up to approximatety 80 mm below the underside of the existing footing. {Ince the concrete has set, the remaining space must be filled lightly with drypack grout. b. Care must be taken to avoid loss of soil behind the footing. 5. Underpinning operations should be inspected by Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd. Rumpel Felt Factory 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Ttlla UNDERPINNING PROCEDURE LVM L� 353, Bridge Street Bnl ICI Lrnc cont.rlo) V121C ZYS Telephma r 119 1313 F-119.741,5422 Pnv.md KThmms Diseiptine GEOTECHNICAL RoJa;tmanager Drawn KThrwm Scale NTS VYLoghrin Segaeaoe pa. Checked WLoghrin Dale 2011-08-26 03 of 05 M. dept ProJeel I Wadcpclrg- Sub-w.p. Disc. I Drawin8noM&O 160 P041 695 01 00 JGEJ3 Page 354 of 732 o— Helical Pier Installation 1. A narrow trench or hole is excavated at the site of the new structure. 2. A steel shaft with a larger diameter helix is screwed into the ground to the level of competent soil. 3. A special bracket is used to connect the steel shaft to the existing foundation. 4. The trench is backfilled and compacted. Notes: The capacity of the helical pier anchor must be determined by a Professional Engineer. — Rumpel Felt Factory GO Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario Tdc TYPICAL HELICAL PIER INSTALLATION LVM LVM K 353, Bar Sued &al Kitchener (Oetrio) N22Y5 K 2Y3 Telepheoe: 11 9.741.1313 Fa.519.741,5422 Prepared KThmms mwpuue GEOTECHNICAL P-00ru-n- Dr:wo KThnms Scale NTS ftoghlin sequeme M cheelred WLoghdn Date 2011-06,25 04 of OS M. deptProject Work pckg. I Sub-w.p. I Ditw. Drmw ..Rn. 6418951160 0100 GE 4 00 Page 355 of 732 ZONE A: Foundations located within this zone normally require underpinning. Horizontal and vertical pressures on the excavation wall from non -underpinned foundations must be considered. Horizontal and vertical deformations of foundations within this zone must be considered relative to underpinned and non -underpinned foundations. ZONE B: Foundations located within this zone do not normally require underpinning. Horizontal and vertical forces on the excavation wall for non -underpinned wall from non -underpinned foundations must be considered. Horizontal and vertical deformations of foundations within this zone must be considered relative to underpinned and non -underpinned foundations. ZONE C: Underpinning to structures is normally founded in this zone. Lateral pressure from underpinning is not normally considered. -- Rumpel Felt Factory GO Viclom Street North, Kilchrncr, Owen Tide UNDERPINNING REQUIREMENTS iced/tied wall cavation LVM Lvtvit> 353, Bddge Sheer But .,Cb—.,Cb—(On(0.&.i.) N2K 2YS RYS Tokpb000:319.711.1313 T.:319 .741.5422 Prepared KThrams Dlseiplme GEOTECHNICAL "eLY gff DmKThnans Scale NTS WLoyhdn Sequa no. Checked WLoOhdn Date 201145-25 050ro5 N. dept Pmj— WmkPckg. Subw.p.DnwlnS.. Rev. 160 P041895 0100 GE 5 00 Page 356 of 732 N O 20'-0" 20'-0- 20'-0- 20'-0" 21'-2" LO M N 01 N V Cn co :0 II ,, N I I o pl I I i o I I I I I I — �mA 4r 0m 0K 11z— I I M a I II o I I I I fu I I I 4 I I I I o I I 40Ci II N LIP II ,- o PROJECT Project No. MTE RUMPEL FELT CO. LTD. PM 32392-000 FEASAB I LITY STUDY PAS raven y j�d520�0 60 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario RLC Building Structures Division DRAWING DateOct. 7, 2011 Ph. {519}743-6500 www.mte85.com Scale GROUND FLOOR 1/16"-''-°" rawmg o. Appendix C Structural Assessment Report 014MTE Update, dated April 3, 2025 Page 358 of 732 MTE Consultants MTE 1 520 Bingemans Centre Dr., Kitchener, Ontario N213 3704 April 3, 2025 MTE File No.: C33233-301 Christa De Wys, P. Eng., M. Eng. Senior Project Manager Region of Waterloo 20 Weber Street East, 3rd Floor Kitchener ON N2H 1C3 Dear Christa: RE: Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario INTRODUCTION MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) was retained by the Region of Waterloo to conduct a structural condition assessment of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building structure in preparation for the proposed partial demolition of the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any structural distress observed and comment on the feasibility and implications of the proposed demolition of the additions and make any recommendations for improvement given the observations. Paul Slater, P.Eng. of MTE Consultants Inc. visited the building at the above noted address on March 5, 2025 to conduct the assessment. Observations are made below and shown in the Photographic Log attached. BACKGROUND Paul Slater, P.Eng. completed a previous structural condition assessment of the building in 2011. Reference is made to letter report dated Oct 11, 2011, and subsequent roof shoring design drawing in 2012. The 1913 Building is designated as a Heritage asset. Reference is made to the Heritage Conservation Plan and Risk Management Plan presently being proposed by MTE to the City of Kitchener. MTE has prepared demolition plans that describe the demolition sequence and call for temporary bracing of the additions while they are demolished to protect the 1913 building. The work completed is a visual condition assessment. No structural analysis or testing (destructive or non-destructive), or Building Code review, was undertaken. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 359 of 732 3.0 STRUCTURAL CONDITION 3.1 Building Construction Three building additions were made to the original 1913 building in 1942, 1962 and 1968, which were steel framed construction with reinforced concrete floors. Other than a few pits, there is no basement in the additions or the original 1913 building. All rubberized roof membrane exists over all building areas. A tall brick chimney at the northeast corner of the 1913 building is a separate independent structure and is included in the proposed demolition. The steel floor and roof beams bear on the multi-wythe load bearing masonry wall along the east walls of the 1913 building. The second entrance, stair shaft and elevator were added to the east wall of the 1913 building, as part of the 1962 building addition. It serves the 1913 building as an exit and is not part of the proposed demolition but will be preserved. General observations are made below and are limited to the 1913 building grouping them in the following four building areas: Exterior Facade, Roof, Interior, Courtyard. The Exterior facade section includes the original east wall of the 1913 building, presently an interior wall. Although the purpose of our scope is the building structure, some useful observations regarding the building envelope and architectural facade are included. Building — Exterior The following observations were made reviewing the exterior of the 1913 Building: 1. The masonry is generally in good condition with limited cracks and mortar deterioration. Newer brick has been added to infill window areas, in satisfactory condition. (Photograph 1). 2. East Entrance (Victoria St) - Concrete steps and landing slab badly cracked, heaved (door has trouble opening). Recommend repair, and/or partial reconstruction. (Photograph 2). Hollow metal door is badly corroded (non structural, recommend replacement). 3. Central Entrance (Victoria St) — Concrete entrance posts & canopy are cracked; paint badly cracked/peeling; Concrete piers badly deteriorated (Photograph 3). The concrete steps are also badly deteriorated. Recommend further investigation to determine the extent of delamination and deterioration and to decide on restoration or replacement. Recommend providing hoarding enclosure as soon as possible to protect the structure from further deterioration until structure can be assessed. 4. Brick mortar has deteriorated in areas; brick veneer cracked at entrance (Photograph 4). 5. Vines growing on the west wall hold moisture and are a threat to the long term durability of the brick and should be removed. (Photograph 7). 6. Window caulking worn/brittle; needs to be replaced/redone. 7. West shed was an addition; see door through blocked up window (Photographs 7-10). 8. Very few cracks in masonry; some windowpanes missing or cracked. (Photographs 11- 13). Evidence of step cracking and repointing of mortar (Photograph 13). 9. Painted brick masonry is generally in good condition; interior sheltered by additions (Photographs 13-31).; some openings through brick will need to be infilled with reclaimed brick from the Chimney (Photographs 22,23). MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 2 Page 360 of 732 3.3 Building - Roof All areas of the roof are covered with EPDM (black membrane) and TPO (grey/white) The following observations are made: 1. Roof is leaking badly through the grey TPO membrane raining down through the roof/structure to third, second and ground floors. The leak is suspected at the two south drains of the 1913 building (Photographs 32), but this should be confirmed through investigation. Roofing repair is needed. The condition of the wood deck structure should be assessed for rot damage. Similarly, potential corrosion of the concealed portion of the steel roof beams should also be investigated. This will require a separate investigation requiring the removal of the plywood ceiling, for the extent of the portion of roof where the leak is found to be. 2. Roof is leaking badly through obvious holes in the black EPDM membrane at the 1962 addition near the chimney (Photographs 36-38). 3. Standing water was observed on the main stair roof (Photographs 34,35). 4. Roof EPDM of 1913 building is not well supported at parapets particularly at corners, which could be a leak source (Photographs 34,35). Recommend further investigation by roofing consultant. 5. Some brick mortar deterioration was observed on the hoist shaft (Photograph 39). Recommend repointing mortar. 3.4 Building Interior The following observations are made regarding the interior of the 1913 building. Refer to Photographs 41 to 60 in the Photographic Log. 1. Water is infiltrating down through the concrete floors from leaks in the roof (Photographs 41,42,43,53,56,60). At least two sources of water leaks were observed. Refer to the Roof Section, above. 2. The brick is generally in good condition with very few cracks (Photographs 44-47, 52, 54, 57-60). 3. Standing water from roof leaking above was found on the second floor (Photographs 48- 49). Floor Structure did not show any distress or deterioration as a result of the leak. 4. Some cracking observed in plaster in the southeast corridor on second floor (Photographs 50). Assuming only surficial and do not suspect structural concern; However, further investigation would be required to assess whether structural in nature. 5. Brick is in good condition in stair to third floor (Photograph 51). 6. Doorway and other openings in walls should be infilled as the east wall will become an exterior wall exposed to the elements (Photographs 44,46). 7. In the past 2011 structural assessment report, the steel roof beams were identified as insufficient to support the snow loads and were shored. Shoring of the roof beams should be monitored during demolition (Photographs 53-55). Moving forward if the Region wants to remove the shoring, then the beams and columns will need to be replaced or reinforced. 8. Damage to ceiling board from rain leak (Photograph 55). Further investigation is recommended to confirm integrity of wood roof joists. This will require removal of ceiling board to properly assess wood condition throughout, at roof leak locations. MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 3 Page 361 of 732 3.5 Courtyard The following observations are made regarding the Courtyard at the northeast of the 1913 building. Refer to Photographs 61 to 67 in the Photographic Log. 1. Timbers on retaining wall are leaning due to earth pressure, laneway and tree; some timbers are in poor condition; rot observed. Photographs 62-66. Roof shown in Photograph 61 bears on the masonry block and timbers, but ineffectively braces the timbers from leaning. These timbers will need to be restored in alignment and anchorage, and some replaced that have rotted. 2. Lose laid masonry blocks are on top of the timbers. Only spikes are holding them from falling. Photograph 62. 3. Concrete buttress of retaining wall show signs of deterioration and should be repaired. Photographs 63, 65. 4. Free standing concrete beam on columns show signs of spalling. Photograph 66. This concrete beam and column structure is to be demolished, so no repair is recommended. 5. Drainage of the courtyard is believed to be natural, through soil infiltration, near center of courtyard. At first exploration, snow was vacant in local hole, likely thought be from heat. Snow was removed (prior to taking Photograph 67), but no catch basin or grate was found. 4.0 DISCUSSION The 1913 building structure is generally in good condition. The primary structural system comprised of load bearing masonry, interior steel framing, floor and roof diaphragms is intact. Although some cracks were observed in the brick, they were few in number and none of a significant structural concern. The concrete of second and third floors was as well as the steel beams were in good condition with no signs of structural distress or deflection. The wood decking on steel beams did not show any signs of structural distress such as sagging or deflection. However, further investigation at roof leaks is recommended to rule out rot of wood deck or roof joists. The exterior brick mortar has deteriorated in localized areas and should be repointed for proper maintenance and to restore integrity. Vines on the building should be removed since they hold moisture and provide a means for brick and mortar deterioration through seasonal freeze -thaw action. The steel beams of the westerly additions framing into the 1913 masonry wall structure of the east wall will need careful support and extraction during demolition. This has been identified on the demolition plans. The front entrance stair and canopy structure are in poor condition and require restoration. Stability of the 1913 Building The demolition plans prepared by MTE call for temporary building bracing to be installed by the demolition contractor within the westerly additions and for it to remain in place until the floors and roof framing are disconnected and removed from the 1913 building. This will safe guard the 1913 Building from being damaged as a result of the beams pulling away during demolition. The structural stability of the 1913 Building is provided by its own structural system and is intact as noted above. Gravity and lateral load resisting structures are in place within the 1913 building, and are not dependent upon the additions proposed to be demolished. There is no MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 4 Page 362 of 732 expectation for the 1913 building structure to conform to present day building code prescribed loads. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We did not observe any structural distress in the building of concern. The structural performance level of the original 1913 building prior to the three additions will be maintained following the proposed demolition. The following is recommended: • The front entrance concrete structure has undergone significant deterioration. Further investigation is required to determine the extent of delamination and deterioration and to decide on restoration or replacement. A hoarding enclosure should be placed as soon as possible to protect the structure from further deterioration until structure can be assessed. 1. The front entrance concrete landing slab and stairs have significant deterioration and should be rehabilitated. • Roof leaks should be addressed as soon as possible. Engage a roofing consultant to assess the roofing membranes and parapet details to ensure longevity. 2. The condition of the roof members and deck at leak sites should be investigated and confirmed or remedied if found to be deficient. 3. Remove vines from brick masonry. 4. Repoint all brick mortar deterioration. Monitor thru brick cracks or replace brick (Photograph 2). 5. Infill all masonry holes and openings, toothing in to match existing courses. (e.g. Photographs 22,23). 6. Remove tree which is applying pressure to the retaining wall. 7. Restore or replace timber members along courtyard retaining wall. Remove lose laid concrete blocks from timbers. 8. Restore the deteriorated areas of the concrete buttress of the courtyard retraining wall. MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 5 Page 363 of 732 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) at the request of the Region of Waterloo. The material in it reflects the best judgment of MTE in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. Responsibility for detection of or advice about pollutants, contaminants or hazardous materials is not included in our mandate. In the event the Consultant or any other party encounters any hazardous or toxic materials, or should it become known to the Consultant that such materials may be present on or about the jobsite or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of the Consultant's services, the Consultant may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of its services under this Agreement until the Client retains appropriates consultants to identify and abate or remove the hazardous or toxic materials and warrants that the jobsite is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub - Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. Paul Slater, P.Eng. Division Manager, Building Structures 519-743-6500 ext. 1240 pslaterCa)-mte85.com PAS:smk Attach. cc: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener https://mte85.sharepoint.com/sites/33223-301/Shared Documents/Structural Assessment 2025/33223-301_ltr rpt Rumpel 60 Victoria Assesment 2025-04-03 - DRAFT.docx MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 6 Page 364 of 732 OPMTE Exterior Facade Page 365 of 732 Photograph No. 1 — South Facade Photograph No. 2 — Right Entrance Floor Slab Deterioration MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 366 of 732 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ i 0/; Photograph No. 3 — Left Entrance Column Deterioration Photograph No. 4 — Brick Mortar Deterioration MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 2 Page 367 of 732 L7,26 Photograph No. 5 — Salt Storage Delivery System Photograph No. 6 — West Shed Addtion MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 368 of 732 Photograph No. 7 — West Elevation Photograph No. 8 — West Shed Addition, to be Removed MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 369 of 732 Photograph No. 9 — West Shed Addition Foundations, to be Removed Photograph No. 10 — West Shed Entrance Within Former Window MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 370 of 732 Photograph No. 11 — North Elevation - West Corner Photograph No. 12 — North Elevation - Middle MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 371 of 732 Photograph No. 13 — North Elevation - East Corner Photograph No. 14 — Ground Floor Door to be infilled 0 0 QQ _S 0 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 7 Page 372 of 732 Photograph No. 15 — Ground Floor Painted Wall to Become Exposed East Facade Photograph No. 16 — Ground Floor - Looking South MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 373 of 732 Photograph No. 17 - Ground Floor - Looking North Photograph No. 18 - Ground Floor - Looking West S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 9 Page 374 of 732 4 Photograph No. 19 — Ground Floor - Looking West Photograph No. 20 — Ground Floor - Wall Wrapping Chimney S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 10 Page 375 of 732 Photograph No. 21 — Second Floor Door to be infilled AMMEM ON ~- Photograph No. 22 — Second Floor Wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 11 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 376 of 732 Photograph No. 25 — Second Floor - Looking West Photograph No. 26 — Second Floor (Looking South) - North wall of Stair MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 13 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 378 of 732 Photograph No. 27 — Second Floor - East Wall of Main Stair Photograph No. 28 — East Wall of Main Stair MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 14 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 379 of 732 Photograph No. 29 — Third Floor Opening to be infilled 0 0 QQ n' r 0 cQ Photograph No. 30 — Third Floor East wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 15 Page 380 of 732 Photograph No. 31 - Third Floor East wall S 0 0 cQ n r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 16 Page 381 of 732 OPMTE Roof Page 382 of 732 Photograph No. 32 — Roof, Suspected source of water leak thru building Photograph No. 33 — Roof looking northwest S 0 0 QQ _S 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 17 Page 383 of 732 Photograph No. 34— Small roof over entrance stair, poor drainage Photograph No. 35 — Small roof over entrance stair, poor drainage S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 18 Page 384 of 732 Photograph No. 36 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of leak Photograph No. 37 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of roof leak S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 19 Page 385 of 732 Photograph No. 38 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of roof leak Photograph No. 39 — Lift Hoist shaft MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 20 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 386 of 732 W % Photograph No. 40 - Looking west MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 21 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 387 of 732 014MTE Interior Page 388 of 732 Photograph No. 41 — Ground Floor - Rain water leaking thru Concrete floor slab above Photograph No. 42 — Ground Floor - Water from Roof Leak MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 22 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 389 of 732 Photograph No. 43 — Ground Floor, Water Leak from Second Floor above on Photograph No. 44 — Ground Floor looking at 1913 East Wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 23 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 390 of 732 Photograph No. 45 — Ground Floor Looking East Photograph No. 46 — Ground Floor Looking East, No Distress S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 24 Page 391 of 732 Photograph No. 47 — Second Floor Masonry in Good Condition Photograph No. 48 — Second Floor, Water leak from roof MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 25 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 392 of 732 Photograph No. 49 — Second Floor, Water leak from roof Photograph No. 50 — Second Floor - cracks in wall plaster MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 26 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 393 of 732 Photograph No. 51 — Stair to Third Floor Third Floor - masonry cracks MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 27 Page 394 of 732 Photograph No. 53 — Third Floor - shoring in place since 2012 Photograph No. 54 — Third Floor, Masonry in Fair Condition S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 28 Page 395 of 732 Photograph No. 55 — Third Floor - Ceiling Board damage from roof leak Photograph No. 56 — Third Floor - Water from Roof Leak MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 29 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 396 of 732 Photograph No. 57 — Third Floor - looking east, Masonry in fair condition Photograph No. 58 — Third Floor, looking south 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 30 Page 397 of 732 Photograph No. 59 — Third Floor - looking west Photograph No. 60 — Third Floor - looking northwest S 0 0 QQ _S n' 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 31 Page 398 of 732 014MTE Courtyard Page 399 of 732 Photograph No. 61 — Courtyard looking east Photograph No. 62 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, CMU Block at top MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 32 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 400 of 732 \ �1 I p 1, 1 p( i i I' Photograph No. 62 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, CMU Block at top MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 32 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 400 of 732 Photograph No. 63 — Courtyard Wall, Looking west, Timbers leaning, Vulnerable CMU Block at top Photograph No. 64 — Courtyard Wall, Timbers leaning, Tree pushing MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 33 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 401 of 732 Photograph No. 65 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, concrete deterioration Photograph No. 66 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, rot MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 34 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 402 of 732 F Photograph No. 67 — Courtyard, drainage in Centre S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 35 Page 403 of 732 olgi�g Up- MTE 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener Draft Temporary Protection Plan Demolition and Stabilization Plan Risk Management Plan Project Location: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON Prepared for: Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 4t" Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc. 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 March 4, 2025 Revised: April 8, 2025 MTE File No.: 33223-301 Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 404 of 732 0-I'lMTE Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................1 2.0 Owner Contact Information..............................................................................................1 3.0 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................1 4.0 Temporary Protection Plan..............................................................................................2 5.0 Demolition And Stabilization Plan....................................................................................2 5.1 Demolition Sequence and Temporary Shoring/Bracing Plan........................................3 6.0 Structural Assessment Report.........................................................................................3 7.0 Risk Management Plan...................................................................................................4 8.0 Report Preparer...............................................................................................................5 9.0 Conclusion......................................................................................................................5 Appendices Appendix A Demolition Drawings and Details Page 405 of 732 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MTE Consultants, Inc. has been retained by the Region of Waterloo to prepare a Heritage Conservation Plan for the existing building at 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener. The subject property contains the Rumpel Felt building, a three-storey felt factory that was built c. 1913 with three additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968, respectively. The Region of Waterloo desires to demolish the three additions while preserving the 1913 building in preparation for the adjacent future transit hub (Kitchener Central Transit Hub). The existing additions will impede on the plans for the Transit Hub and the demolition will allow the transit hub to proceed while conserving the heritage resource on the site, which is the original structure from 1913. The plans for the restoration and redevelopment or adaptive reuse of the original Rumpel Felt building can then proceed separately. The Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., outlines the character defining elements of the 1913 building to be maintained during reuse or redevelopment. The Demolition and Stabilization Plan is intended to show the means and methods to be used minimize potential damage to the existing 1913 fagade during demolition of the building additions. This plan outlines the means and methods by which these heritage resources, in the form of the existing front and right side fagades, shall be preserved through the process of the demolition of the three building additions, and how the 1913 building will be protected and stabilized. Protecting and shoring the structure in place during the demolition of the building additions is the method that has been chosen to preserve the 1913 building. This report elaborates on how this method shall be carried out while preserving the heritage resources of the existing building. 2.0 OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION Multimodal Hub Project Coordinator- Christa De Wys CDeWvs(c)-regionofwaterloo.ca Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is a three-storey felt factory located at 60 Victoria Street North in Kitchener, Ontario. The original building was built in 1913 and has three later additions built in 1942, 1962, and 1968. The original 1913 structure is a combination of load bearing brick masonry and steel framing bearing on steel columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete floor slabs. The original 1913 roof is constructed with sloped steel beam and purlin framing with joist infill. There are large arched openings around the building fagade with a combination of various window vintages and infilled sections of split face architectural concrete block, along with red metal cladding. The Boiler house portion of the original building is of similar construction. There is an undated shed against the west fagade that is not part of the heritage resource of the building. The 1942 addition was constructed with similar techniques however the floors are panel -formed in contrast to the board -forms of the original structure. The west face of this addition has been removed with the additions of the 1962 and 1968 sections. The foundation wall can still be observed at the main floor level. The south wall now serves as an interior wall. There is a brick chimney that is part of this addition, that is not connected to the original 1913 construction. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 406 of 732 The 1962 and 1968 additions are steel framed and the exterior perimeter walls are not load bearing which can be seen through the continuous architectural strip windows and fiberglass translucent panes. Muli-wythe terra cotta masonry units, also known as speedtile, clad the exterior walls.Existing foundations consist of poured in place concrete. The 1913 building will also be preserved with restoration of the east wall, currently forming part of the 1942 addition. As the 1913 building was in place prior to the addition, demolition is not expected to largely affect the structure except where beam and other connections were made along the east wall. There is a stairwell structure part of the 1942 addition which will remain in place and not be demolished. The 1962 and 1968 additions are connected to the 1942 addition and have no sharing walls with the original structure. The east wall of the 1913 building has been generally sheltered from weather and is in serviceable condition; however, localized damage was noted in several areas and repairs are expected when the structural connections of the 1942 addition are removed. Along the remaining fagades of the 1913 building there is localized brick deterioration, and the mortar joints are in varying states of repair, with some joints and bricks having been previously repaired with non-matching modern materials. Overall, the brick on the remaining fagades appears to be in sound condition with the exception of localized mortar deterioration. It is concluded that the existing 1913 building and original fagades (north, east, west and south) are adequate to sustain the demolition work required. 4.4 TEMPORARY PROTECTION PLAN It is the intent of the conservation plan to protect and hoard the front entrances (south side) of the 1913 building in place during the demolition of the remaining structure. In addition, the following items highlight the requirements of this plan. The steel structures from the addition will be shored in place during the demolition of the steel structures of the additions. This will prevent possible movement of steel connected to the original 1913 structure, which will prevent damage to the original construction. All brick needed for masonry repairs and infills from the demolished chimney shall be salvaged and retained in a secure manner. Brick shall be covered and protected from weather. Brick shall be segregated between sound and unsound brick. Bricks from additions shall be kept separate. Brick that is not reused or incorporated into infills in the east fagade of the 1913 building, per OP Policy 12.C.1.32, shall be offered to the City of Kitchener for reuse, archival, display, or commemorative purposes. Specific details of the brick storage shall be included in the Salvage and Documentation Plan. 5.0 DEMOLITION AND STABILIZATION PLAN Based on the direction provided above, the demolition and stabilization shall be conducted according to the plan outlined below. This plan consists of many steps, which are also illustrated in Drawing S2.2. Temporary shoring and bracing of the building are indicated on drawing S2.2. This braced portion indicated by the shaded area will remain in place until the rest of the building is demolished, and the additions are disconnected from the 1913 building. Once the structure of the bays between the 1913 building and the shaded area has been demolished and removed by crane, the braced structure in the shaded area will be demolished and removed. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 407 of 732 2. It is anticipated that a crane will be set up on the northeast parking area to initiate the demolition of the east most bay of the building. Demolition will progress from east to west. It is anticipated that the crane will set up at several locations as more building is removed and to facilitate the crane reaching new structure. The sequence is shown on Drawing S3.2. and is included below. • The equipment for demolition is not anticipated to produce any significant vibration or impact. Monitoring of equipment will be conducted by the Heritage Professional and the Structural Engineer to ensure no vibratory equipment is used. • Shoring and demolition shall be performed per the requirements of the contract documents and reviewed by the design team and submitted for building permit. 3. Shoring and demolition shall be performed under the direction of both a professional engineer and the Heritage Professional. 5.1 Demolition Sequence and Temporary Shoring/Bracing Plan Contractor's Engineer to design building bracing to support the portion of building proposed to be demolished (i.e. the 1942, 1962, 1968 additions). Designer to consider all temporary conditions as the building is progressively demolished generally from east to west. Bracing shown and sequence is one concept. Contractor is to provide all necessary counterweights or helical piles to resist tension/compression if, or as, required. Provide P.Eng. sealed design shop drawings of bracing and demolition sequence for review and approval by MTE prior to installation. Sequence of demolition is proposed as follows: 1. Install temporary building braces as shown on levels 1, 2 and 3 to roof, complete with counterweights or helicals as required. Install protection hoarding of entrances as indicated in the HIA report. 2. Install vertical shoring of floor framing and slab of levels 2, 3 and roof. 3. Demolish building bay from lines 10 to 9. 4. Demolish building bay from lines 9 to 8. 5. Remove building brace on line 8 and demolish building bay from lines 8 to 7. 6. Demolish building area Bx6-Ax7 and Fx6-Ex7, while maintaining the structure in the shaded area and three braces all three levels. Carefully disassemble brick from chimney and reclaim sufficient brick for repairs on 1913 east wall. 7. Cut and remove portion of beams that frame into 1913 Building east wall, as well as cutting and removing portion of floor slabs and roof. 8. Demolish and remove portion of building between 1913 building and the shaded braced portion. 6.0 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT A structural assessment was conducted in 2011 by MTE. The report is included in Appendix B of the Heritage Conservation Plan. The purpose of the report was to evaluate and discuss the potential reuse of the 1913 building in adding additional storeys. A Geotechnical investigation was completed during this work to expose column footings and to determine the soil bearing capacity. It was also recommended in this report that shoring be installed to support the roof structure. The Region later installed this, as per MTE's recommendations. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 408 of 732 The building condition has not worsened since the 2011 structural assessment. MTE has prepared a current structural assessment report and officially comments that the proposed partial demolition will not adversely affect the 1913 building. The assessment report and the Risk Management plan and demolition drawings will indicate the monitoring of the roof shoring during and after the demolition is complete. A roof condition assessment is recommended to be carried out to determine all potential sources of leaks and to investigate the condition of the roof deck. 7.0 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN The Demolition and Stabilization Plan has been developed with the intent to minimize vibration and other construction activities to the property during demolition. The mitigation means are noted below. • If required, earth retention shoring shall be design using drilled or augured piles for the removal of the foundations of the building additions. Pile driving is not permitted. • If required, temporary building shoring shall utilize helical screw piles. • No vibratory equipment shall be used on site. • Smooth -wheel rollers should be used to compact backfilled soil. Impact rammers and vibratory soil compactors are not allowed. • The contractor shall regularly monitor the remaining fagade during demolition to ensure no degradation of the fagade is occurring. • Continuous vibration monitoring of the 1913 building will be implemented, and the Heritage Professional along with the Structural Engineer shall regularly visit the site during demolition to review the fagade of the 1913 building for any impact, shifting or new deterioration. • If damage to the heritage resource does occur during demolition, work in that area of the structure shall immediately be stopped. The Heritage Professional and a Structural Engineer shall be called in to review the damage and develop a restoration plan. Work shall not continue in that area until the contractor has assessed the cause for the damage and developed updated procedures to prevent it from happening further. • Salvaged bricks from the chimney shall be removed and cleaned by hand processes to prevent damage. Bricks shall be stored on pallets, protectively wrapped and stored on the ground floor of the 1913 building/ an adequate safe location. During demolition, site visits will be summarized in a report to comment on observed conditions and findings. Once demolition is completed, the Heritage Professional and a Structural Engineer shall visit the site on a quarterly basis to review all of the temporary protection measures and facade conditions. After one year of reporting, and assuming no change in observed conditions, reporting will witch to bi-annual reviews for a period of 2 years. If there are signs of movement of the 1913 building such as new or widening cracks or changes in condition, monitoring gauges will be installed at the crack location(s), and the frequency of the structural monitoring will be increased to monthly reviews. MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 409 of 732 The Region has a security company monitoring the building to check that it is secured. REPORT PREPARER This report has been authored by Kurt Ruhland, P.Eng., CAHP, Cassandra Fusato, P.Eng., CAHP-Intern, and Paul Slater, P.Eng. Kurt has been a professional consulting engineer in the building industry for over 30 years and a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) since 2016. Kurt has been involved in the structural restoration of dozens of designated and non -designated heritage building across Southern Onterio. Notable projects include the Elora Mill restoration in Elora, the restoration of Devereaux House in Halton Hills and the renovation of Creelman Hall at the University of Guelph. Cassandra has 10 years of industry experience within building restoration and building science. She has been a CAHP Intern since 2024 and has worked on building and fagade restoration of various types. She has been involved in helping with the heritage restoration planning of the Kingston City Hall clock tower and front entrance stone stairs along with the Kingston Courthouse entrance column capitals. Paul has over 25 years of experience in the structural engineering consulting field. He manages and performs the structural design of commercial, office, industrial and residential projects including new construction, renovations and additions. He has experience in structural building assessment reports, feasibility studies and structural damage reports and repairs. His projects range in fees from $500 to $200,000 and include concrete, steel, wood and masonry structures. 9.0 CONCLUSION The property at 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener contains a three-storey felt factory that was built c. 1913 with three additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968, respectively. It is understood that the intention is to demolish the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions while maintaining the original 1913 Rumpel Felt building which contains heritage value. It is proposed to preserve this heritage asset by repairing and protecting the east fagade which will become exposed after the demolition, while leaving the remaining building in place without changes to its interior or other fagades. It is proposed that this be accomplished by the shoring the structure in place during demolition, providing vibratory monitoring and control as well as periodic review of the structure during the demolition process by a Heritage Professional and Structural Engineer. This report provides the plans outlining the means and methods by which this is to occur. All of which is respectfully submitted, MTE Consultants Inc. DRAFT Cassandra Fusato, P.Eng., CAHP-Intern Manager, Project Coordination & CAD Resources 905-639-2552 ext. 2408 cfusatoa-mte85.corn DRAFT Kurt Ruhland, P.Eng., CAHP Chief Operating Officer 519-743-6500 ext. 1236 kruhland(a-)_mte85.corr MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan —60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 410 of 732 DRAFT Paul Slater, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Manager, Building Structures Division 519-743-6500 ext. 1240 Pslater(a)mte85.com CMF:axd cc: https:Hmte85.sharepoint.com/sites/33223-301/Shared Documents/Heritage/Conservation Plan/Risk Management Plan/33223_301_rpt_Risk Management Plan_Draft_Rev.01.docx MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Risk Management Plan — 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, ON I April 8, 2025 Page 411 of 732 Appendix A Demolition Drawings and Details 014MTE Page 412 of 732 LLJ co o Ld Ld cl LL 0 0 Of cv u) Ld 6 > uj S3M 133�JiS 3>ina E E \ ----------- - -- ------- o -E� LO Lo r z z J�Jdj LU a Z 7 ty- < ---------- ---------- Q Z Lli rcF ui til m � � �i � zg �g���� o d V 7 PEK.02 E, ..... yG 4 E NAM i E IN PRO Hm LLJ 5" 9N 0.IN0 PH In- Mip, MI!pI g fil iU �o I 0 0 x 8. .91M INg8 6 oSwSY+ > ag Pq. lgg 401baa CL gyag ng. [if 0 MHE gffij'-� § LLJ I H i63M 133�US 3>ina' �E�gx&* R'E2� U, H e IN Of F LU C3 Lu to E E pS. 93" IH wa. - IP H LO 1-0 PH ? I < ><q x Q X1 OveBb�ffi g8 "'" ' - --� I X x z x X1 x X z --- x L) up; LU alp Lu a* I Chi at ads R EF EimR Eli, HP iPa F-- tffl 6 S '�wN, ADD Mh %7 pp'�Plj ifl1n; NE q— J� VKsaga�a - NA, HEM 1, N i -4A 6 'WA0, - E MM A A �NMI" -44 C -H- shd— �2 H ifl1n; NE q— J� VKsaga�a - NA, HEM 1, N i -4A 6 'WA0, - E MM A A SIJ hX z '75VI x O'l z LLJ IS3M 133�JiS 3>1 I W LL 0 Ni f9 V LLJ r --- co U-) E E I Ni Ej r --- U-) oz 59 .9m. - V mw I Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment Proposed Region of Waterloo Multimodal Hub 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. landscape architects, environmental planners, heritage planners 319 Woolwich Street, Guelph, ON NIH 3W4 (519) 824-8664 fax (519) 824-6776 landplan(a�thelandplan.com www.thelandplan.com with John MacDonald Architect Inc. April 5, 2012 revised & printed November 22, 2012 Page 416 of 732 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Table of Contents 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) .... 1 2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS ............................ 1 2.1 Present owner contact information ......................................... 1 2.2 Site history............................................................ I 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes..................................................... 15 2.4 Environs and the cultural heritage landscape - contextual analysis ................ 21 2.5 The proposed development and potential heritage impacts ...................... 29 2.6 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource .................. 33 2.7 Summary of conservation principles ....................................... 33 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained .............................. 34 2.9 Recommendations..................................................... 34 2.10 Qualifications of the authors completing the Heritage Impact Statement .... Appendix 8 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 38 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION .......................................... 38 REFERENCES..................................................................... 41 Appendix 1 - City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division, 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, December 8, 2011 Appendix 2 - Chains of Title Appendix 3 - Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 VictoriaN. and 50 & 60 Victoria N.), City of Kitchener Appendix 4 - Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Appendix 5 - Kaufman Lofts Appendix 6 - Breithaupt Centre Appendix 7 - 283 Duke Street Cover photo taken from Pharmacy Building on King Street, courtesy of the Region of Waterloo Appendix 8 - Qualifications of the authors Report photographs taken by the authors, unless otherwise noted Paap 417 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 1.0 BACKGROUND - REQUIREMENT for a HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) This Heritage Study is in response to a request from the Region of Waterloo to prepare alleritage Inventory, ContextAnalysis and ConceptDevelopment for the site being developed as the Multimodal Hub, and this HIA is in response to the City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division, 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference', December 8, 2011. The subject property is a 1.58 ha (3.91 acre) acre parcel of land located on the north side of Victoria Street North between Duke Street and King Street West. (Figure 1) httn://mans.region.waterloo.om.ca/locator.htm Figure 1 - subject properties 2.0 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Present owner contact information Multimodal Hub Project Coordinator — Kevin Eby Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 2.2 Site history The combined properties of 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West have housed a number of buildings and land uses over the past 115 years including felt, boot, rubber goods and machine manufacturing, brewing; and more recently, a service station, automobile repair shops, retail sales, HVAC and plumbing goods sales, Emergency Services office, and the Brewers Retail store. See Appendix 1 Paap 418 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 2 location map 520 and 510 King Street West At the junction of Victoria Street North and King Street West, and bordered on the west by the railway, these properties were the home of Huether's Lion Brewery (1856-1953). The name Huether is pronounced `Heater'. The original business was started by innkeeper/brewer Wilhelm Rebscher at the corner ofKing and Princess Streets in Waterloo. In 1856Adam Huether and son Christopher from Baden, Germany, rented the premises and continued the business as the Lion Brewery. The 1861 census states that the Lion produced 728 barrels of beer valued at $3,646, and employed three men at $17 a month each. Nine years later Christopher was able to purchase the property from the Rebscher estate, and build a hotel that is still operating as the Kent (now Huethers Hotel). Following family practice, Christopher's son C.N. joined the firm in the 1890s. At this time reference is occasionally made to it as the Waterloo Brewing Company. C.N., with a new partner, then created the C.N. Huether Co. in 1894. Employing 15 men this operation was sold to the Kuntz's for maltstorage after Christopher's death. C.N. moved down the street to Berlin (Kitchener). When C.N. 's Berlin Lion Brewery opened at the corner of King and Victoria Streets it brewed lager exclusively and featured, in deference to the Boer War, the Ladysmith label. This brew was soon dropped in favour of the popular Pilsener and Wuerzburger lagers. The newly named Berlin Lion Brewery Ltd. was enlarged. in 1906 by the addition of an icehouse. Employing 25 hands, it could now produce 32, 000 barrels annually. A Berlin Waterloo Industrial Review for 1908 boasted that: "Absolute purity, freedom from all deleterious ingredients are conditions that exist in the superior lager beer manufactured by the Berlin Lion Brewery ". Temperance, as to be expected, hurt business, and while it remained open, the name was changed to The Huether Brewery Ltd. in 1919. A year later it was closed and leased to a coconut processing concern. The company was reorganized and opened in 1924 to produce strong beer for export, and of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener near beer for the local market. The company, however, was found to be in violation of temperance restrictions, and ordered to pay Ontario luxury tax arrears. The brewery was saved from failure in 1927 when two Windsor area businessmen, Arthur Diesbourg and William Renaud acquired it. With careful management Huether Brewing Co. Ltd. finally showed a profit of $17, 000 in 1934. Two years later they introduced Blue Top Beer. This brand proved to be -so popular that the company's name was changed to match their leading brand. In 1948 disaster struck when a foxed batch of beer reached the market. While this was not the end, the new brands, New Yorker Lager and Premium Ale, did not completely reverse the company's fortunes, and the name was changed to the Ranger Brewing Co. Ltd. in 1952. Rather than face an increasingly competitive and centralized brewing market, the firm was sold to Canadian Breweries in 1953. Operated as Dow Brewery Ltd. until 1961, the site was demolished in 1964 to make way for a Brewers Retail Store. z The Berlin Lion Brewery building was located at 520 King Street West from c. 1898 to 1964. The Bei.lil Lion Brewery PROPRIETOR- �. +++++++ ++t ++ This is vwFere the famous \VUERZBURGER crrNU�;»iER. �pEi x�j�Ij dLL,R;kl C v JA 4 - IS )TA\UFACTTAZIA1. Figure 3 Toronto Public Library 1906 The Beer Store now occupies this site (Figure 8). 510 King Street West is now vacant, recently having been the site of an A -frame drive-in restaurant, converted to a grocery store. The fire insurance map from 1904 (Figure 5) shows the buildings at both 510-520 King Street West and 16 Victoria Street North. 2 Canadian Brewerianist, 1984, pp. 9,10 Paap 49n of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 4 Dow truck unloading 1955, Roy Purkis, photographer Waterloo Historical Society Figure 5 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Paap 491 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 5 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener J 1 W } W 0 - Vj �A 1 Figure 6 C, 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library The brewery at 510 - 520 King Street West is labelled as "The Huether Brewery Limited" on the 1925 fire insurance map. The brewery had been greatly expanded since 1904. Jackson -Cochrane & Co., continued to occupy 16 Victoria Street North. An electric railway line (Grand River Railway Co.) traversed the properties. (Figure 6) On the 1947 fire insurance map the brewery's name is again changed to "Blue Top Brewery" and has been expanded yet again. Jackson -Cochrane & Co. are still at the 16 Victoria Street North location and the electric railway line remains. (Figure 6) Well-known industrial personalities have been associated with 510 - 520 King Street West including C.N. Huether, brewer and founder of C.N. Huether Co. in 1894, and Waterloo City Councilor in 1898. Paap 499 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 6 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Figure 7 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 8 The Beer Store, 2012 16 Victoria Street North This triangular shaped lot bordered by the railway and Waterloo Street, with minimal frontage on Victoria, was part of the home of Jackson -Cochrane Company Limited. In 1953, Jackson -Cochrane changed their name to Beisinger Industries Limited (Appendix 2). The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Paap 49'1 of 732 Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 7 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener This maker of fine machinery is now almost forgotten, but at one time they made a full line of woodworking machinery. They were in business from at least 1895 and until at least 1947, occupying the premises at 16 Victoria Street North. A 1952 advertisement in a Montreal publication illustrates one of the pieces of equipment manufactured. (Figure 11) Dovecailers, Glue Jointers, Hand Jointers, Sclf Fccd joinwrs, Surface Planers Jackson, Cochrane & Co. Kitchener, Canada lvtanx(urcurers u f 'Woodworking Machitwry Speciuiizing i. Lith— Saving Machinery (ur the W—d—rking Trade Saws, Sanders, Glue Clamp , Gluc Spreaders,. Boring Machines �4 Berlin Machine Works... -map ---JACKSON, COCHRANE & CO. - - - MaeuSweturen of - Wood Waring Maftery, Shaf ft Pulleys, Etc. RcpefHf�� 7 AtxeRodad [a ��BERLl N, C�N"I`. Figure 9 1895 advertisement, Vintage Machinery 4 Figure 10 1929 ad, Vintage Machinery' Figure l l auveruscincin, vintagelvlacvunery Figure 12 1914 table saw illustration, Vintage Machinery' Figure 13 16 Victoria - 2012 Figure 12 illustrates a table saw as found in Waterloo Outlook in 1914. 16 Victoria Street North was most recently the home of auto repair shops in a modern block building, now mostly vacant. 3 Vintage Machinery, ry, www.vintagemachinerv.or>;, accessed January 31, 2012 4 Ibid 5 Ibid 6 Ibid Paap 494 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 8 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 50 Victoria Street North The Berlin Felt Boot Company occupied 50 Victoria Street North from 1867. The 1925 fire insurance map labels the building the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company' and in the 1940s, the Blue Top Brewing Company' was the occupant. 1904 through 1947 maps (Figures 15, 16, 17) show different buildings on this property. A fire in February 1904 destroyed the first Berlin Felt Boot Company building 9. It was re -built in 1905. The current building, circa 1940s was most recently occupied by Noble Trade, a plumbing, heating, HVAC industrial products company division of Rona. l3iyy N n� TH$ BURI,IN PE= Boot' COMPANY'S rACTORY, Figure 14 50 Victoria Street North, 1901, Region of Waterloo C2011-30 RFP Addendum #1, Appendix]3 In 1875 George Rumpel bought the Berlin Felt Boot Company from Jacob Y. Shantz and the old tobacco factory at the corner of Waterloo and Victoria Streets to manufacture leather boots and felt lumberman ankle -high boots. In 1909 the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. was formed from The Elmira Felt Co., The Kimmel Felt Co. and The Berlin Felt Boot Co. with August John Kimmel as Vice -President and General Manager. Kimmel also became associated with the larger rubber interests of Canada which later became merged in what became known as the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited. Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario httn://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca ARCHEION Ontario's Archival Information Network; www.archeion.ca/rumt)el-george-1950-1916; and Uttley, William Velores. A History of Kitchener, Ontario, The Chronicle Press, Waterloo, Ontario, 1937. accessed February 2, 2012. s The re -named Huether Berlin Brewery, 510 & 520 King Street West. Blue Top purchased the property in 1939 (see Appendix 2) 9 Decatur Herald, February 19, 1904 Paap 495 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 9 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 15 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library ev r* WO tfttva Figure 16 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library The 1947 fire Insurance map (Figure 17) shows what is likely an addition at the rear of the 1905 building and a different occupant and use, The Blue Top Brewery versus Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. Limited. This addition is likely the building that remains today, the 1905 building having been removed some time after 1955 (Figures 18 and 27). Paap 49R of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 10 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Figure 17 The Berlin Felt Company were occupants of 50 Victoria Street North from 1875. They exhibited boots at the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1878.10 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 18 50 Victoria Street North, 2012 A number of well-known individuals were associated with the businesses at 50 Victoria Street North including: • George Rumpel (1850-1916), founder of the Berlin Felt Company in 1875 (see Appendix 4); • August John Kimmel (1865-1930), Vice -President and General Manager of the Canadian Consolidated Felt Company (see Appendix 4); and • Charles Erwin Greb and his son Erwin C. Greb, shareholders and senior executives of the Berlin Felt Boot Company in 1910. Erwin founded the Greb Shoe Company in 1912 (see Appendix 4). 10 Catalogue of the British Colonies, Royal Commission for the Paris Exhibition 1878, Google Books Paap 497 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 x SCALL, 5OfT.a-i NGH f' x R tl ... d l Figure 17 The Berlin Felt Company were occupants of 50 Victoria Street North from 1875. They exhibited boots at the Paris Universal Exhibition in 1878.10 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 18 50 Victoria Street North, 2012 A number of well-known individuals were associated with the businesses at 50 Victoria Street North including: • George Rumpel (1850-1916), founder of the Berlin Felt Company in 1875 (see Appendix 4); • August John Kimmel (1865-1930), Vice -President and General Manager of the Canadian Consolidated Felt Company (see Appendix 4); and • Charles Erwin Greb and his son Erwin C. Greb, shareholders and senior executives of the Berlin Felt Boot Company in 1910. Erwin founded the Greb Shoe Company in 1912 (see Appendix 4). 10 Catalogue of the British Colonies, Royal Commission for the Paris Exhibition 1878, Google Books Paap 497 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 11 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 60 Victoria Street North The 1904 fire insurance map shows two houses on the property now occupied by the Rumpel Felt Company building (Figure 19). The street bordering the north side was called Edward Street. The name was changed to Duke Street c. 1958 when the downtown end of the original Duke Street was extended west to connect with Edward Street." Figure 19 1904 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library A three storey (9,000 square foot - 150'x 60') felt factory building was erected beside the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. buildings " at the corner of Victoria and Duke Streets, (60 Victoria Street North) in 1912-1913 by Walter Rumpel, George Rumpel's son and successor. Walter was succeeded by his son John W. Rumpel, who was succeeded by his son David Rumpel from 1966-2007. In 2007 the company closed production of felt but continued as a wholesaler from the factory until the property was purchased by The Region. The 1925 fire insurance map (Figure 20) shows the original factory building with boiler room and outbuildings on Duke Street. 11 Flash from the Past column, Guelph Mercury, ifearLguelphmercury.com 12 Region of Waterloo C2011-30 RFP Addendum #1, Appendix B Paap 498 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 12 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener N Alm 1�4 n � L� rrf V/C y_{ _.... � rf.:'r.1. /r. ,r>i..r ♦..'/"r`+;{ Xt'.C. .. Figure 20 1925 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Figure 21 1947 Fire Insurance Map, Kitchener Public Library Paap 49c) of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 13 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The 1947 fire insurance map shows the 1913 building with the 1942 addition to the north and encompassing the former outbuildings. (Figure 21) Figure 22 Rumpel Felt factory construction dates, after MTE October 7, 2011 The various phases of building addition are illustrated in Figure 22. The building is on the City's Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The Rumpel family dynasty was associated with the Rumpel Felt factory at 60 Victoria Street North from 1912 to 2007: • George Rumpel (1850-1916), founder of the Berlin Felt Company in 1875 (see Appendix 4); • Walter Rumpel (1884-19??), George Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1916-1944; • John W. Rumpel, Walter Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1944-1966; • David Rumpel, John Rumpel's son - managed Rumpel Felt Co. from 1966-2007. Figure 23 60 Victoria, west facade - 2012 Figure 24 60 Victoria, Victoria Street facade - 2012 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 14 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Aerial photographs from 1930, 1945 and 1955 show some of the evolution of the Multimodal Hub site and environs (Figures 25, 26 and 27). Figure 25 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/i)hotos/ap 30 55.htm1, accessed February 6, 2012 r4 -44 .0 � .r Ai Iwo Meek � Sty Ai/19 Street Nest _ • i Figure 26 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo htt)://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/photos/ap 30 55.htm1., accessed February 6, 2012 Paap 4'11 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street N orth, and 520 & 510 K 04 Street West. Kitchener A 4 co rw "L X4010 15 Figure 27 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo httn://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/i)hotos/an 30 55.html, accessed February 6, 2012 2.3 Listing and written description of existing structures, significance and heritage attributes Existing Built Form The current built form on the subject properties reflects the evolution ofthe overall properties and street patterns within and around it as independent and unrelated development. The existing structures are not organized to form coherent spaces between or among them that inform an historic fabric over the entire site that is the subject of this HIA. Several of the structures have a relation to the rail corridor and Victoria Street (not the subject of this HIA, but immediately adj acent to it) and inform the character of these spaces in concert with adjacent built form. With the potential exception of the Rumpel Felt Building, the buildings on the site represent vernacular building practices only. Their dates of construction and built form have no relation to higher traditions of architectural expression or the industrial vernacular architecture that preceded them on these properties. John MacDonald Architect conducted a preliminary review of the existing built form on January 20th 2012. Only the Rumpel Felt Building (60 Victoria Street North) was entered, and the review did not include the building's roof areas. Generally, the buildings appear to be in fair condition. of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 520 King Street West building Present retail outlet for the Brewer's Retail, The Beer Store (Figure 8). building materials/comments Single storey construction of load bearing brick masonry with flat commercial roof, of circa 1964 with an addition in the early 1970s. The building is set back from King Street, with a depressed side loading dock area with overhead door. Angle parking with one aisle is set between the building and the street. Majority of the building is clad in a recent renovation to Beer Store Corporate branded design, using paint coatings to the exterior brickwork. character -defining architectural elements The building is now typical of late 20t' century stand-alone pad retail architecture, whereby the building elements are organized as corporate branding. The important elements of this architecture are its over scaled use of colour and front entry billboard massing to communicate to passing motorists. The building has no unique architectural character, nor high quality of design and construction. The building neither creates nor informs yard or exterior space as a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. The portion of building above grade to the rail corridor is insufficient to define meaningful space associated with this corridor. Therefore, neither is it a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. 510 King Street West building The site is presently vacant. 16 Victoria Street North building Presently partly vacant, former use auto repair garage and associated sales. Portion of building used for Regional EMS Station (Figure 13). building materials/comments Single storey construction of load bearing grey split face concrete block masonry walls, steel roof structure, intermediate bearing walls, with flat commercial roof, of late 1980s. The building is set back from both its street lines, with glazed overhead garage bay doors. The site contains a pylon sign typical of retail strip plazas, with backlit signage addressing Victoria Street motorists. character -defining architectural elements The building has no atypical attributes or architectural elements to distinguish it from typical utilitarian commercial strip construction of the latter half of the 20th century. It is undistinguished and without architectural merit. The building neither creates nor informs yard or exterior space as a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. Therefore, it is neither a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. Paap 4'1'1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 17 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 50 Victoria Street North building Single storey building set back from the street and built into the adjacent rail corridor (Figure 18). Its rear wall functions as a retaining wall for much of its height. The flat roof steps down to the rear (rail corridor side), allowing for a continuous line of clerestory window. building materials/comments Front and sides of the building are clad in aluminum siding, with an asphalt shingle mansard frieze area to the upper quarter of the building. Rear above -grade portions consist of exposed portions of the original building wall material, terra cotta units commonly known as "speed the". The building incorporates a tapered red clay brick masonry chimney of approximately 15 metres (50') in height. character -defining architectural elements The building has no atypical attributes or architectural elements to distinguish it from typical commercial strip construction of the mid 20t' century. It is undistinguished in this regard. The remnant red brick chimney (circa 1940s?) is not distinguished by particular or unique architectural features. It is presently isolated from its historic context with respect to former structures and uses of 50 Victoria Street North. Its appearance on the skyline is minor, given the height of the Rumpel Felt Building adjacent and other structures surrounding the subject properties. The present building forms neither a clear accessory building to a larger ensemble, nor creates nor informs yard or exterior space as a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces. The portion of building above grade to the rail corridor is insufficient to define meaningful space associated with this corridor. The building is set back from the street, in contradistinction to the other more major structures forming the district and industrial fabric. Therefore, it is neither a structure of significant heritage value, nor does it contribute to a grouping of structures or spaces of significant heritage value. 60 Victoria Street North building The existing Rumpel Felt building consists of an original three storey massing oriented north -south (1913), and 3 additions constructed in 1942, 1962, and 1968 respectively (Figure 22). The building is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Committee Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The original structure consists of load bearing brick exterior walls with steel frame interior bearing columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete floor slabs. The roof framing consists of sloping steel beam and purlin framing with joist infill. The exterior walls have regular and large arched openings (subsequently infilled with split -face architectural concrete block and window replacement). The Boiler house section of the building appears to be contiguous with the original structure and also consists of three storeys of similar construction. This portion of the massing contained further manufacturing space above the boiler room. The first addition (1942) appears to have employed similar structural techniques, although concrete slabs are panel -formed rather than board -formed. The west face of this addition has been completely removed in subsequent additions, although at ground floor level the former foundation wall can be perceived at floor level. The south wall of this addition is still present as an interior wall at lower storeys. Paap 4'14 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 18 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The 1962 and 1968 additions complete the present building massing, and are constructed with a steel column and frame system to the exterior perimeter, rather than a load-bearing wall. The exteriorwalls of these portions are therefore able to express the non -load bearing character of the walls as distinct architectural features on the fagade, in the form of high level continuous strip window with fibreglass translucent panes at each floor. The windows appear to have been painted at some point in the building's history (there is clear presence of green paint on a number of windows in the building). The exterior walls are constructed of multi-wythe terra cotta masonry units, commonly referred to as "speedtile". The exterior exposed surfaces of the wythes is a smooth finish. The combination of this masonry and the horizontal strip windows gives the additions a distinct character as perceived from movement along the spatial corridor of Victoria Street North (Figure 27). building materials/comments Equipment and manufacturing machinery has been removed, with the exception of the process salt and boiler salt storage and delivery system (Figure 28). character -defining architectural elements The building's surrounding context contains no distinct yard or space formed by the building or its grading in relation to other buildings on the subject property, although it does form such spaces: • in relation to the experience of the rail corridor, in concert with the massing of 283 Duke Street West; and • in relation to the experience of Victoria Street, which historically consisted of a spatial corridor defined by the multi-storey facades of the factories of Berlin / Kitchener's industrial and manufacturing economy. This perceptible landscape of built form tight to the street has been largely lost through community neglect and our culture's 2e century pre -occupation with object buildings rather than the quality of "shared public experience". Although a reasonable example of vernacular industrial construction of its time, the building does not especially distinguish itself as unique in architectural style or method of construction. Figure 27 horizontal strip windows Figure 28 exterior salt system Alterations to the original 1913 facades that remain (the south, north, and west facades) have not compromised the potential for regaining the original vernacular architecture of these facades through careful adaptive re -use. Heritage attributes / character -defining elements include: • original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side); (Figures 29-31) Paap 4'15 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 19 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • riveted shear plate column construction; (Figure 32) • goods lift (circa 1913); (Figure 35) • door hardware; (Figure 33) • original boiler; (Figure 36) • wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); • entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; (Figure 34) • the massing of the building itself, for its larger contribution to public spatial and historical experience (see discussion below under 2.4). Fig. 29 Victoria Street N. fagade Fig. 30 Victoria St. & west fagade Fig. 31 rail side & chimney Fig. 32 riveted shear plate column Fig. 33 door hardware at stairwell The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Figure 34 entry porch of 732 Revised November 2.2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 20 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 35 goods lift Figure 36 original boiler Figure 38 1913 interior Figure 37 interior (east) 1913 wall Figure 39 1962 interior Figure 40 1968 interior Figure 41 1942 stairwell Paap 4'17 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 21 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 2.4 Environs and the cultural heritage landscape - contextual analysis The cultural heritage landscape - General The subject lands are situated within, and surrounded by, a landscape of industrial endeavour, built form, and history that was historically centred around the rail transportation infrastructure associated with the main rail corridor that led from the community of Berlin / Kitchener to the larger world. It contains historic factory sites, worker housing, and the homes of prominent industrialists of the day. The main rail corridor linked the local economy and community with its markets. The importance of this landscape to the history and heritage of the Berlin / Kitchener community cannot be overstated. It is one of the fundamental touchstones for the community we care for and operate within today. In recent years many of the industrial uses have been replaced by commercial and office establishments (especially along Victoria Street). Many of these have been through demolition of the original buildings and new construction, with some through adaptive re -use of the historic structures. Boundaries for this landscape have not been determined, but they may generally be perceived as lining the east -west major rail corridor for at least a civic block on each side, from approximately Strange Street in the west to perhaps Highway 85 in the east (Figure 42). At its centre, this landscape thickens toward Downtown Kitchener to encompass Victoria Street and its surrounding blocks (Figure 43). Spur rail lines leaving the main east -west rail corridor also contribute to the size and extent of this district. Figure 42 Industrial area cultural landscape Development of other economic and transportation infrastructure in the latter half of the 20th century has meant that this early civic landscape has been largely supplanted, in terms of community identity and centrality, by other urban, transportation (mostly truck and private vehicle -based) and built form. Recent efforts to re -purpose the existing structures and lands within this district of Kitchener (previously The Warehouse District and now deemed by the City of Kitchener as The Innovation District) suggest a desire in planning and leadership circles to return the landscape to a central role in the life of the community. These initiatives include, for example: • redevelopment of aspects of the Lang Tannery heritage landscape to house an economy of 21St century knowledge workers and associated technology firms (Google, Desire2Learn, the Communitech Hub, for example); • similar redevelopment of 51 Breithaupt (Breithaupt Centre loft offices presently under reconstruction); • the ongoing impetus for development of a university campus along the rail corridor (the recent School of Pharmacy, Medical School, and further such development to come); and • the creation of the multi -modal transportation hub itself, on the subject lands, that is the subject of this HIA. Paap 4'18 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener �1 .z Figure 43 ,rT ►0s .J . _ p4W,_Y� 22 Immediate environs - Multimodal Site The significance of such a heritage district, formed in the past by a larger density of such structures along the main rail line and the streets of Berlin /Kitchener's major industrial district, is a subject worthy of study and conclusion. It lies beyond the purview of any one landowner or project proponent, and this HIA. This heritage has been recommended by Kitchener Heritage staff as worthy of study. It is our understanding that to date no action has been taken by the community to complete such study. Determination of whether this cultural landscape qualifies as significant within the meaning of prevailing legislation, and therefore requiring conservation, may have impact upon both the need for conservation of the original Rumpel Felt Building, and redevelopment or conservation of its additions. It may guide the design of new development for the proposed multimodal hub facility in relation to such a landscape. This determination, however, is beyond the scope of this HIA. Character -defining Elements of the cultural heritage landscape The physical character of this district has historically been defined by multi-storey structures designed for industrial use, of three to five storeys in height, with a principal structure that may contain several additions to its massing. These structures were built tight to their street -fronting property lines and adjacent rail lines, generally of masonry or frame with masonry infill. The massing of such structures can be attributed to the following historic development forces (as can their subsequent demise, as these forces underwent significant change in the latter half of the 20"' century). • Limited availability ofrail connections and rail -fronting lands, making sites adjacent such corridors valuable enough to stimulate multi-storey, rather than sprawling single storey, development. This is in direct contrast to more recent truck -based industry, just -in -time delivery and development for knowledge-based economies. The former relies upon an extensive and publicly developed road infrastructure for movement and warehousing, while the latter requires little or no infrastructure for input and output of its high value—to-volume/weight ratio goods (discounting IT and Paap 4'1P of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 23 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener communication infrastructure). • Reliance on public transportation and walking as a primary means of travel for the labour force historically needed for such industries, further stimulating development in compact multi-storey forms, and supporting land -values in the centre of communities. Publicly funded and maintained road systems combined with rising standards of living for workers have largely decimated these development forces, except in the largest of urban centres. • Use of steam and then electricity as a primary source of process power that could be utilized on multiple floors. Use of emerging lift technologies that could move raw material and processed goods among floors. • Vernacular industrial building technology and design approaches using load-bearing walls and/or structural frames combined with heavy -timber floors and then newer concrete floor structures. These structural strategies provided the ability to withstand industrial loads on multiple levels, rather than simply the ground floor. • A general subscription to community form and built infrastructure as privately developed, rather than publicly subsidized, making industrial development on the outskirts of the community less attractive. Such development required electrical and utility servicing, public transport for workers and goods, and access to the rail -based transportation hub that was already available in the community core. Extension of such requirements were historically not likely to be publicly funded. The rise of the private vehicle as a primary means of worker transport, together with publicly developed road -based transport systems and the dispersion of utilities throughout the landscape, have changed this force significantly. • A willingness among community leadership to see industrial production as wealth -generating, and its by-products of noise, noxious smells, air pollution and health impacts, as benign or at least necessarily tolerable. The historic industrial landscape surrounding the Subject Lands contains at its periphery significant examples of residential development for both workers and industrialists alike. The rise of community planning and its drive to separate industry from housing on the basis ofhealth and impact concerns meant the conscious development of"industrial parks", suburbs, and post-war urban form that worked directly against the land -value forces driving the massing of built form in the historic industrial district. Typical Historic Physical Character of Development within the Landscape In addition to the issue of general building massing described above, the physical character of this district is also formed by a hierarchy of architectural development to each site, whereby the principal building for each property stands tightly against the public way against which it fronts, often addressing a corner with higher massing consistent with the importance of such intersections. The principal entrance to the establishment addresses the fronting street or corner, usually with architectural design and detail emphasizing such entrance. Insurance mapping and other evidence suggests that behind this solid block of massing was usually a casually developed accretion of outbuildings, storage sheds, boiler houses, additions, and individual single storey structures, organized by informal yard and interior spaces within the block or on adjacent blocks. Development and adaptive re -use of property within the district has tended to discount the importance of such elements for the cultural landscape or development possibility, and there are few surviving examples of such hierarchy. In addition to the relatively ornate entrance features, the architectural character of the buildings generally involves the rhythmic expression of structural bays and large fenestration to provide natural light into the factory production spaces. This expression of frame is presented in a more modern style in the Kaufman Building at 140 King Street West, but is prevalent in most of the structures, with a tendency to larger width openings in buildings of later construction (for instance, the Lang Tannery fenestration is relatively tall and narrow, with several windows in each structural bay, while later structures in the district may have larger width openings relying upon lintels of greater span). Paap 44n of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 24 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Within the subject property, the Rumpel Felt Building is the only remaining structure that has potential heritage significance. The massing of the Rumpel Felt Building in relation to both Victoria Street and the rail corridor reinforces the historic spatial experience of the Innovation District (formerly the Warehouse District) where multi-storey industrial buildings are constructed immediately adjacent to the property line. The building's massing thus contributes to the creation of space contributing to a heritage attribute formed by a larger grouping of structures or spaces, namely the character of the former industrial district organized along the rail lines and its adjacent spurs, and public perception of this district within the urban spaces of Victoria and King Streets. There are a number of buildings adjacent to the Multimodal Hub site that are of heritage significance, including the following. Some of these fall outside the City's Warehouse District. Kaufman Lofts (former Kaufman Rubber Company Factory) at 410 King Street West. (see Appendix 5). Figure 44 Kaufman Lofts from 510 King St. W. Figure 45 Kaufman Lofts from Waterloo Street This six storey former shoe factory has been converted to residential condominium units. The building was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Kitchener in 199613. In August 2005 a heritage permit application was made to convert the industrial building to a condominium 14. The reasons for designation and a summary of its heritage attributes are noted in appendix 5. The red and black brick, steel -frame building was designed by architect Albert Kahn and was constructed in stages between 1908 and 1925. The Kaufman building flanks both Victoria Street North (directly opposite 510 King Street West and 16 Victoria StreetNorth) and King Street West with a minimal to no setback. 13 Designation By-law No.96-34, April 2, 1996 14 Heritage Permit Application Report, Kaufman Lofts, August 5, 2005, Quadrangle Architects Paap 441 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 25 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Breithaupt Centre (former Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd. building) at 51 Breithaupt Street (see Appendix 6) This four storey former factory is being converted to office space. The building is not designated, but is listed as a Non -designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The Centre consists of a series of buildings built between 1903 and 1969 with numerous additions. The original building and early additions were built in the Industrial Vernacular architectural style with later additions being more modern in appearance. It was the subject of a Heritage Impact Assessment in 201015 and a Heritage Conservation Plan in February 201116. Site Plan approval is in place and the building is in the process of being renovated and partially restored. Breithaupt Centre flanks Breithaupt Street, King Street West, Waterloo Street and the railway, with minimal to no setback. A summary of the building's heritage attributes and its significance is noted in Appendix 6. Figure 46 51 Breithaupt Street Merchants Rubber Co. Works - c. 193 Important figures associated with this property include Jacob Kaufman, Talmon Henry Rieder, and George Schlee, all Waterloo Region Hall of Fame members. Figure 47 51 Breithaupt Street south elevation, 2010 15 Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, September 7, 2010, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 16 Heritage Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, February, 2011, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Paap 449 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 26 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener Figure 48 51 Breithaupt Street south facade, January 2012 Figure 49 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Breithaupt Centre, Breithaupt Street facade, January 2012 Paap 44'1 of 732 Revised November 2- 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 283 Duke Street (former Hibner Furniture building) (see ADDendix 7) THE D. HIBNER FURNITURE CO., Limited MANUFACTURERSB E R L I N 'W E COVER OF HIGH GRADE THE WHOLE FURNITURE 0 N T A R 1 0 D 0 M I N 1 0 N Figure 50 27 poster, City of Kitchener files The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Paap 444 of 732 Revised November 2.2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street N( and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 28 e�- •.= — _ Figure 52 283 Duke Street south facade, January 2012 This three storey factory was built in 1889 by Daniel Hibner who founded the Hibner Furniture Co in 1887. From 1920 to 1933, the factory was owned and operated by Malcolm & Hill, manufacturers of fine quality furniture. Mayor Daniel Hibner above - Figure 53 right - Figure 54 Malcolm & Hill advertisement, Montreal Gazette, April 25, 1930 S47,Ao,''rlaG on NOoMAR FURNITURE by I4fulcoint & Hill Limired If year bedruorn suite is of geaahre Nl}>t AJl Medi- cine won't mar it, Neither will spilled perfuros. NG -MAR fuslah Is proal agrunet ilia minor uccid—ta L4 evcryduy use. Spry dy NO -MAR for lwcmr satr luc- 4lm L4mk for the guursntee we when you buy. IF IV$ NOT MALCOLM ,HILL a - IT''a NOT NO -mom 3. Figure 55 Deilcraft Furniture (Electrohome) 196218 Figure 56 283 Duke Street, Duke Street facade 1' Doors Closed, an exhibition highlighting items from the archives of former manufacturing companies in Waterloo Region htti)://doorsclosedwaterloo.wordl)ress.com/electrohome/, accessed February 6, 2012 Paap 445 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 29 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener The property was sold by the mortgage holders in 1936 to Dominion Electrohome Limited who operated from this site until 1979. The Boehmer Paperboard Sales Corporation has occupied the building since 1986 along with numerous other smaller business tenants. The building is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, but is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Committee Inventory ofHeritage Buildings. Appendix 7 provides more detailed information as to the building's architecture, history and significance. Important figures associated with this property include Daniel Hibner (1855-1935), who was mayor of Kitchener in 1884 - 1885 " and Carl Pollock (1903-1978) who assumed the helm of Electrohome from his father Arthur in 1926 19 2.5 The proposed development (Transit Hub Concept) and potential heritage impacts The Region has proposed a change in land use through Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for the site to accommodate the future development of a multi -modal Regional Transit Hub. The Transit Hub will be an integrated facility that accommodates and provides a seamless flow between a full range of transportation modes, including intra -regional commuter transit (GO Rail and VIA), light rail transit, local buses (GRT), inter -city buses (GO and Greyhound), taxis, bicycles, cars, car share, and pedestrians. Site development is contemplated to be mixed-use in nature, and may combine commercial (retail, office, hotel), residential, community, institutional and public uses with the future Transit Hub. Depending on the development program selected, the site could accommodate up to approximately 93,000 square metres (1,000,000 square feet) of total floor space. The density of the development could have a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.0:1. There are currently no height restrictions on the site. A reduced parking requirement for the development is being requested. A specific development proposal and site plan has yet to be prepared. The Region will be seeking a development partner to implement the Transit Hub and associated mixed-use development. At that time, a more detailed and refined development proposal and site plan will be prepared based on the optimal design of the transportation facilities and relevant market conditions. Two additional development projects related to the Transit Hub are underway and are undergoing separate development review: the King Street Underpass; and the new train platform along the rail line for intra -regional rapid transit (GO and VIA), which will cause the closure of Waterloo Street between Victoria Street and the rail line. Potential impacts emanate from: • proposed redevelopment of 16 Victoria Street North, 520 & 510 King Street West, and 50 Victoria Street North; • proposed development/redevelopment of 60 Victoria Street North (Rumpel Felt building); • the proposed closure of Waterloo Street; • the proposed underpass on King Street; and • proposed rail platforms. These are addressed in this HIA. For the latter two of these projects, potential impacts only are noted in this report. It is our understanding that mitigating measures will be addressed as part of the 16 Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario httn://generations.reaionofwaterloo.ca/, accessed February 7, 2012 19 See Appendix 7 Paap 44R of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 30 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener development review being completed for those specific projects. Potential Impacts - General In general, the streetscapes of Victoria Street North and King Street West, regardless of the relative height and density, could be negatively affected unless podium massing to Victoria Street North is designed to complement the massing of the existing heritage fabric (both Rumpel Felt and Kaufman Lofts) and continue historic traditions of building to the street lines and to the corners. New upper storey massing concentrating development height (whether shorter or taller) at the corner of Victoria and King needs to specifically address the long view to this point of the site from the long approaches from the east and west along Victoria. Potential Impacts - Rumpel Felt Building The legibility of the rail corridor space, as formed by Rumpel Felt and 283 Duke on each side of any new rail platforms is important. It has the ability (together with interpretive and new design elements) to communicate aspects of the community's industrial history to the public. A change in the existing grade just north of the present 60 Victoria Street Rumpel Felt Building could change the historic relationship of the building to the rail corridor. Should insufficient space west of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building be retained, there would be an impact to the heritage character of the building. A negative impact would also result from the lack of, or insufficient setbacks of new development that would allow the west facade to continue to participate in the public experience of Victoria Street. Additional storeys on the 1913 Rumpel Felt building and/or the later additions to the building have the potential for negative impact, reducing the opportunity for the original building height and cornice to play the principal role in defining the space of the street. Proposed Rail Platforms Any platform and development of the rail corridor that blocks public access at grade from the north at this location should receive careful design treatment to mitigate the effect of the change. Potential Impacts - Closure of Waterloo Street From the north, the closure of Waterloo Street has potential for negative effect on the heritage of the Breithaupt Block. Should pedestrian and cycle access not be maintained, there would be a negative impact. Also from the north, the closure of Waterloo Street, combined with the proposed development, will block the public view of Kaufman Lofts. The current view is relatively recent (Figure 57), buildings on either side of Waterloo Street and on the south side of Victoria Street North having been removed; thus, creating it. This is not considered a heritage impact. Paap 447 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street Nc and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 31 Figure 57 current view of Kaufman Lofts from Waterloo Street at the railway Potential Impacts - Proposed King Street West Underpass at the Railway Figures 58 - 61 are current views of Kaufman Lofts heritage resource on King Street West. These views will be significantly altered by the construction of an underpass at the railway. (Figure 62) Fig. 58 approaching railway tracks on King Fig. 59 approaching Victoria on King Paap 448 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 32 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener i r� Fig. 60 towards Kaufman from Wellington on King Fig. 61 from Moore on King Street West Figure 62 illustrates the proposed King Street underpass, light rail transit route, and railway platforms in the vicinity of the Multimodal Hub site. King Street West will be lowered to pass the railway tracks, coming back to grade near Victoria Street North. Views of Kaufman Lofts and the new Pharmacy Building will be changed from the current situation (Figure 59 versus Figure 65). As with the closure of Waterloo Street, this is not considered a heritage impact for the reasons stated therein. As well, views of Kaufman Lofts' architectural qualities are perhaps best appreciated when passing on King Street. Potential Impacts - Railway Platforms The railway platforms have the potential for negative impacts on 51 Breithaupt Street and 283 Duke Street by blocking access for restoration work, repairs and maintenance to the railway side of these heritage buildings. L I l l l �-J ' .. 8 EIT 11PT ST 51 Breithaupt E:flC, NrGQuTMGATES P4E A::::� Lp 3 Duke / 'T y s�� RAIL PLATFORMS _ LRT MUL Ott L WUEi SITE 1 Rumpel -' Felt r _5 Kaufman ,\Lofts r. -r-=T - 0 Q m L � Figure 62 after: Figure 4-12a, Transit, Transit Project Assessment King Street Grade Separation Proposed Design Alts, CN Guelph SID, Option 5, Region of Waterloo 07/18/11 Paap 44c) of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 33 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 2.6 Mitigating measures and conservation of the heritage resource Incorporate policies, regulations and/or provisions in the proposed land use designation (OPA) and zoning by-law to provide for implementation of the recommendations found in paragraph 2.9 Recommendations. 2.7 Summary of conservation principles Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition, provides "General Standards" for all projects. Conserve the heritage value ofan historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. With respect to this "standard", the "historic place" associated with the properties is the 1913 Rumpel Felt building. Its character -defining elements are outlined in paragraph 2.3. These should be conserved and the fagades restored. 2. Conserve changes to an historic place which, over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. • There are no changes over time associated with the building that have become character -defining elements; rather, changes overtime have compromised the heritage character of the 1913 structure. These are reversible (see point 1. above). 3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. • Intervention will likely be required to adaptively re -use the building. Until an adaptive re -use is determined, the nature of the interventions is unknown. It is unlikely that any intervention that would compromise the character -defining elements would be required. 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. • There is no need or known desire to add elements or combine features from this property. 5. Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character -defining elements. • See point 3. above. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. • The building is being maintained by the owner until it can be developed for an adaptive re -use. There are no known archaeological resources on site?° 7. Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. • See point 3. above. 20 Pers. Comm. Kari Feldmann, P.Eng., Sr. Project Manager, Environmental, Corporate Properties Region of Waterloo Paap 45n of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 34 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener 8. Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missingparts ofcharacter-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. • See point 6. above. 9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. • See point 6. above. Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation (see point 6. above) 10. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair, andwheresufficientphysical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing ofsound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. 11. Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Additional Standards Relating to Restoration (see point 6. above) 13. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements from the restoration period. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. 14. Replace missingfeatures from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence. 2.8 Proposed alterations and demolitions explained Demolition of 16 and 50 Victoria Street North and 520 King Street West are proposed. No loss of heritage resources is expected from these demolitions. Alterations to the remaining heritage resource, 60 Victoria Street North) will likely be required for an adaptive re -use. 2.9 Recommendations Mitigating measures with sensitivity to the historic development and heritage fabric of the Warehouse District and environs are required. Recommendations related to new built form on 510-520 King Street West, 16 and 50 Victoria Street North and the right-of-way of Waterloo Street are: • build to the street line and to the corners at intersections; • break the Victoria Street North massing into distinct buildings with frontage commensurate with existing and historic patterns; • set upper storeys back so the space of the streetscape is primarily formed by a height of massing complementary to surrounding buildings with heritage attributes; • avoid stepping or complex forms of massing at street level that retreat from the street edge, and from building to the street line; Paap 451 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 35 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • design new built form to communicate to the public streetscape a sense of today and the future, so that heritage, present context, and future are an integrally -woven whole with distinct and visible threads; • avoid imitative architecture caricaturing the surrounding heritage, including for additional massing located at, or on existing heritage - the existing heritage will benefit by way of contrast; • provide a high quality of design in new development to avoid establishing a context of mediocrity - such an atmosphere would impact the heritage as the remaining heritage resources within the district have been constructed with a sense of civic pride and some investment in quality; • ensure that new development speaks to the public realm about present culture and future aspirations; • ensure, through shadow studies to City of Kitchener Urban Design Guidelines criteria, that the adjacent heritage resources (especially 51 Breithaupt and 283 Duke) are not negatively affected; • design railway platforms and barriers in a manner that avoids blocking access for restoration work, repairs and maintenance to the railway side of 51 Breithaupt Street and 283 Duke Street; • commemorate the industrial heritage ofthe Multimodal Hub site by creating an interpretive display in a prominent location, perhaps at the intersection of King and Victoria, to explain its history and the people involved. The history of the Hub site, from the earliest days of the breweries, woodworking machinery plant, and felt making industry should be told through historic photographs, text, maps, etc. in a prominent public display. Consider also interpreting the surrounding industrial cultural landscape in the display once study on this has been accomplished. Recommendations specifically related to the Rumpel Felt building are: • retain the Rumpel Felt building (at least the 1913 portion) for adaptive re -use; • retain the space (separation between buildings) immediately west of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building, to allow its west fagade to continue to participate in the streetscape (especially as experienced moving east along Victoria Street North from King Street West); • offset to the west the massing of upper storeys (above 5th floor or so) from the 1913 Rumpel Felt building and its adjacent spatial zone to cast less shadow onto the fagade, and provide new massing without overwhelming the scale of the 1913 building; • build tight to the intersection of Duke Street and Victoria Street North, either with additional floors and re -use of the Rumpel Felt additions or with new construction. • if there is a significant grade change contemplated at the rear of 60 Victoria Street North, it would affect the grade relationship at the base of the north fagade of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building - development should not incorporate a grade change that would negatively affect the existing Rumpel Felt building / rail corridor relationship; • where the 1913 portion of the Rumpel Felt building is retained, but receives further storeys, these should be restricted to one or two additional storeys, and be set back enough from the original Victoria Street edge, so that the original building height and cornice plays the principal role in defining the space of the street; • where the present additions to the building are retained, or retained and added to, or replaced, development should continue to build to the street and intersection lines - initial building mass should be restricted to 3 - 5 storeys, with additional height beyond that set back sufficiently from Victoria Street so that the 1913 building is not overwhelmed; • in any adaptive re -use of the Rumpel Felt building, the heritage attributes / character -defining elements, including the original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side) should be preserved and restored; • keep in good order, character -defining elements that are important to the 1913 fagades and those interior elements that can be utilized in an adaptive re -use scenario; • retain original boiler in non -working, but presentable condition; • salvage building materials such as brick to be used in repairs; • match brick and mortar in repair / restoration work; • retain visibility of interior structural elements where possible; Paap 459 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 36 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener • use contemporary materials in new construction that are complementary to the historic architecture; • list the Rumpel Felt building on the Municipal Heritage Register; • complete and implement a Conservation Plan for the 1913 portion of the building to ensure heritage attributes are brought to an acceptable minimum standard in the short-term and that guidelines are in place to ensure any alterations follow good conservation principles and practice; • designate the property post development under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Recommendations regarding the conservation of the adjacent heritage resources and the environs are illustrated on Figures 63 and 64. Retaining the existing Jkoppp� � grades to the perimeter of the 1913 Rumpel Felt Providing now building massing that respects the scale of the rail corridor and its historic fabric. View Building to its street line and to the comers at intersections has no major irr gact on public +views to the 4 Kaurtma n comer massing. Figure 63 Remitting the space immediately west of the 1913 Rumpel Felt Btukfng, to allow its west fagade to continue to participate in the streetscape_ Builder tight to the intersection of Duke Sweet and Viictoda Steet North_ drew 2 Breaking the Victoria Street North massing iruo distinct blocks with frontage commensurate with ensting and historic panems and avoiding complex bums of massing at street level. 4 20 40 Recommendations (plan after: GSP, March 2012) Paap 45'1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener 1 i L 37 1 Figure 64 View 2 - west facade, Rumpel Felt building from Victoria Street North after: GSP, March 2012 Figure 65 View 1 - King Street, looking south to Kaufman Lofts after: GSP, March 2012 Further, it is recommended that: • a Heritage Conservation Plan be prepared for the Rumpel Felt building at the appropriate time in Paap 454 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 38 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener the planning process 21; and • a study be considered to determine whether the cultural heritage landscape within which the Multimodal Hub site is situated qualifies as significant within the meaning ofprevailing legislation; therefore, requiring conservation, as this may guide the design of new development for the proposed facility in relation to such a landscape. 2.10 Qualifications of the authors completing the Heritage Impact Assessment See Appendix 8. 3.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS The significance and heritage attributes of 60 Victoria Street North are: • original 1913 facades (Victoria Street, adjacent to 50 Victoria, and rail side); • riveted shear plate column construction; • goods lift (circa 1913); • door hardware; • original boiler; • wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); • entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; • the massing of the building for its contribution to public spatial and historical experience. • the association of the felt making industry and important members of that business to the community of Berlin / Kitchener; • the contribution that this property makes to the understanding of the 20t' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener; • the physical, visual and historical links of the property to its surroundings; • the property could be considered a local landmark. Conservation measures recommended are embodied in an adaptive re -use of the Rumpel Felt building; through the preservation of the fagades and the conservation of its heritage character attributes. Measures to ensure that new built form is designed to communicate to the public streetscape a sense of today and the future, so that heritage, present context, and future are an integrally -woven whole with distinct and visible threads. Imitative architecture caricaturing the surrounding heritage is to be avoided. New development should provide a high quality of design, to avoid establishing a context of mediocrity. 4.0 MANDATORY RECOMMENDATION Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act criteria for designation vis -k -vis 60 Victoria Street North A property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest: The property has design value or physical value because it, I. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, The 1913 portion of the property is a representative example of a style, type, materials and 2' A Heritage Conservation Plan addresses how the cultural heritage resources and attributes located at 60 Victoria Street North, identified and described in this Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. It identifies the conservation principles; provides an assessment of current heritage attributes conditions and deficiencies; and recommends conservation measures and interventions in the short-, medium- and long-term to ensure preservation of the property's cultural heritage significance. Paap 455 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 39 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener construction method, typical of many such early 20t'' century industrial complexes in the City of Kitchener. It is not rare, unique, or early. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, The craftsmanship is typical of industrial buildings of the era and place. The building does not display a high degree of artistic merit. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The structural system does not exhibit a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, I. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, The felt manufacturing industry and numerous important members of that business and others in the community of Berlin / Kitchener have been associated with the property. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, The history of this property contributes to the understanding of the 20t'' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener. iii. demonstrates or reflects the workor ideas ofan architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. The designer is not known. 3. The property has contextual value because it, L is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, The property is within the industrial landscape that originally bordered both sides of the Canadian National Railway line (now Goderich & Exeter Railway). Although industrial uses are being supplanted by other land uses, the building, in concert with others such as 283 Duke Street and 51 Breithaupt Street, helps to define and anchor the character of the area. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, The property is physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Because of its location and its presence, the property could be considered a local landmark 4. Does the property meet the criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? The property meets criteria for heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. The 1913 portion has design or physical value because it is a representative example of a style, type, materials and construction methods typical of many such early 20t' century industrial complexes in the City of Kitchener. The 1913 portion with additions has historical or associative value because the felt making industry and numerous important members of that business and the community of Berlin / Kitchener have been associated with the property. The history of this property contributes much to the understanding of the 20t' century industrial culture in Berlin / Kitchener. Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act criteria are satisfied; thus, the property warrants designation under the Act. Paap 45R of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 40 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener The 1913 component of the property warrants conservation per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) for the reasons stated above. The PPS defines "significant". For built heritage resources to be significant or have cultural heritage value or interest, they must be "valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people.i22 In the PPS, "conserved" means "the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained.23 In our opinion, an adaptive re -use for 60 Victoria Street North has the potential to conserve the heritage values, attributes and integrity of the property, subject to the preparation and implementation of a Heritage Conservation Plan. Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act may be initiated once the exact nature of an adaptive re -use is determined, and upon the completion of a Conservation Plan that dictates the alterations and restoration plans for the property. The building is an excellent candidate for adaptive reuse, for reasons in addition to its heritage significance being part of the larger industrial landscape. It is a useable and adaptable space that can be incorporated into future development. This Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment is respectfully submitted: THE LANDPLAN COLLABORATIVE LTD. Owen R. Scott, GALA, FCSLA, CAHP with JOHN MacDONALD ARCHITECT inc. 22 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, InfoSheet #5, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006 23 ibid Paap 457 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 41 16 Victoria Street North. 50 & 60 Victoria Street North. and 520 & 510 King Street West. Kitchener REFERENCES 510-520 King Street West, 50-60 Victoria Street North, Official Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applications Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference, City of Kitchener Community Services Department, Planning Division December 8, 2011 ARCHEION, Ontario's Archival Information Network, www.archeion.ca/rumpel-george-1950-1916, accessed February 2, 2012 Canadian Brewerianist, 1984, pp. 9,10 Catalogue of the British Colonies, Royal Commission for the Paris Exhibition 1878, Google Books City of Kitchener Designation By-law No.96-34, April 2, 1996 Decatur Herald, February 19, 1904 Doors Closed, an exhibition highlighting items from the archives of former manufacturing companies in Waterloo Region, hAp://doorsclosedwaterloo.woLdj2ress.com/electrohome/I accessed February 6, 2012 GSP Group, Draft Region of Waterloo Multi -modal TransitHub, Planning Justification Report, March 2012 Guelph Mercury, Flash from the Past column, November 4, 2011 Jaffray, James P., compiler and publisher. Kitchener: the industrial city: the birthplace of the great Niagara power movement, 1928 Kitchener Public Library, Grace Schmidt Room (Fire Insurance Maps) Montreal Gazette, April 25, 1930 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0. 18, Regulation 9/06 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005) Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies 2.6, Info Sheet 95, Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, Winter 2006 Quadrangle Architects, Heritage Permit Application Report, Kaufman Lofts, August 5, 2005 Region of Waterloo, Consultant Services C2011-30, Heritage Study forMultimodal Hub, issued November 21, 2011 Region of Waterloo, C2011-30 RFP Addendum #1, issued December 8, 2011 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Heritage Impact Assessment, 51 Breithaupt Street, September 7, 2010 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Heritage Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, February, 2011 Transit Project Assessment, King Street Grade Separation Proposed Design Alts, CN Guelph SID, Region of Waterloo 07/18/11 University of Waterloo, Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo, http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/locations/umd/photos/ap 30_55.htm1, accessed February 6, 2012 Paap 458 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Heritage Study and Heritage Impact Assessment 42 16 Victoria Street North, 50 & 60 Victoria Street North, and 520 & 510 King Street West, Kitchener Uttley, William Velores. A History of Kitchener, Ontario, The Chronicle Press, Waterloo, Ontario, 1937 Waterloo Historical Society web page, hilp://www.whs.ca/ accessed February 2, 2012 Waterloo Outlook 1914, published by the Daily Telegraph in conjunction with the Waterloo County Council, August 1914 Waterloo Region Museum web page, www.waterlooreaionmuseum.com/historical-place-names/ accessed February 2, 2012 Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario, http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca, accessed February 2, 2012 and February 7, 2012 Vintage Machinery web site, www.vintagemachinery.org, accessed January 31, 2012 Paap 45c) of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference City of Kitchener Community Sorvicos Dopartmont - Planning Division 510, 520 KING STREET WEST, 50, 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH Official Plan Arrendment & Zone Change Applications; Heritage Impact Assessment - Terms of Reference 1.0 Intic-duclion The City of Kitchener requires the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment , H IA i a -s parl of a (.ompleie application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Annendrip. ii� 4for prc[,P,r1i Ps rn ii nidpalIV addressed 510, 52D King Street West and 50, 60 Vicioria BILEp I Nort-i. A Ho ritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine if any cultural heritage reso U iCes are impacted by a specitic proposed development or site alteratio=n. I he study resrilts in a report which identifies and ovaluatGs known cultural heritage resources; outlinq� the r,ubjact application or proposal and its potontial impacts on thoso cultural horitago resources and attributes; and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would avoid or mi n imize negative impacts. The HIA shall rornpfy with the -se Tennis of Reference which have been Prepared based on the proposal presented at the pre-:3ubrnission consultation r-neeting cf September 20, 2011. The Subject applications intend to prepare the subject lands for redevelopment as a mixed use p ruj ecl incorporating % � r'i 0 L. 5 tran spo rt a -. i o n f ar- i I i t i e 5. 2-0 Sublect PFOIDerIV & CUITUN31 WdMaP RCISGUI-CeS Existing and po1Q n t al c u I LA r a I h e n taga ros o u rc es are oc atod G i tiar on or adjacent t h G? subjqct properties. The property municipally addressed Go Victoria Street North k'f o, mc -r- F1, u mple Felt Company building) and forming part of the subj; -_t propertka�;- i,1 li-ltod on the Ho—itage Kitchener Committee Inventory of Heritage Buildings. The property municipally addressed 410 King Street Wesi (former Kaufman Footwear building) is located adjacent the subject properties and is designated under- Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property munidpally Hddressed 51 Braithaupt Street (BrpilhEaLJFA 134:k7 is Icicaled adjacent the subject properties and is listed as a Non-Designmed Property of Cullural Heritage 1(2]ue of Interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The property municipally addressed 283 Duke Street Wast (forrnQr D. Hibner Furniture Conripany building) is located adjacent the subject p,opo- rties and is listed on the Heritage Kitchanar Committee Inventory of Heritage Bui dings. The subject properties are located within an area commonly known as the WarDhouse District whiah has been identified as a candidate Cultural Heritage Landscape of Regional significance. Mu N-Wd2l Hub OPA,2 C - HA T�rrris of R efere ne-, FINAL -Deo 2. 2011 1076126 4 Paap 4Rn of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 1 Terms of Reference 3.0 Palicv Context Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest sueh as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, histon+ 1, archaeological or scientific interest_ In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy statGmGnt. Policy 2.6.1 of tie Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Tie Pravinwia,I Policy Statement defines a butt her,rtage resource as rano or more significant buildings, structures, monuments, installations or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic or military history and: identified as being important to a corrlmunity. Such resources may be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed by local jurisdictions. Cultural heritage landscapes erre defined as a geographic area of heritage significance which has been modified by human actnrities and is valued by a c UM-nurtity. Sigrtr'frcanf is defined as resources that art: valued for [lie irnportant contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a pPople and notes that while snrne- significant resources may already In P identified and inventoried by official sources, the bignificance of others can only be determined after evaluat an. Policy 2.6.3 of the Pruw+ic:ial Policy Statement states that development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protected heritage property Where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes Df the protected heritage property will be conserved- The definiton of development in the Provincial Policy Statement includes a change in land use requiring approved under the Pla.nnirig Aut. Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also address the conservation ct cr,ltutal heritage resources. These policies establish the requirerrleni for the submission of studies as part of complete applications, in lucli ig Heritage Impact Assessments a,td Conservation Plans. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consieior the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications in relation to all applicable Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies, guidelines and principles, including: the Provincial Policy Statement; the Regional Official Policies Plan or Regional Official Plan; :he City's Official Plan; and, recognized conservation principles (see Section 4.9 01 the 11-1911age Impac, Assessment Terms of Reference). 4.0 Herltacte Impact Assessment Requiraments The subject Heritage Impact Assessment shall provide and address the following information and requiroments: 4.1 Present owner contact information for properties municipally addressed 510, 520 King Street Wost and 50, GC Victoria Streot North. muiu-Ngwai HUtJ OPFtrZG — HLA Terms o1 rLererenCL- FINAL -Dee 8, 2011 1076126 Pacip 4R1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference 4.2 A site history of the subject properties to include a listing of Owners from the Land Registry Office and a history of site use(s) associated with any identified cultural heritage resources. 4.3 A written description of any cultural heritage resources on the subject properties. This shall include a description of building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, as well as any natural heritage elemenis. The description will identify specific attributes which are of cultural heritage value or interest, and include a chronological history of any significant alterations, additions or demolitions -.o identified cultural heritage resources. 4.4 A written description of the heritage si.qnificani;e and attributes associated with the adjacent protected heritage property located at 410 King StreetWo_qt. 4.5 A written description of the heritage significance and attributes of any cultural heritage landscape associated with the subject properties, and in particular the features un and adjacent the subject property which contribute to the zdYnificance of any idontiiiGd cultural Fe-itage landscape. 4.6 Documentation of the subject prODerlies to i-iGlude current photcyraphs and a site plan drawn al an apprOp-iatG? sole 10 understand :he conte)it of the site, buildings, landscape arid surrounding streeiscape. Where cultural heritage resources have been identified, documentation shall also include detailed photographs of the cultural heritage resources and related attributes (e.g. photographs of all building elevations, current floor plans, historical phuto.s, drawings or othor avail able acrd ro I ev an I arch iv al material}. 4.7 An outline of the proposed project concept (proposed OP designation and Zoning), and how the prclooed projact ccncG?p1 may impact cultural hertaqi- resources and aliributes or ta subject properties, o,l the adjacent protec--d heritage property located at 410 King Street West, and on any identified GU tu rul heritage landscape 2SSOCi2ted with the subject properties. The Heritage Impact Assiassment must consider potential nogativo impacts, as iden'ifip,d in the Ministry of CLilture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Heritage Resour-ces in the Land Use �anninq Process - InIoSbeet #5). Negative, impacts may include but are not limited to changes in land use (which ccud rasult in inc:3mpatiUe development'alterationsi; direct or indirect obstruction of views vistas oto. 4.8 Where the potential for impact on a cultural heritage reraourcefs) and specific; attributes is Identified. the HIA shall considar, avaluate and recommend appropriate conservaticn. and/or avoidance measures to mitigate impact. Such measures may include but are not limited to: preservation in-situ of a cultural heritage reso-irce; adaptive reuse of a Cultural heritage resource; alternative developmem. approaches: isolating development and site alteration from significant bui.t heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes; establishing appropriate height. density and FSPs; preparing design guidelines addressing appropriate mass rig, setbacks, setting, location and urieritatiuri of buildings, building Gtapback,- and angular planes, and compa-kle infill and Multi -Modal Hub GPA+Z C — HA Terins of Reierence FINAL— Dec 8,.2 011 1076126 6 Paap 4R9 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix I Terms of Reference additions. lnnpkementalion measures could inchAp special policy provisinnc, it the amendment to the Official Plan, -special regulations in the arnerdme it to the Zoning By-law, and the formulation of design guidolines for example. 4.9 Recommended mitigative measures must be evaluated o-) the basis of established principles, standards and guidelines for heritage conservation- A summaty of those con*ervaticiri principles, standards aiid guidelines and how they are being used must be identified in tho HIA. Appropriate conservation prindples tray he fmind in PWnll('aTi0n,(; such as: Parks Canada — Standards arid Guideli,�es for the Gonservation of I listori�: Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Ccnsorvatio,) of euildirg Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and. the Cmario Minis.ry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). Examples o' ccriservatiDn principles include but are not limited to: respect for hi-q-cric material, respect 'or oriCinal fabric, reversibility, legibility, Uiainlenan(:e. 4.10 Rpr-ornmeridalions on annservation options and mitigative measures shall be as specific as possible, using written descriptions and illustrations where a ppropir ate. 4.11 The cualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must dr fflUri.strale a level of professional under-star-dirig and competence in the heritage conservation fiald of study. The report wi I also include a reference for any literature cited, and F list of people 2,,)ritacted during the study and referenced ire the report. 5.0 Sumrnni-v Statement and Conservation Recommendations A !-:u-wrary statement is required and Miould provide a full description of: 0 Ih(:.: rult iial heritage significance of the subject properties and area of i r i -. e esl i k-. q. associated cultural h eritage I andscape). 0 The icentification of any impact tine proposed project concept (OP Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment) will have on the cultural ,iigrificance and heritage attributes of the sub,ecn properties 11 area of interest. ■ An explariation of vvhal carisarvatiuri opLiu'is, FliLi(lative rneasures Ur alternative development approaches are rc-c:)inn­Gnded, and whether they are reflected and incorporated in the proposed nrojP0 concept. If applicable, clarification as to why some conservation options, mitigative m9asures or alternative project concepts are not appropriate. 6-0 Mandatory Reacommcmdation The consultant must provide a recommendation as to whether any of the subject properties are worthy of heritage designation in accordance with the heritage desiqi-ration criteria per Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritaqe Act. Should the Vu fti -MocLal Hut? CPA -2 C - HLA Terms ci Reference FINAL - Dec 81 2011 1076126 Paap 4Rl of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 1 Terms of Reference consultant not support haritage designation then it must he clearly stated as to why the subject properties do riot meet the c: rite ria as stated- in Regulation 9'06. Tie fallowing questions musi be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1, Do any of Oe properties meet the critera for heritage resignation under Ortaria Regulation MG of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? . If a iy o: thez subject properties dry nat mpM the criteria for heritage designation there it midst be clearly stated as to why they do not. 3. Regardless of the failure to rneet criteria fcr haritare designation, do any the properties warrant conservation as icer the defi-7ition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not and what rnathod of conservation is recommended? 7.0 Approval Proo ss Fifteen (15) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electro -ii-- pdf format burned on CCS shall be prow led to Heritage Planning staff. Both the heard and electronic copies shall be rilarked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have bee -1 met and to review the preferred optionfs). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copips and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Asse-ssment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the trial Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning - Note viat Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitc l-ener Committee for information and discussion. Heritage Impact Assessments may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kilchener. The applicant wi.ii be notif ori of Staff's comments and arceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted I ler itage Impact ,Assessment will becorne wart of the further processing of a Planning application under the direction of the Planning Divisian- The recornrueri ancon within the fir;al approved versflun of the Heritage Impact Assessment r -ray be incorporated into development related 1( --gal agreements betweer tie City and the propo-cont at the discretion of the municipa itv. Multi-Mod31 Hub 0PA.-2C— HLA Terms of Rsference FINAL— Dec S. 2011 1076126 S Paap 4R4 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title '-NAUPT STREET BREITHAUPT STREET o� �•T nc;:1 5�a-smear r PLW :376 ' v: i qE° PUN+376 ,' a OMr9 0396 I 1 ©s9a PLAN' °5 t -S5. r ", � - r F F 4 iN F i ¢ • F I F 218rr rl 017.3 -- ---J------J 016033 z Lar 34 STREETS AN5-LANES STREETS AND LANES - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY ao LOT 153 STREETS ANO LINES ifE.F :'L.; ;� Lrr LU C-1341 - STREETS AND L+WES ` u s - ,s;. *la _--0•''66-d F 0396 rl ■ ^z 4� F i RL -`i "S.. 457 A & ; 91 Q 11 12 13 --- -_-- 15 oao - F +a 0162 Property Index Map lot numbers in red EG PLANT 374 4 - 0191 Ems -,0 66 VICTORIA STREET: gra • PL�a:' s�R-saa r i Y r Blocks 22318 & 22319, City of Kitchener Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations 520 KING STREET WEST current active PIN 22318-0161 LOT 1, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin I Plan 374, City of Kitchener date instrument from - to instrument no. 27 July 1896 deed Estate of Margaretha Backer to Frank Frank 12740 25 Sept 1906 deed Frank Frank to Christopher M. Huether 20664 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant I Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. no recitals re: change of name 3 Dec 1964 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 LOT 2, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin I Plan 374, City of Kitchener 24 Dec 1885 deed Estate of Edward Fitzgerald to Edward G. Fitzgerald 6548 19 Aug 1899 deed Edward G. Fitzgerald to Christopher M. Huether 14441 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant 1 Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 no recitals re: change of name 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 LOT 3, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin I Plan 374, City of Kitchener Paap 4R.5 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 24 Dec 1885 deed Estate of Edward Fitzgerald to Edward G. Fitzgerald 6548 19 Aug 1899 deed Edward G. Fitzgerald to Christopher M. Huether 14441 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 243979 18 Dec 1963 no recitals re: change of name Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Ltd. 290048 510 KING STREET WEST current active PIN 22318-0162 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nornoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 30 April 1987 grant 1 Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 30 June 2000 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Shin Kwon Kim 1462919 29 Oct 2010 transfer Shin Kwon Kim to Frank Volpini WR576985 24 Dec 2011 transfer Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR591277 LOT 4, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 6 Nov 1899 deed John A. Mackie in trust to Christopher M. Huether 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 no recitals re: change of name 10 Aug 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. 243979 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 3 Dec 1964 grant Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. to Brewers' Warehousing Stores Limited 290048 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nornoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed no. 30 April 1987 grant Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 11 March 1996 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1286090 LOT 5, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 6 Nov 1899 deed John A. Mackie in trust to Christopher M. Huether 14506 1 Dec 1908 deed Christopher M. Huether to Huether Lion Brewery Ltd. 23628 15 Feb 1927 grant Huether Brewery Ltd. to Huether Brewing Company Ltd. 58916 289682 8 Nov 1972 no recitals re: change of name Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 18 Dec 1963 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 268851 30 Dec 1963 deed Grand River Railway Co. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 269515 27 July 1965 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to City of Kitchener 296767 18 April 1966 lease Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Wideman Restaurant Enterprises Ltd. et al. 327390 June 1966 lease Wideman Restaurant to William Bardeau, Gustav Maue, Bruce Castator & Murray Tucker 334651 6 Oct 1966 lease William Bardeau, et al. to Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. 339768 23 March 1972 lease Frostop (Kitchener) Ltd. To Tim Donut Ltd. 469388 15 May 1972 lease Tim Donut Limited to Patrick & Daphne Nornoha 491477 30 Sept 1983 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to Byung-Joo Seu 764192 30 April 1987 grant I Byung-Joo Seu & Young -Hee Seu to Edwin Trautrim 893923 11 March 1996 transfer Edwin Trautrim to Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1286090 16 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0366 LOT 6, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 31 May 1890 deed Henry F. S. Jackson to Robert Lee Jackson & John Cochrane 9067 1 Feb 1930 deed Estate of John Cochrane and Robert Jackson to Jackson -Cochrane Ltd. 64137 1953 name change from Jackson -Cochrane to Beisinger Industries 289682 8 Nov 1972 deed Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 481575 17 Oct 1988 deed Court J. Beisinger et al. to Eugene O'Neill 965980 17 Nov 1988 deed Eugene O'Neill to Bernadette O'Neill 970101 27 Jan 1989 deed Bernadette O'Neill to O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. 978793 1 Nov 1989 deed O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. to 742873 Ontario Inc. in trust 1015462 10 March 2006 deed 742873 Ontario Inc. to 1484967 Ontario Inc. 1582244 30 May 2008 deed 1484967 Ontario Inc. to Frank Volpini WR385573 23 Dec 2010 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589136 LOT 7, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 31 May 1890 deed Henry F. S. Jackson to Robert Lee Jackson & John Cochrane 9067 Paap 4R7 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 1 Feb 1930 deed Estate of John Cochrane and Robert Jackson to Jackson -Cochrane Ltd. 64137 1953 18845 name change from Jackson -Cochrane to Beisinger Industries 289682 8 Nov 1972 deed Beisinger Industries Limited to Court J., Jeanette H. & Bernd C. Beisinger 481575 17 Oct 1988 deed Court J. Beisinger et al. to Eugene O'Neill 965980 17 Nov 1988 deed Eugene O'Neill to Bernadette O'Neill 970101 27 Jan 1989 deed Bernadette O'Neill to O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. 978793 1 Nov 1989 deed O'Neill Holdings (Ontario) Inc. to 742873 Ontario Inc. in trust 1015462 10 March 2006 1 deed 742873 Ontario Inc. to 1484967 Ontario Inc. 1582244 30 May 2008 deed 1484967 Ontario Inc. to Frank Volpini WR385573 23 Dec 2010 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589136 50 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0396 LOT 8, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 11 July 1882 deed Berlin Pioneer Tobacco Mfg. Co. to George Rumpel 5149 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant 1 Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. LOT 9, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 11 July 1882 deed Berlin Pioneer Tobacco Mfg. Co. to George Rumpel 5149 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 31 Dec 1941 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 10, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 10 Mar 1896 deed I The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 11, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 31 Dec 1894 deed George Rumpel to William Oelschlager 10748 13 Sept 1895 deed William Oelschlager to George Rumpel 12354 10 Mar 1896 deed The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited deed 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 12, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 31 Dec 1888 deed George Rumpel to The Berlin Elevator Company 8320 10 Mar 1896 deed The Berlin Elevator Company to George Rumpel 13050 28 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk Railway Company 17409 10 April 1905 deed George Rumpel to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 18845 12 April 1910 deed Berlin Felt Boot Co. Ltd. to Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. 25165 15 April 1910 lease Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Berlin Felt Boot Company Ltd. 25166 4 Nov 1939 grant Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. Ltd. to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 77134 31 Dec 1941 quit claim Canadian National Railway Company to Blue Top Brewing Co. Ltd. 80925 12 Oct 1962 grant Dow Brewery (Ontario) Ltd. to Forbes Holdings Ltd. 245795 29 Dec 1969 grant Forbes Holdings Ltd. to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 416263 7 June 1985 change in name from Rumpel Felt Co Ltd. to Rumpel Holdings Limited 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 18 March 1989 deed City of Kitchener to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983868 11 April 2008 lease The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. to Noble Trade Inc. WR374138 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 Paap 47n of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 2 Chains of Title date instrument from - to instrument no. 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH current active PIN 22318-0399 LOT 13, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 5 Dec 1883 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 23 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk R. R. Company 17409 1 Nov 1913 deed George Rumpel to Minna Rumpel et al. 31185 22 Dec 1915 deed Minna Rumpel to George Rumpel 34850 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 14, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Cairncross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 23 June 1904 deed George Rumpel to The Grand Trunk R. R. Company 17409 27 Nov 1913 grant Walter Rumpel to Corporation of City of Berlin 31245 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed 1 Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 LOT 15, Grange's Survey S. of G.T.R. & N. of King St., Town of Berlin / Plan 374, City of Kitchener 9 Feb 1878 deed Edmund Arthur Caimcross to John Arthur Mowat 5237 5 Dec 1883 deed John A. Mowat to George Rumpel 5823 27 Nov 1913 grant Walter Rumpel to Corporation of City of Berlin 31245 30 Dec 1920 grant Trustees of George Rumpel estate to The Rumpel Felt Co. 44479 15 March 1989 deed Canadian National Railway Company to The Rumpel Felt Co. Ltd. 983885 19 Dec 2008 deed I Rumpel Holdings Limited to Frank Volpini WR435776 23 Dec 2008 deed Frank Volpini to Regional Municipality of Waterloo WR589141 Paap 471 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener Historical Significance Berlin (now Kitchener) is the birthplace of felt manufacturing in Canada. George Rumpel was known as the father of the industry (2) and is referred to as the "Felt King of Canada" in several publications. 0 The Berlin Felt Boot Company was established on this site in 1867 by Mr J. Feick who later merged with Mr. Jacob Y. Shantz (1). In 1875 the company was bought by Mr. George Rumpel (shown left) whom had moved to Canada seven years earlier at the age of 18 (1). By 1886 the Berlin Felt Boot Co. employed over 75 workers making felt boots to wear under rubber or leather boots, as well as leather boots (1). George Rumpel was active in civic affairs. He served six years on council, was elected reeve in 1897 and elected mayor in 1898. During his term as mayor he led the controversial decision to purchase the public water works system (2). He also served on the Parks Board and Water Commission. In local histories, the Rumpel name is found alongside the other community business and civic leaders of the time: such as Kaufman, Lang, Krug and Breithaupt. In 1903 George and his sons travelled to Germany to learn about felt manufacturing and applied it to their business (2). Paap 479 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener THit BIRI,IN FXLT BOOT COMPANV'S FACTORV. Twentieth century number of "Busy Berlin" publication (190 1) The Berlin site was destroyed by fire and rebuilt in the same location around the year 1905 (1). By 1909 the company had expanded to Baden and had over 300 employees (2). 3Jnw�' L" ,r �r4 � 4f fi E' 9 - Fire Fire Insurance Map (Aug 1894, with 1904 updates) r–e J, ■-.— _ W Irf_-Y Paap 47'1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener John Kimmel was associated with the Berlin Felt Boot Co. for 15 years. In 1900 he left to organize the Elmira Felt Company. In 1907 Mr. Kimmel built the Kimmel Felt Company in Berlin. In 1909 the Berlin Felt Boot Co, the Kimmel Felt Co. and the Elmira Felt Co. were all bought by the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co (1). George Rumpel was named the president of the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. and John Kimmel was made vice president and general manager (6). "Busy Berlin" Map by M. S. Boehm & Co. Ltd. (1912) —Berlin Felt Co. is no. 60, Kimmel Felt Co. is no. 19. In 1912, George Rumpel left the role of president of the Consolidated Felt Co. and formed the Rumpel Felt Co. A 3 storey (9,000 square foot ( 150 x 60 ft (2)) building was erected beside the Canadian Consolidated Felt Co. buildings at the corner of Edward (now Duke) St. and Victoria St. (3). Rumple Felt Co. exported felt to Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and South America (1). A later 3 storey addition was added at some point pre 1925 that measured 40 x 50 ft(2). George Rumpel had two sons. Oscar Rumpel, studied business and worked with the business until 1913 at which time he bought the old shirt factory at Courtland and Queen (now the Bread & Roses Co op) and produced felt slippers (2). W. G. studied mechanical engineering and worked with the business until taking it over in 1920 following George's death (2). The company was passed to the third generation John W. Rumpel in 1944 following W. G.'s death (1). In 1968, another 3 storey (15,000 square foot) addition was added to the Rumpel Felt Co. site to accommodate the growing synthetic felt division (4). Felt production at the 60,000 square foot facility ceased in 2008 when the property was sold by Rumpel Felt Co. president David Rumpel (5). Planning Context Heritage Protection - The Rumpel Felt Co. building is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. Any development application is therefore subject to the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan. The property is also being considered for the next round of evaluations for the Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). Listing on the MER would provide an interim level of protection from demolition. The property is also adjacent to the Kaufman Lofts, an Ontario Heritage Act designed structure. Paap 474 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) - The Rumple Felt Co. building is located in the Warehouse District of the City of Kitchener downtown. The downtown districts have been used by the City to promote and guide redevelopment in the core area. Map of the Downiown Dlstrlcts � Gtg Centre aistrict � Cim Dstrict Market District According to the Downtown Strategic Plan (vol. 3), the Warehouse District is being redeveloped using the following strategies: - Establish a new university campus - Use existing historic buildings to create opportunities - Identify, preserve and enhance features that define and associate the Warehouse District with Kitchener's unique industrial heritage and the moniker "Busy Berlin". - Create a new "Industrial Artifacts Museum" and provide space for the display of industrial artifacts - Build upon what already exists: large stock of historic warehouse industrial buildings, major site redevelopment opportunity - Improve access to transit, trails and parks - Recruit complementary uses to support the core functions and anchors - Develop the district at a density that complements the existing density of historic warehouse industrial buildings (buildings close to property lines, three to six stories in height) Paap 475 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 3 Appendix B Site History - Property History (Rumpel Felt 16 Victoria N and 50 & 60 Victoria N.) Citv of Kitchener The City of Kitchener has also established a community improvement area that encompasses the downtown core area and is expanded to include the industrial buildings on the north side of the railway tracks. The warehouse district was identified as a candidate CHL of regional significance in a report commissioned by the Region in 2006 entitled Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo region: A Framework for Inventory, Assessment and Policy Development. From a heritage perspective, there has been no further work undertaken on the warehouse area in terms of inventorying and conserving the area as a CHL. A Built Form Review was undertaken in 2005 by the Economic Development Department as part of Kitchener's city wide Urban Growth Plan which identified properties with adaptive re use, intensification and redevelopment potential. Several adaptive reuse projects have rejuvenated key industrial buildings, but it is unclear if there is a larger plan for the remaining industrial heritage resources, es ecialiy those that are not included in the warehouse district as identified. t �r#*7— ►Ser * r +4 ' M It 7! P B 1, P. it -`T -i VF�l * .10W ..A00 Location of existing historic industrial buildings Sources (1) Glover, Robert A. (unpublished) New Factory Smoke. Kitchener Public Library. (2) Middleton, Jesse Edgar and Fred Landon (c.1927). The Province of Ontario: A History 1615 1927. 5 volumes. Toronto, Ontario: Dominion Publishing Co. (3) Stanton, Raymond O Rumpel Felt Pioneered New Canada Ind ustrX. KW Record. (4) KW Record (1968). Factory Addition. (5) Hammond, Michael (January 13, 2009) Rumpel Felt building finds a buyer at $3.2M. Waterloo Region Record. (6) Waterloo County Hall of Fame. Paap 47R of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties George Rumpel (1850-1916) The Rumpel Felt Company was established in 1912 by George Rumpel. A German immigrant, George Rumpel came to Canada in 1868 and lived in Hamilton as a shoemaker for five years. In 1875 he founded the Berlin Felt Boot Company with 3 employees which manufactured leather boots and felt lumberman ankle -high boots. In 1903 George and his two sons Walter and Oscar returned to Germany to study advanced felt making. With the implementation of this applied knowledge, the company grew rapidly. When he sold the company to the Consolidated Felt Company in 1909, the company employed 300 workers. George Rumpel continued as president until 1912 when he started the successful Rumpel Felt Company. George Rumpel was a prominent member of Berlin society by serving as member of the Park Board, the Water Commission, and Town Council for five years. He was Reeve in 1897 and mayor in 1898. The family also owned an asbestos mine in northern Quebec ,The Berlin Asbestos Mine, which was managed by George's son Oscar Rumpel. Walter Rumpel, George Rumpel's son and successor managed the Rumpel Felt Company from 1916-1944. Walter established a felt factory at the corner of Victoria and Duke Streets in Kitchener, Ontario where it has operated ever since. From 1944-1966 Walter was succeeded by his son John W. Rumpel, who was succeeded by his son David Rumpel from 1966-2007. In 2007 the company closed production of felt but continue as a wholesaler from the factory. ARCHEION Ontario's Archival Information Network, www.archeion.ca/rumpel-george-1950-1916 Berlin was the birthplace of felt manufacturing in Canada and the father of the industry was George Rumpel, a native of Germany. He came to Canada in 1868 when eighteen years of age and lived in Hamilton as a shoemaker for five years. He moved to Berlin in 1871 and in 1875 established the Berlin Felt Boot Company, with three employees. He then also manufactured leather boots. Rumpel went to Germany to study felt making and after he returned and applied the knowledge he had gained his business grew rapidly. When he sold it to the Consolidated Felt Company in 1909 there were 300 employees. He continued as president but in 1912 started the very successful Rumpel Felt Company. Rumpel was a member of the Park Board, the Water Commission and the Town Council, which he served for five years. He was reeve in 1897 and mayor in 1898. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame htt2://waterloores4ionmuseum.com/re2ion-hall-of-fame/inductees This summer residence was called "Wee Forest Hill" & was built in about 1885 by George Rumpel ofBerlin Ontario [now Kitchener]. He had named it after their home in Berlin `Forest Hill ". The Rumpel's for years, packed up the kids, servants, and went by train to spend the summer on Penetang Bay. The Rumpels, Breithaupts, Langs, MacKellars, Seagrams, andPieries [spelling looks wrong] were all industrialists from Berlin who established connections with Penetang. Breithaupt was in the leather business and used the Penetang cedar bark in tanning his leathers for the shoe industries of Berlin. Rumpel's & MacKellar's were in the shoe business and the felt manufacturing for boots, athletic equipment, horses, etc. The Penetang Becks were somehow connected to the Becks Paap 477 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties of Waterloo Co and Sir Adam Beck of Baden & Hydro fame. He was a great pal of George Rumpel. These movers & shakers from Berlin were a strong German force in early Penetang. The "Wee Forest Hill " & the big white [now yellow] house on Fox St on the other side of Broad St, [called "Cedar Knoll' J were both owned after 1916 by the sons of George Rumpel - Walter Rumpel & Oscar Rumpel respectively. In 1929, Oscar Rumpel sold his "Cedar Knoll" to Thomas Seagram of Seagram Distillers, Waterloo, and the deal included Walter Rumpel selling "Wee Forest Hill" to the Pieries of Kitchener who were great friends of Seagrams. A daughter, Marg Pierie, then married the Meyers of New Zealand's Meyers Rum. So --- those 2 houses on Fox St at Broad St were owned for several years by people entrenched in two of the worlds best known liquor companies. Not bad for lil of Penetangl The property and the 2 cottages have been in the Wolfson Family for over 30 years. Fond Memories continue to be made. Georgian Bay Cottage History htt2://www.cottage.zoomshare.com/2.shtml Thursday, 22 Feb. 2007 August John Kimmel (1865-1930) A. J. Kimmel was a noted industrialist in Berlin, Ontario who greatly aided in the development of the city. He was associated with the Berlin Felt Boot Company for fifteen years and in 1900 organized the Elmira Felt Company. In 1907 he built the Kimmel Felt Company at Berlin. When the Canadian Consolidated Felt Company was formed in 1909, consolidating the Elmira company, the Kimmel company and the Berlin Felt Boot Company, he became vice-president and general manager of the new organization. He also became associated with the large rubber interests in Canada which later merged to become the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company Limited. Kimmel became a director of many industrial organizations in Berlin and throughout Ontario and Quebec. With T.H. Rieder he founded the Dominion Rubber Company which became a very successful national organization. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame, http://waterlooregionmusetun.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees As typical of the kind of men that have vastly aided in the upbuilding of Berlin stands A. J. Kimmel. Born in Berlin 47 years ago no man is better known in our city and no man has figured less in printed matter, -for he is a man who shuns publicity of a personal nature. To write his biography for the past 25 years would be to tell of many of the biggest things clone in commercial interests in our city. He was with the Berlin Felt Boot Co., Berlin for fifteen years, first as Shipping Clerk and later as Sales Manager. In 1900 he organized the Elmira Felt Co., Elmira, which Company was remarkably successful. In 1907, together. with Mr. D. Lorne McGibbon and T. H. Rieder, he purchased the entire share capital of The Elmira Felt Co. and the following year built The Kimmel Felt Co. Works at Berlin. In 1909 the Canadian ConsolidatedFelt Co. was formed with a capital of two million dollars, taking in the factories of The Elmira Co., The Kimmel Co. and The Berlin Felt Boot Co. with Mr. Kimmelas Vice -President and General Manager. In the meantime he had also become associated with the larger rubber interests of Canada which later became merged in what is now known as the Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company, Limited. He is President and Manager, The Kimmel Felt Co., Berlin; President and Manager The Elmira Felt Co., Elmira; Director Berlin Felt Boot Co., Berlin; Vice -President and General Manager The Canadian Consolidated Felt Co.; Director Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co., Ltd., Montreal; Director Merchants Rubber Co., Berlin; Director Maple Leaf Rubber Co., Port Dalhousie; Director Berlin Rubber Co., Berlin; also Director in Berlin Py rofugant Flooring Co. ; Berlin Bedding Co. ; Merchants Printing Co. ; Grosch Felt Shoe Co. Paap 478 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties At the time this book is being prepared for press (1911), he with Mr. T. H. Rieder is engaged in an effort to install in Berlin a $250, 000 Rubber Tire Factory, which will add materially to the industrial growth of our city. Waterloo Region Generations, A record of the people of Waterloo Region, Ontario http://generations.re gionofwaterloo.ca The KODIAKO name traces its ancestry to the sweltering summer heat of 1910, when Charles Erwin Greb and his son Erwin C. Greb were installed as shareholders and senior executives of the Berlin Felt Boot Company. That fledgling enterprise would soon be renamed, by its new owners, as the GREB SHOE COMPANY. From its earliest days, GREB SHOES was motivated by a commitment to designing and making quality footwear for ordinary working people. GREB's customers relied on that footwear to fit right and last a good long time and it did. When GREB introduced the world's first truly waterproof boot, the KODIAKO name was born. Today, KODIAK® continues to be associated with authentic, durable safety footwear trusted by workers everywhere. Kodiak Boots web page, hlW://www.kodiakboots.com/ Greb Industries Limited was a shoe and boot manufacturing company based in Kitchener, Ontario. Charles E. Greb, who had moved to Berlin (now Kitchener) from Zurich, Ontario, in 1909, became the secretary -treasurer of the Berlin Shoe Manufacturing Company when it was incorporated in 1910. His son Erwin Greb joined the company as book-keeper. In 1912, Charles and Erwin acquired the company, and in 1916 it received a new charter of incorporation under the name Greb Shoe Company Limited, with Charles as president and Erwin as secretary -treasurer. In 1918, Erwin bought the controlling interest in the company from his father, who remained involved with the business in an advisory capacity. The Greb Shoe Company, which had plants on Queen Street and at the corner of Mansion and Chestnut Streets in Kitchener, was again reorganized and received a new charter in 1930. In 1938, it acquired Valentine and Martin Limited, a Waterloo manufacturer of work boots, shoes, and dress shoes, which continued to operate as a separate business until it was merged with the Greb Shoe Company in 1951. Operations by that time were consolidated at a plant on Breithaupt Street in Kitchener. When Erwin Greb died in 1954, his son Harry D. Greb took over as company president. Erwin's other sons were also involved in the company as directors; Arthur was in senior management and Charles was a plant manager and eventually became executive vice-president (1969-1976). In 1959, the company purchased the Canada West Shoe Manufacturing Company of Winnipeg, including its popular Kodiak brand boots. The expansion into Western Canada began a period of tremendous growth for the company. Manufacturing facilities were expanded, and the company made several other acquisitions, including Bauer Canadian Skate; Tebbutt Shoe and Leather Company of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec; and Collins Safety Shoes of Peterborough. A skate and boot plant was eventually opened in Bangor, Maine. The most significant factor in the company's growth through the 1960s was the popularity of Hush Puppies brand of casual shoes, which Greb began manufacturing under license from Wolverine World Wide of Rockford, Michigan, in the early 1960s. The mascot for this line of footwear, a basset hound named Velvet, was a popular symbol for the brand. In 1966, Greb Industries Limited became a publicly -traded company, and by the early 1970s it had grown to become Canada's largest footwear manufacturer, employing 1200 people in Kitchener and another 1100 in Winnipeg, Trois-Rivieres, and Bangor. In 1974, the company was purchased by Warrington Products Limited of Mississauga. Paap 47c) of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Greb Industries Limited continued to manufacture footwear under the new owners, with several changes in operations, including the closure of several plants and a move for the head office from its Ardelt Avenue location in Kitchener to Mississauga. In 1987, Warrington sold the Greb division, which consisted mainly of Hush Puppies and Kodiak shoes and boots, to Taurus Footwear of Montreal. Production of Hush Puppies ended in 1989 when the licence was surrendered to Wolverine. The Bauer skate division, operating as Canstar Sports, had been relocated to Cambridge and sold to Nike. The last Greb plant in Kitchener, a Kodiak boot plant on Hayward Avenue, closed in 1991. In 1992, the Royal Bank took control of Taurus Footwear and formed Greb International to market the Kodiak brand domestically and internationally. In 2000 this company became Kodiak Group Holdings Inc., and in 2005, it purchased Terra Footwear in Newfoundland and has factories in Markdale, Ontario; Harbour Grace, Newfoundland; and in Asia Briggs, T. and Greb, C. E., The Greb Story, Kitchener: Grebco Holdings Ltd., 2008 Harry Douglas Greb (1916-1998) Harry Douglas Greb was born in Kitchener. For more than thirty years, he guided Greb Industries Limited, the family business founded by his father Erwin Greb in 1912. Greb began his career as a bookkeeper with the company in 1932. His father retired in 1940, and Harry took over active management of the company. He became President of the company in 1954, upon the death of his father. When he sold the company in 1975, it was the largest independent shoe company in Canada. Greb is credited as the first manufacturer in the Region to give his employees two weeks holiday with pay. He acquired plants in across Canada and in the USA. He developed the Kodiak Boot, was Canadian licensee for Hush Puppies, supplied footwear to the Ontario Provincial Police, farmers in Western Canada, and thousands of pairs of boots for the Canadian and British military. He was Director of Equitable Life Insurance Company for twenty-six years. He was a lifetime and active member of St. Peter's Lutheran Church, Kitchener. A man of great energy, Greb served ten years as Chairman of the Board of Waterloo Lutheran University. He was honoured with an LLD degree in 1971. He served as President of the Shoe Manufacturers of Canada, President of the Shoe Information Bureau, and President of the Shoe and Leather Council of Canada. Greb was a member of the Waterloo County Shrine Club, Mocha Temple for fifty-five years; Grand River and Scottish Rite Masonic Lodges for sixty-two years; Kitchener Rotary Club for fifty-five years; and ExOfficer of Sea Cadet Corps RCSCC Warspite - Kitchener. Greb married Dorothy Spain of Galt in 1938. They have one son, Douglas, a daughter Barbara, and nine grandchildren. Greb was an active sailor all his life and skippered five different vessels. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame http://waterlooregionmusewn.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees Paap 48n of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 4 Notes - Important individuals associated with the properties Charles E. Greb (1929-2009) Charles E. Greb was born in Kitchener. He started his business career with Greb Shoes Limited, a family company that grew into Canada's largest shoe manufacturing company by the time it was sold in 1976. Greb laterbecame CEO ofMusitron Communications which underhis presidency became part ofGrebco Holdings Ltd. He was also director and chairman of Skyjack Inc. of Guelph; director and chairman of Virtek Vision International Inc. of Waterloo; and managing partner of Woodside Fund, a California Venture Capital Partnership. Greb was a life member and former chairman of the National Council of YMCAs of Canada; a director for 50 years and President of the YMCA of Kitchener -Waterloo; an Honorary Life Member of the K -W Hospital Foundation; president of Kitchener Chamber of Commerce; a founding director and secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener & Waterloo; chairman of the Ontario Summer Games; a founding member and president of K -W Oktoberfest; vice-chairman of CAA Ontario; chairman of CAA Mid -Western Ontario; president of Junior Achievement of the Waterloo Region; chairman of Junior Achievement of Canada; founding chairman Rotary Community Resource Village; a member of the Board of Governors of St. Paul's College, University of Waterloo, and member of the Board of Regents of Luther College, University of Regina; chairman of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Board of Management; chairman of Kitchener Economic Development Board. He received many awards including Kitchener Citizen of the Year; Province of Ontario Bicentennial Medal; Ontario Volunteer Service gold award; Canada 125th Anniversary medal for contributions to Canada; Companion of the Fellowship of Honour YMCA Canada; Lou Buckley Award - K -W YMCA; and Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International for work with youth. Waterloo Region Hall of Fame hM2://waterlooregionmuseum.com/region-hall-of-fame/inductees Paap 481 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 5 Kaufman Lofts Construction Date(s) 1908/01/01 to 1925/01/01 Statement of Significance Description of Historic Place The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited is located at 410 King Street West, between Victoria and Francis Streets, in the City of Kitchener. The five -storey red and black brick, steel -frame building was designed by architect Albert Kahn and was constructed in stages between 1908 and 1925. The property was designated, for its historic and architectural value, by the City of Kitchener, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By-law 96-34). Heritage Value The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited was influential on Kitchener's industrial development. The Kaufman Rubber Company had a major impact on the local economy and has been the workplace of thousands of Kitchener's citizens over the years, often for successive generations. It has been a physical landmark in Kitchener for close to a century, dominating the intersection of King Street and Wilmot Street (now Victoria) and serving as a "gateway" to the downtown, as one approaches from Waterloo. The Kaufman's are one of Kitchener's most prominent families, well regarded for their business acumen, innovation, public service and philanthropy. The Kaufman Rubber Company Limited is an excellent example of early industrial modernist architecture and represents the work of one of the 20th century's greatest architects, Albert Kahn (1869-1942). Built over a period of 17 years, the building is representative of the evolving construction methods of the era and of the changes in industrial production, including the organization of work, greater attention to the welfare of the workforce and the dramatic growth of industries at the turn of the century. The Kaufman Footwear building is an example of the "Kahn System" of building which included reinforced concrete bars that provided support for uninterrupted floor space, along with increased fireproofing and natural lighting. Kahn's fagades were typically organized in a grid -like pattern as successive floor slabs were interfaced with the structure's exterior columns. The use of red brick on the fagade, at the spandrels, served to accentuate the grid structure, as did the inclusion of large steel sash windows. Together, the four building phases maintain a unity of style and scale. The massing of the 1908-1925 complex provides a powerful focus within Kitchener's downtown. It is uniquely significant architecturally and is representative of the history of industrial architecture in Canada. Sources: City of Kitchener By-law 96-34; Historic Buildings Inventory, Patti Shea, August 1989. Character -Defining Elements Character defining elements that contribute to the heritage value of the Kaufman Rubber Company Limited include its: - exposed concrete frame, window openings, cornice and dentil mouldings and porticos of the 1908 and 1911 building phases - primary leading roofline to the height of the 1908 and 1911 building frame - exposed concrete frame, brick and concrete block infill panels (spandrels) of the 1920 building phase - concrete lintels and sills of the 1920 building phase - glass and metal enclosed entranceway with closed transom of the 1920 building phase - limestone Doric columns of the 1920 building phase - window openings cornice and dentil mouldings, roof and roofline of the 1920 building phase - reception counter line of the northwest wall from the floor to the underside of the height of the existing wall opening of the 1920 building phase - exposed concrete frame and brick and concrete block infill panels (spandrels) of the 1925 building phase - window openings, cornice and dentil mouldings, roof and roofline of the 1925 building phase Paap 489 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 5 Kaufman Lofts elements of the entrance foyer of the 1920 building phase frieze with the inscription reading "Kaufman Rubber Co. Ltd." of the 1920 building phase siting at the gateway to the downtown from Waterloo Canada's Historic Places web site htlp://www.historicplaces.ca/en/home-accueil.aspx, accessed February 6, 2012 Paap 48'1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 6 Breithaupt Centre Cultural Heritage Resources and Statement of Cultural Heritage Value and Interest The buildings at 51 Breithaupt were built in a series of stages with architectural details that vary with the age of the buildings (Figure 1). The original building near the corner of Breithaupt Street and Waterloo Street is circa 1903 with additions, new buildings, and major renovations being made in 1908, 1909, 1912,1918,1929-30,1955,1966,1969,1999, 2000 and 2001. The significant cultural heritage resources consist of the 1903 through 1918 buildings. With respect to cultural heritage value and interest, the property at 51 Breithaupt Street is representative of the founding and progression of the industrial age in the City of Kitchener, with the earliest building dating from 1903 and the latest addition of 2001. The Merchants Rubber Company and its successors occupied the buildings from 1903 to 1981, employing many local residents over its 78 year history. Prominent Kitchener citizens Jacob Kaufman, Talmon Henry Rieder, and George Schlee, all Waterloo Region Hall ofFame members, have been associated with the property. Breithaupt Street IL - q, Building Na. 3 6 _ 4 +� (Building E) 13 Building No. 4 - I L ' F (Building D)I BuiI ling No. 3 Figure 1 Heritage Attributes Building No. 1 (Building G)- 1908 • buff ("white") brick • concrete pilasters • brick lintels & concrete sills • 6/6 double hung windows • concrete post, concrete beam construction Building No. 2 (Building F) - 1909 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters • concrete lintels & sills L f V Building No. 2 (Building F) O Building No. 1 Z (Building G) i Buildings with Heritage Attributes at 51 Breithaupt Street Paap 484 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 6 Breithaupt Centre • 6/6 double hung windows (front) • steel framed multi -pane industrial windows (rear) • stair/elevator tower at rear • steel framed, brick bearing wall construction designed to carry heavy loads Buildings No. 3 & 4 (Buildings D & E) - 1903 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters, frieze & east facade arches • concrete lintels & sills • 6/6 double hung windows • wood post & beam construction - steel post & beam, brick bearing wall construction • vertical steel tank at rear Building No. 6 (Building C) - 1918 • buff ("white") brick • brick pilasters & cornice with central tower • concrete lintels & sills • 6/6 double hung windows with 3 light transom • date stone (1918) • wood post & beam construction, brick bearing wall, designed to carry heavy loads' ' Conservation Plan, 51 Breithaupt Street, Kitchener, ON, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., February 2011 Paap 485 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street from Citv of Kitchener files - information compiled 1984 - 1985: N.AMF: t3. Fiibner NurnittirajElectro'r:ome ADDRESS: 283 Duke St. W. PROPERTY DATA PLAN: 376 LOT: of 213-214, 215-220, 34 Sts & Lne ASSESSMENT ROLL: 010-004-075 ZONING: LI SITE AREA: 1.76 Ac. FRONTAGE: 164.80 DATE OF CONSTRUCTION; 1596 CURRENT OWNER 1985: Boehmer Paperboard Sales Corp., P.O. Box 845, 460 Belmont 5t. W., Kitchener PREVIOUS OWNERS: 1) The D. Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd (1889-1920) 2) Nalcol.m & bill Ltd. (1920-1933) 3) Dominion Electrahome Ltd. (1936-1979) THREATS TO .BUILDING: none known RECOMMENDATIONS: Immediate designation on account of the building's age and historical significance ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: BUILDING MATERIALS: off-white brick FOUNDATION: STOREYS.- 3 WINDOWS: double --hung rectangular 6 -over -6, 2 separated per bay BAY WIDTH FACADE- 10 (facing Duke St.) SIDE 20 (facing Breithaupt) ROOF: flat and slightly sloping ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS: ARCg i TECTURAL IMPORTANCE COMMENTS: - rhythm achieved through repeating windows - only slight brick detailing.urider eaves - shallow buttressing - entrance marked by simple protruding block of building Paap 48R of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street TITLg SEAIai iIm Inst .# date Grantor to Grantee Details 3 & S 8564 1883 5crs &Grid. of G. Davidscn to Daniel 0.8 Ac. - lots 217-2210 Hibner & Ida M. DDolittle Mtge 6585 1899 Daniel S. Hibner et ux & Ida Doolittle $7500. - Lots 217-220 at mar to Canada Perm. L. & S. Cb. X Beed 9932 1892 Ida M. Doolittle to Salon L. Doolittle - lots 217-220 8 & S 14703 1894 Solon L_ Doolittle st ux to Daniel Hitner - lots 217-220 Mtge 10703 1894 Daniel Milner, wid. to Can. Perm. Loan & $8DD0. - lots 217-220 saving Co. Mtge 14712 1894 Daniel Hibner wrid. toSalon L. Doolittle $4000. less $1000. to be e paid -- lots 217-220 Mtge 13066 ie97 Daniel Hibner et ux to Cosi. Perm. 10an c1000- - lots 217-220 & G'Avirtg Ch. Mtge 13113 1897 Daniel Hibner at ux to Jaocb Kaufman $4000. - lots 217-220 3 & S 14619 19DO George Schlee at Ux to Daniel Hih-ler $315. - pt lots 213-214 a & 5 14655 1900 Lu-34ig Kerbitz et trr to Daniel Hibner $100. - Pt Tot 215 3 & S 15492 1941 Anthony Lisewski et ux to Daniel ?Ubner $1300. - lot 216 3 & S 15658 1902 Ludwig K bitx et ax to Daniel Hikner $1,[100. - lot 215 Mtge 15763 1902 Daniel Hibner et ux to M.C. 4berholtzer, $2000. - lots 21.5--216 P.S. iautensehiager & E.P. Clement, Pars of Gleason V. Ober"holtzer 'Mtge 16835 1903 Daniel iiibner et ux to The CwwAa Perm. $15D00. - lots 217-220 Mortgage Corp. - machinery, plant, etc. Mtge 17743 1904 D. Hibner et sac to Mie Canada Perm. $21000. -- pt lata 213-214 Mortgage Torp. - lots 215-215 ctrl mach. B & s 22596 1907 D. Hibner et UX two The D. Hilder $53544. - pt lots 213-214 Furniture Co. Ltd. - lots 215-220 Mtge 26708 1911 The D. Hibner Farn. [b. to The $29000. - pt lets 213-214 - lots 215-220 & Mach etc Mtge 2$549 1912 The D. Hibner Nrn. Co. Ltd. & D. Hibner $8000. - pt lots 213-`o to The Manufacturers Life Ins. Cb. - lots 215-220 & Mach. Mtge 39222 1915 The D. Hibner FLrn. Co. Ltd. to 'live premises + $1.00 - pt Merciants Bank of Canada lots 213-214.1ts 215-724 3 & S 41703 1420 The D. Hibner Furn. Co. Ltd. to Malcolm & $1.00 - pt lots 213-214 Mill Ltd. - lots 215-220 + plant + mach. Mtge 59426 1927 Malcolm & M11 Ltd. to The Manuf. Life $25000. - pt lots 213-214 Ins . OD. - its 215-220 +pl.ant4%ach Pcant 69556 1933 Geoffrey T. Clarkson, Trustee of Ma1001m - mtge + $25.00 - pt its & Hill Ltd. to H. & S. Pntenberg & W. 213--214 - leas 215-220 - Agraenve r plant. etc. C.U.F. 72141 1936 Marmfacturers Life Ins. Cb. to Dominion •- pt lots 213-214, - lots sale Hlectrubume Indus. Ltd. 215-220, plant&macb. eta. Mtge 72142 1936 Dominica Electrchome Ind. Ltd. to $24540. - pt lots 213-114 Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. lots 215-220, plant mach. etc. !Mtge 89423 194$ Dominion Electrctcne Ind. Ltd. to Montreal bonds - pt lots 213-214 TXast Cb. - lots 215-220 Paap 487 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street e Ana%.# Dale Grantor to Grantee Details Trost 171586 1958 Dominion Eiectrohome Ind. Ltd. to The - pt lots 213-214 Deed Waterloo Trust & Savings Co. - lots 215-220 Iew 307091 1965 Dmi:nicn Eleotrohome Ind. Ltd. to The Deed of Trust & Mortgage T.M. Waterloo Trust & Savings Co. - bonds - pt lots 213-214 - lots 215-220 [deed 471365 1972 Electroho-ae Ltd. to The Canada Trust Co. $1.00 - pt lets 213-214 T.M. - lots 215-220 Deb. 617644 1977 Electrohome Ltd. to The Royal ,Bank of $25,000,000• - pt lots Canada 213-214 - lots 215-220 Mtge 651163 1979 Boelmer Paperboard Sales Corp. to $330.000. - pt lots 213- Eiectrohom Ltd. 214 - lots 215-220 Grant 651164 1979 Electrohiome Ltd. to Boehmer Paperboard $2.00 - pt lots 213-214 Sales Cbrp. - lots 215-220 �'ieCt"S 741765 1983 Roy Sepaul How Alterations Ltd. vs $5035. - pt lots 213-214 Lien 2odmer Paperboard Sales Cbrp. Homer - lots 215-220 l;ax Corp. HISMRICAL INFOWATICK% Daniel Hibner founded his first factory in 1889. He later became a mayor (picture Uttley, 1937: 217) - picture of the D. Hibner Furnitrue Co. in "Berlin: A Celebration of Cityhood" - in 1892, and addition to the D. Hither furniture factory was granted an exemption from taxes for 10 years - in 18%, the new D. Hibner factory about to be rebuilt (it had burned darn) was exezpted from taxes for eight years, provided that not less than 50 hands were employed and a $5000 bonus was granted to the D. Hibiner factory destroyed by fire - it is possible that the factory was established before 1889 as in August 1889, the first factory is described "a commodious three-storey and basement, 100x100 feet, white brick mises...fitted up as it is with new and improved machinery" - the second factory seems to '[,,mre been constructed in a very similar form to the first - c,lectrohome Ltd. was founded in 1907 by Arthur Cbllock - pioneered in hornless phonographs, radia and television in Canada - manufactured elegant wood cabinetry for these items - also manufactured hundreds of custom motor designs - in 1936, most Electroho®e operations were located in the Duke 5t. building - Boehmer Paperboard Sales occupies only a small 1 -Art of the building, with approximately 30 small businesses occupying the rest of the building North ifaterloo Registry Office - �7lglfsh & McLa hlin Kitchener: An Illustrated Hi �- Berlin: A Celebrati-on o C tyb=d 1912 - WN. Uttley, A History of Kitchener 1937. 213,217 . Diane Kolar tsch, �lcaalm Horne np= or �: Aug . ,134, fell--M&r f 85 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. 1983: 239, 239 Paap 488 of 732 Revised November 2.2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street From Roll Back The Years, by Edward Moogk, National Library of Canada, 1975: The PollockManufacturing Company ofBerlin, Ontario (the city patriotically changing its name to Kitchener in 1916) was manufacturing talking machines labeled Phonola' before June 1914 when they began importingFonotopia, Odeon andJumbo records. Records would later beproduced under the Phonola label. In 1915 they began constructing speakers "based on the principle of the pipe organ... The series of chambers employed were in varied sizes determined by scientific calculation. The new Phonola model... [was] called the Organola.... In the Fall of 1919, the General Phonograph Corporation ofNew York...purchasedPollock's phonograph factory in Kitchener. Arthur B. Pollock was to remain manager of the factory...In August, 1925, the Phonola Company of Canada, Elmira, began to manufacture the Grimes receiving sets for the Canadian Trade. " 2 The following is an excerpt from Radios of Canada by Lloyd Swackhammer: Grimes Radio Corporation Limited I Grimes Batteryless Manufacturing Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. The first radios were the Inverse Duplex line (or brand?). Manufacture began on the top floor at the Victoria Street address in Kitchener in June of 1925. In September 1925, they began manufacturing cabinets and installing the chassis, which was still being made on Victoria Street, into the cabinets in Elmira. At this time they changed the name to the Phonola Company of Canada. In the Fall of 1928 they moved to Breithaupt Street in Kitchener. The name was again changed, this time to Dominion Electrohome Company Limited and is presently Electrohome Industries Limited. Dominion Electrohome later moved to the old Malcolm and Hill Furniture factory on Duke Street in Kitchener; a company dating back to the early days of radios, when they made cabinets for the Atwater Kent Company in Canada. "Electrohome " was the brand name that appeared in the 1946-47 model year on their own tube radios. It had been used for some time on their home appliances. Electrohome was a company that made radios for many other companies, as well as for their own dealers. This brought many brand names into being in the radio industry. The "Viking" was made for Eatons, "Serenader " for Simpsons, "Dictator" for the Hudson Bay Company, 'Arcadia " for McLeod in the West, "Munro" in the Maritimes, and many more. There were also brands of radios made for distributors and retailers whose names have unfortunately been lost in the passage of time.' Carl Arthur Pollock, OC (1903 August 16, 1978) was a Canadian businessman. Born in Kitchener, Ontario, graduatedfrom the University of Toronto in electrical engineering. A scholarship from the Massey Foundation financed two years at Oxford University, England. At university he showed exceptional talent in track and rowing. He taught for a short time at the University of Toronto, but his father's (Arthur Pollock) illness led him to choose a career in business and industry at Electrohome in Kitchener, employing 3,100. Pollock joined the firm and was president for many years. He was also the founder of several media outlets in Kitchener, 2 The Canadian Antique Phonograph Project, http://keithwright.ca/CAPP/Phonola/uhonola.htinl, accessed February 7, 2012 on-line Radio Museum, htti)://www.radiomuseum.org/dsi) hersteller detail.cfin?company accessed February 7, 2012 Paap 48c) of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 7 283 Duke Street including CKKW, CFCA and CKCO. Pollock was a member of the National Design Council and in 1963 he became president of the Canadian Manufactures'Association. He was convinced that Canadian technology and industry would take no second place. His own firm led in introducing several firsts in the electronics field. In 1975, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada `for his many services to industry, particularly in the field of electronics and for a variety of community activities. " He was a founder of the University of Waterloo, chairperson of the board ofgovernors for eleven years and chancellor from 1975 to 1978. He was a founder of the Stratford Festival of Canada and supported musical groups, including the Kitchener -Waterloo Symphony Orchestra.' 1.73« Po77ock, ho"d r:f rhe pollcck :ti;ulr fucarrrirsy 0'. 1.1d., Berlilr, 0,jlmio, 1914 Arthur Pollock, 1914 curl A. Pollack, 1926. He beewne pmidenr and chaerm&& of the heard of E1erlrohome Lid. Carl Pollock, 1926 ' Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, httn://en.wikil)edia.org/wiki/Carl Pollock accessed February 7, 2012 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors OWEN R. SCOTT, OALA, FCSLA, CAHP Education: Master of Landscape Architecture (M.L.A.) University of Michigan, 1967 Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Landscape Horticulture), (B.S.A.) University of Guelph, 1965 Professional Experience: 1977 - present President, The Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Guelph, Ontario 1965 - present President, Canadian Horticultural Consulting Company Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1977 - 1985 Director, The Pacific Landplan Collaborative Ltd., Vancouver and Nanaimo, BC 1975 - 1981 Editor and Publisher, Landscape Architecture Canada, Ariss, Ontario 1969 - 1981 Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture, University of Guelph 1975 - 1979 Director and Founding Principal, Ecological Services for Planning Limited, Guelph, Ontario 1964 - 1969 Landscape Architect, Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto, Ontario Historical Research, Heritage Landscape Planning and Restoration Experience and Expertise Current Professional Heritage Associations Affiliations: Member: Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation Member: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Member: Association for Preservation Technology Member: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Community and Professional Society Service (Heritage): Director: Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), 2002-2003 Member: Advisory Board, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, (ACO) 1980-2002 Member: City of Guelph Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), 1987-2000 (Chairman 1988-1990) Member: Advisory Council, Centre for Canadian Historical Horticultural Studies, 1985-1988 Personal and Professional Honours and Awards (Heritage): National Award 2009 Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award of Merit 2009 Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Awards, Alton Mill, Alton, ON Award 2001 Ontario Heritage Foundation Certificate of Achievement Award 1998 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (10 year award) Award 1994 Province of Ontario, Volunteer Award (5 year award) Regional Merit 1990 Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA), Britannia School Farm Master Plan National Honour 1990 CSLA Awards, Confederation Boulevard, Ottawa Citation 1989 City of Mississauga Urban Design Awards, Britannia School Farm Master Plan Honour Award 1987 Canadian Architect, Langdon Hall Landscape Restoration, Cambridge, ON Citation 1986 Progressive Architecture, The Ceremonial Routes (Confederation Boulevard), Ottawa, National Citation 1985 CSLA Awards, Tipperary Creek Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, Saskatoon, SK National Merit 1984 CSLA Awards, St. James Park Victorian Garden, Toronto, ON Award 1982 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ontario Renews Awards, Millside, Guelph, ON Selected Heritage Publications (Heritage): Scott, Owen R., The Southern Ontario "Grid", ACORN Vol XXVI-3, Summer 2001. The Journal of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. Scott, Owen R. 19th Century Gardens for the 20 `y' and 21 " Centuries. Proceedings of "Conserving Ontario's Landscapes" conference of the ACO, (April 1997). Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc., Toronto, 1998. Scott, Owen R. Landscapes of Memories, A Guide for Conserving Historic Cemeteries. (19 of 30 chapters) compiled and edited by Tamara Anson-Cartright, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, 1997. Scott, Owen R. Cemeteries: A Historical Perspective, Newsletter, The Memorial Society of Guelph, September 1993. Paap 4P1 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors Scott, Owen R. The Sound of the Double -bladed Axe, Guelph and its Spring Festival. edited by Gloria Dent and Leonard Conolly, The Edward Johnson Music Foundation, Guelph, 1992. 2 pp. Scott, Owen R. Woolwich Street Corridor, Guelph, ACORN Vol XVI -2, Fall 1991. Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. guest editor, ACORN, Vol. XIV -2, Summer 1989. Cultural Landscape Issue, Newsletter of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Inc. Scott, Owen R. Cultivars, pavers and the historic landscape, Historic Sites Supplies Handbook. Ontario Museum Association, Toronto, 1989. 9 pp. Scott, OwenR. Landscape preservation- What is it? Newsletter, American Society of Landscape Architects - Ontario Chapter, vol. 4 no.3, 1987. Scott, Owen R. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Landscape Architectural Review, May 1986. pp. 5-9. Scott, Owen R. Victorian Landscape Gardening. Ontario Bicentennial History Conference, McMaster University, 1984. Scott,OwenR. Canada West Landscapes. Fifth Annual Proceedings Niagara Peninsula History Conference(1983). 1983. 22 pp. Scott, Owen R. Utilizing History to Establish Cultural and Physical Identity in the Rural Landscape. Landscape Planning, Elsevier Scientific Press, Amsterdam, 1979. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 179-203. Scott, Owen R. Changing Rural Landscape in Southern Ontario. Third Annual Proceedings Agricultural History of Ontario Seminar (1978). June 1979. 20 pp. Scott, Owen R., P. Grimwood, M. Watson. George Laing - Landscape Gardener, Hamilton, Canada West 1808-1871. Bulletin, The Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1977, 13 pp. (also published in Landscape Architecture Canada, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1978). Scott, Owen R. The Evaluation of the Upper Canadian Landscape. Department ofLandscape Architecture, University of Manitoba. 1978. (Colour videotape). Following is a representative listing of some of the many heritage landscape projects undertaken by Owen R. Scott in his capacity as a landscape architect with Proj ect Planning Associates Ltd., as principal of Owen R. Scott & Associates Limited, and as principal of The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. o Acton Quarry Cultural Heritage Landscape & Built Heritage Study & Assessment Peer Review, Acton, ON o Alton Mill Landscape, Caledon, ON o Belvedere Terrace - Peer Review, Assessment of Proposals for Heritage Property, Parry Sound, ON o Black Creek Pioneer Village Master Plan, Toronto, ON o Britannia School Farm Master Plan, Peel Board of Education/Mississauga, ON • Confederation Boulevard (Sussex Drive) Urban Design, Site Plans, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Doon Heritage Crossroads Master Plan and Site Plans, Region of Waterloo/Kitchener, ON o Downtown Guelph Private Realm Improvements Manual, City of Guelph, ON o Downtown Guelph Public Realm Plan, City of Guelph, ON o Dundurn Castle Landscape Restoration Feasibility Study, City of Hamilton, ON o Elam Martin Heritage Farmstead Master Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Exhibition Park Master Plan, City of Guelph, ON • George Brown House Landscape Restoration, Toronto, ON • Government of Ontario Light Rail Transit Route Selection, Cultural and Natural Resources Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Hamilton/Burlington, ON o Grand River Corridor Conservation Plan, GRCA/Regional Municipality of Waterloo, ON o Hespeler West Secondary Plan - Heritage Resources Assessment, City of Cambridge, ON • John Galt Park, City of Guelph, ON • Judy LaMarsh Memorial Park Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON o Lakewood Golf Course Cultural Landscape Assessment, Tecumseh, ON o Landfill Site Selection, Cultural Heritage Inventory for Environmental Assessment, Region of Halton, ON o Langdon Hall Gardens Restoration and Site Plans, Cambridge, ON o MacGregor/Albert Heritage Conservation District Study and Plan, City of Waterloo, ON o Museum of Natural Science/Magnet School 59/ Landscape Restoration and Site Plans, City of Buffalo, NY o Muskoka Pioneer Village Master Plan, MNR/Huntsville, ON o Peel Heritage Centre Adaptive Re -use, Landscape Design, Brampton, ON o Phyllis Rawlinson Park Master Plan (winning design competition), Town of Richmond Hill, ON Paap 4P9 of 732 The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. Revised November 2, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors o Prime Ministerial Precinct and Rideau Hall Master Plan, NCC/Ottawa, ON • Queen/Picton Streets Streetscape Plans, Town of Niagara -on -the -Lake, ON o Regional Heritage Centre Feasibility Study and Site Selection, Region of Waterloo, ON o Rockway Gardens Master Plan, Kitchener Horticultural Society/City of Kitchener, ON • South Kitchener Transportation Study, Heritage Resources Assessment, Region of Waterloo, ON • St. George's Square, City of Guelph, ON • St. James Park Victorian Garden, City of Toronto, ON o Tipperary Creek (Wanuskewin) Heritage Conservation Area Master Plan, MVA/Saskatoon, SK • University of Toronto Heritage Conservation District Study, City of Toronto, ON • Waterloo Valleylands Study, Heritage and Recreational Resources mapping and policies, Region of Waterloo • Woodside National Historic Park Landscape Restoration, Parks Canada/Kitchener, ON 0 255 Geddes Street, Elora, ON, heritage opinion evidence - Ontario Superior Court of Justice Heritage Impact Assessments, Heritage Impact Statements and Heritage Conservation Plans: o Barra Castle Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o Biltmore Hat Factory Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 140 Blue Heron Ridge Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 51 Breithaupt Street Heritage Conservation Plan, Kitchener, ON Cambridge Retirement Complex on the former Tiger Brand Lands, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 27-31 Cambridge Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON 0 3075 Cawthra Road Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON City Centre Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 175 Cityview Drive Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON Cordingly House Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 264 Crawley Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 31-43 David Street (25 Joseph Street) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 35 David Street (Phase 11) Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON Grey Silo Golf Course/Elam Martin Farmstead Heritage Impact Assessment, City of Waterloo, ON GRCA Lands, 748 Zeller Drive Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum Kitchener, ON o Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital Conservation Plan, for Infrastructure Ontario, Hamilton, ON o Hancock Woodlands Cultural Heritage Assessment and Heritage Impact Statement, City of Mississauga, ON 0 117 Liverpool Street Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 30 - 40 Margaret Avenue Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 1245 Mona Road, Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON 0 324 Old Huron Road Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON 0 40 Queen Street South Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, (Streetsville), ON o Rockway Holdings Limited Lands north of Fairway Road Extension Heritage Impact Assessment, Kitchener, ON o Thorny -Brae Heritage Impact Statement, Mississauga, ON University of Guelph, Trent Institute Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment„ Guelph, ON University of Guelph, 1 and 10 Trent Lane Cultural Heritage Resource Assessments, Guelph, ON University of Guelph, Gordon Street Houses, Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON 0 927 Victoria Road South Heritage Impact Assessment, Guelph, ON o Winzen Developments Heritage Impact Assessment, Cambridge, ON Expert Witness Experience (Heritage): Owen R. Scott has been called as an expert witness at a number of trials and hearings. These include Ontario Municipal Board Hearings, civil and criminal trials, Conservation Review Board Hearings, and Environmental Assessment Board and Environmental Protection Act Board Hearings. The heritage landscapes evidence he has presented has been related to cultural heritage issues where historical and landscape resources were evaluated. Pa e 493 of 732 November 22, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors JOHN MacDONALD, B.Arch., OAA, RAIC Born in 1959 in Elliot Lake, Canada, John received his early education in Northern Ontario. He attended the University of Waterloo School of Architecture from 1978, graduating Dean's Honour List in 1985. John has gathered considerable expertise and a broad range of experience in over 25 years of work in the industry, both in Canada and abroad. Since 1988 John has lived and contributed to the Kitchener -Waterloo community through public service and as a senior project architect with a local firm. Since the founding of his own practice in 1995, John has stood personally behind the firm's high level of client service. Architectural Registration Requirements, completed 1992 University of Waterloo, Dean's Honour List, B. Arch., 1985 University of Waterloo, B.E.S., 1982 Member of Ontario Association of Architects Member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Education Ontario Association of Architects, Good Design is Good Business Award of Excellence, 2005 Major Awards First Place, Innovation Award, Airport Management Conference of Ontario, 2004 City of Kitchener Provincial Nominee, Community Service Award, 1996 University of Waterloo, American Institute of Architects Gold Medal, 1985 University of Waterloo, Lieutenant Governor General of Ontario Medal, 1985 Calgary Municipal Building Competition, Merit Award (with D. McConnell Architect), 1981 Adjunct Lecturer, Urban Design, University of Waterloo School of Urban and Academic Work Regional Planning, 1992 Assistant, Design, Carleton University School of Architecture, Rome Program, 1986 Architectural and Urban Design Specific Project Leadership and Client Facilitation Expertise Co-ordination of Project Teams Construction Contract Administration and Project Management Liaison with Government Authorities and Project Approvals Technical and Cost Evaluation for all Phases of Project Development Urban Issues Columnist, Business Times, 2006 -present Public Service Mayor's Task Force, Downtown Revitalisation & Renewal, City of Kitchener, 1995 Founding Organiser, Festival of Neighbourhoods, City of Kitchener, 1994 -present Select Soccer Co-ordinator, Kitchener Youth Soccer, 2003/04 The Common Place, Kitchener Downtown Bus. Assoc. newspaper, 1994/95 Chair, Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association, City of Kitchener, 1994/95/96 Adaptive Re -use of Industrial Buildings Committee, City of Kitchener, 1993-98 Professional Official Plan and Zoning Review Study Panel, City of Kitchener, 1992 Experience Principal, John MacDonald Architect me., Kitchener from 1995 Project Architect, Joe Somfay Architect Inc., Waterloo 1998 to 1995 Junior Architect, Arthur Erickson Architect, Toronto 1998 Junior Architect, Garwood -Jones and Van Nostrand Architects, Toronto 1997 to 1998 Job Captain, Junior Designer, Mathers and Haldenby Architects, Toronto 1986 Designer, Faresin Associati, Vicenza, Italy 1983 to 1986 Junior Designer, Inskip & Rybczinkski Architects, London, U.K. 1983 Pa e 494 of 732 November 22, 2012 Appendix 8 Qualifications of the Authors Project Experience Harry Class Community Pool Renovation, Kitchener Institutional Niagara Region Recycling Centre 2010 Green Retrofit, Niagara Falls Butcher Shop Alterations, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Niagara Region Recycling Centre 2009 Green Retrofit, Niagara Falls Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Outbound Expansion, Breslau Region of Waterloo Materials Recycling Centre Expansion, Waterloo Region of Waterloo Mannheim Water Division Operation Centre (LEED Silver), Kitchener Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Inbound Addition, Breslau Region of Waterloo International Airport Terminal Building, Breslau *** Blacksmith Shop, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Regional Curatorial Centre, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener ** Region of Waterloo 99 Regina St S, Interior Signage, Waterloo Region of Waterloo 150 Main Street, Interior Signage, Cambridge Accessibility Changes & Hall of Fame Entrance, Doon Heritage Crossroads, Kitchener Kitchener Downtown Community Health Centre, Renovation, Kitchener Zion United Church, Fire Code Upgrade, Kitchener Independent Living Centre of Waterloo Region, Tenant Upgrades, Kitchener Commercial Peter Martin's 20 King Restaurant, Kitchener T. T Supermarket Expansion and Renovation, Hamilton Iglesia Bautista Nueva Jerusal6n, Kitchener Vault Restaurant & Lounge, Waterloo Williams Coffee Pub, 18 locations across Ontario The Strand Restaurant/Pub, Kitchener 141 Whitney Place Renovation, Kitchener Minit Canada, Personally Yours, 30 locations across Canada Minit Canada, Things Engraved stores and kiosks, 36 locations across Canada Minit Canada, House of Knives Stores, 14 locations across Canada Minit Canada, Sears kiosks, 9 locations across Canada Rosen & Associates, Office Renovations, Toronto Just Between Us Clothing and Gifts, Kitchener Chalmers Street School Staff/Work Room Renovation, Cambridge Educational Bluevale Collegiate Institute, Fire Code Upgrade, Waterloo Bluevale Collegiate Institute, Port -a -Pak Addition, Waterloo Bluevale Collegiate Institute, High School Science Lab, Waterloo New Academic Building, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ** Chemistry 1 Addition, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ** Cambridge Children's Centre Renovation and Expansion, Cambridge Child Care Conestoga College Child Care & Early Childhood Education Training Facility, Waterloo** Waterloo Infant -Toddler Daycare, Waterloo ** Minit Canada Distribution Centre and Offices, Kitchener Industrial City of Guelph, Wet/Dry Recycling Facility, Guelph ** Smart Choice Building Project Opportunities Analysis, Ottawa Other Studies 127 Victoria St. S. Building Project Opportunities Analysis, Kitchener Needs Assessment Study, Independent Living Centre of Waterloo, Waterloo Goudies Centre Feasibility Study, Kitchener Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union Building, Design Study ** King Street Reconstruction, Streetscape Lighting Design, Kitchener Urban Design Quinte West Urban Design Gridlines, Quinte West and Lighting Kitchener Downtown Lighting Study, 1995 Lighting Design Implementation Projects., Kitchener, 1995- present, City of Kitchener City of Guelph City Hall and Spectator Ice Facility Study, Guelph ** Page 495 of 732 ** with Joe Somfay Architect Inc. ***in joint venture with ZAS Architects November 2, 2012 Pa 0 am cc 00 0 0 L6 cc 0 0 N G� 0 U) 10 OLU ccr LU LUC, 0 U) 0 U) cc M 0- U) —FE LU % < Do cl� 0 2 '.X Lu U) 00 CD 0 T. —M. R-s— Ms' M R K oY o H.- A.- H '02H a A 0 W- do Ins P UN— an Munn 0o a==a� ... .... . . �"M —N ED— as eo= np-ng. N, 0' lV-lOC-CZZCC Nv�d uo xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa nor e"oU s�>a — wi,taa "Ne�sxe oa�w,a — wa o:c — szoa e 0' ZV-l0£-£ZZ££ --------------------- -I�z______ J ��__II�_a___-------rye - - n�w�am» - __--- --S .____________.� ZS ----------ZS------- tis___________ � ejb d� eJ� eJ� II (ejb (e b rejo rejo SII I I - - III o G II _ II _ II I II -- III11 _ - II III - IIb, b,�O ! O Pa 1I� � Q O Y F z Qcc O�u�o _ J w o u a LLcc Z w w H W W - - OW Ccc LU _ Q w O y F O G Q w O CkfO _ - ��yV)Q - ®� Z w Z O w F -- LL, y w O O JO li w W Ch D k�I --------------------- -I�z______ J ��__II�_a___-------rye - - n�w�am» - __--- --S .____________.� ZS ----------ZS------- tis___________ � ejb d� eJ� eJ� II (ejb (e b rejo rejo SII I I - - III o G II _ II _ II I II -- III11 _ - II III - IIb, b,�O ! 11 I it J I I I I uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa 1I� - _ 11 I it J I I I I uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa I (\wwwwawwwww99K2wwww-------------- � { \ ƒ\\/ _ \/\ \ S� - �'\�^� ( HM cc L,$oc L0^ . . } } 2 202 ■LL, x }::: (\wwwwawwwww99K2wwww-------------- � { \ ƒ\\/ _ \/\ \ S� - �'\�^� ( HM ra I� 'W______ (sib III�I I z o uiJ Qo III ¢z Q CC N J w LLJ LLGpN n Z W W L0WCaD '' III �� �J �� Ll Wo Q OO w zF N—Lu—V6 ILQ ®� QIP o O F0 WNa 2 •,�o<m me rye w 0O O CD w LU d C W ra I� 'W______ (sib III�I I III II II I� III ILQ m� _;I _ � � _ - 50� •,�o<m me rye � ,Ya °a�"a r tizb _ tizb�m"�wio'- b r ���ao ba'ao ° ''sJ ��aoti , n o, �� ��ao n. 3� -- ,��o W � ti 3� 9'`6•s�, r -i ° � o Jg n , �Y uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa ag„ I sNv�d uo xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa LL O O G cc O p z L,Ccoc C WICW Dg U) FOG yGWQ ®� v c Sy a u a w sNv�d uo xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa LL O O G sNv�a �o — acs�io,���,�sVroc\�zacsVapa xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa �N F a W J W F N S -Ho W Y cc LLcON z g z u)M n z Lwi - y€ LLI WNZD Q =o:� 7a0G ')w w N�u) Q o sNv�a �o — acs�io,���,�sVroc\�zacsVapa xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa �N F a W J W F N W 3 �- sNv�a �o — acs�io,���,�sVroc\�zacsVapa xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa Q mew—'W— sNv�a �o - acs�io,���,�sVroc\�zacsVapa xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa S -Ho W z Y M cc cONLLI z u)g LLo - y€ WNZD Q =o:� 7a0G ')w w N�u) Q o Q mew—'W— sNv�a �o - acs�io,���,�sVroc\�zacsVapa xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa 0' 7V-10C-CZZCC 6E 2 :Vd - 0 ccLu cc, LU CDl L6 LLI cc C4 0 ccr MY Ci D E LLI 0 It 0 cc U) 0 M n CR Lu LLI E ®� W U) < 10 0' 7V-10C-CZZCC 6E 2 :Vd - 0 LU CDl 0' 7V-10C-CZZCC iI 0 MY 0 CR 0' 7V-10C-CZZCC I -e . . .. . . 0 MY 0 CR U) < 10 zo0 0 CD I -e . . .. . . 0 MY I -e . . .. . . 0 x x I -e . . .. . . ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ cc� �$0 . L0^.}} 2 202 ■LL, : - _- ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ------------ ------------------------------ ll� - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- -�- ------------ ----------------- ----------------------------- LU cc — 0� 9cq L"c cq LLI LLI,j ccr u) 0 cc j n Ld ®� LL, W ----------- ------------ ------------------------------ ll� - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------- -�- ------------ ----------------- ----------------------------- 0 W ----------- -------------- ------------- ------ --------- < 0 0 CD w W ----------- -------------- ------------- ------ --------- s 2 El L j L j ,F - - - - - - ... AEo —ter - ------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - --- -------------------J ------------------------------------ I II L Iv IP -1 L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F - -------------------- ----------- L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o J F � `�Pa o J o� cc r z oY wz w LLGpC4 n z 'L w Q OLU ckf LU cc Q w z w0 y�yVjQ z w O ag400 LL, u, O JO e V CD w O I II '�----------- o I I I I I I I I I �ti� ry 3a I I I tm w>3e �I 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I � III II <I <I <I <I al <I <I jai I — I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I �II I I r I I I ( I I I ( I I I r I I I r ml I ,__ ima �w3ai i --ii"iH�i �I � 0 9 � i li li li li li li li li li li li li li - I� III �� ml ,I mr ml ,I ml ml ,I ml ml ,I ml ml ,u - -- _- ---Baa-wva -- w- _ FII li li - _ lu mli mlii mlimli mli mli mlii mli mli mli mli mlili �o oo�w.w It—$mmac�w gib, — J w lio I —,= ° o= II, I;—w mll� mll mill` I I I �li I I I ' i� I li o . I a I I I - c=,ary-- miry»a mli �o im- ml no ml ml:o I w II II mmw �m •o �� w=b el m�a�l �I el - - a mw ml ��e ml ml ml � m w w w w w 3e . �a3a ..3e 3e 3 ---------------- 1�______JJi uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa WWI jj -------- - -xi -------�- ���o -1 -- — IIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ill o= li li li li li li li li li li li li I I I I I I I I I I I I I mull Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali i 0 _ .3a �__c� �a _ __ �-- I I _ cm I li � O mi �3a O tai �3e — I m m m m m m m m m m O, - "e€-�a�-rv+3a--��,'--- -�ti> Asa-- �� ��,'--- -gym Oa � -'lh� m ------------------ 3a-- �� -y--- Oiai w -,3e __-�,�� ti I e ��Oew die =E.E mm W, I I I I I fi�I `O� I I I I i I el I I el Ili - -- (al rme i (e)m i 'I'i'0 �w1 ya I�� ml mll ml ml I G� I I I VIII I I I I I L b b b q, mpy �m szs-jos-szzss °N311f,.w � O M. W �O x F a oz ap -- SQQ owGo z �—' J w o < LLGON z L` W d =QccrLLI 11Q I, W U' Z O OG - O w 0 W z0 W U) Q Ckf —GWQ00 ®� 0 FS 2y w CD Ockf O w Ch w 0 WWI jj -------- - -xi -------�- ���o -1 -- — IIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ill o= li li li li li li li li li li li li I I I I I I I I I I I I I mull Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali i 0 _ .3a �__c� �a _ __ �-- I I _ cm I li � O mi �3a O tai �3e — I m m m m m m m m m m O, - "e€-�a�-rv+3a--��,'--- -�ti> Asa-- �� ��,'--- -gym Oa � -'lh� m ------------------ 3a-- �� -y--- Oiai w -,3e __-�,�� ti I e ��Oew die =E.E mm W, I I I I I fi�I `O� I I I I i I el I I el Ili - -- (al rme i (e)m i 'I'i'0 �w1 ya I�� ml mll ml ml I G� I I I VIII I I I I I L b b b q, mpy �m szs-jos-szzss °N311f,.w I I I _�I t � 'sem O I I I �N _ I cal rvd3a I I I I I I o LW a I �e��ll SII SII J Q O Y � z o cc z U O J z - - O�9N O I I I oHl;o�ti";o �3so��a aHd' �o'rr3 I II II II II II O � U - LLGON I I I 31 II I I I mI mI mI I I n �I-T-7",- Z Z H z W10 LLI tai wd3sl ���o�GQzgl ��.I gl gl glI gll $iL_ gl gl 11 I "uuooa �o �ssou v,ow 0 cc0M ml ml I milli III ml ml I I I I - Q w 0 Q p e U) LL, - ®� ( rve3e i Q Z LL w O F O oY� II I I? ml m Imo l 2lw NII po Sy W - - O I I yl wl E wl'� I ml'o 0 -gN wo zll �I 0 (a1 a m)rva3e I�R"s ya Im III I I I _�I t 'sem 'sem I I I I _ I cal rvd3a I I I I I I i lat w^3e lI li I I I I I I �e��ll SII SII '611 SII SII �e�ll SII SII �e��ll SII SII �e��li I --___- ,-,---------- -1 �I I I I oHl;o�ti";o �3so��a aHd' �o'rr3 I II II II II II II II II WI m �I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mI mI mI I I I 31 II I I I mI mI mI I I a L �I-T-7",- a a � � c>e- ---ca$l-w+3ary"3siI__¢l i"irvd3s �-__$,li___$I tai wd3sl ���o�GQzgl ��.I gl gl glI gll $iL_ gl gl 11 I "uuooa �o �ssou v,ow I ml ml I milli III ml ml I I I I ml ml ml wll I I I I e d I III ( rve3e i _ _ _ I I lin rva3a I � L 11 �I ` ml y a _ oY� II I I? ml m Imo l 2lw NII po I I I I I I - - I I I yl wl E wl'� I ml'o aP el II I III ml ml ml wo zll �I (a1 a m)rva3e I�R"s ya Im III I � I I I I �3uuaw +3 �I II I I I sNv�d uo xaau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa a z z f a LL O O 0 rl I I If .��� Ili Iia ram I I I' � I I _ I I I ;tii rvdza I I I tm rv»e I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I I li cad wd3e I— _ -Y- D.111 SII _ mlI (ell eJ'mi 'ml_ m LO.1o" SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII �Idl I I I I I �� ml I I I I I I I 0 I I I I � I I I I — m m��m m Ili �en�I a I �'�'li li�� II mpg ill II a II VIII <III <III all I o m <III <III =III <III <III =lillllll I I I I D ml I I I I mI l ad �Ilm= s I I I .o ,o III — — — —W— q Lj li li �li li li li e li oO6m - I� ml ml �III� ml II I, li s I I ej� a� o al li li '. e ml iiI I I s � a s I, I I I I I I ml I m �m�o,,orv�a I j �Y — n r -i ri wOo — 3a 1 ' J 1 1 1 Jll -------------- '� i�------�I uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa W z Y x—�N o Z m z =M .. --- - - _ IDL1QN _ LLIOZOmod 'low It ago N—Va —GWN Q QIP Z Zo O� � W = w O O w _ OO� ON o �m1- 1 d o _ o O O 0 rl I I If .��� Ili Iia ram I I I' � I I _ I I I ;tii rvdza I I I tm rv»e I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I I li cad wd3e I— _ -Y- D.111 SII _ mlI (ell eJ'mi 'ml_ m LO.1o" SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII �Idl I I I I I �� ml I I I I I I I 0 I I I I � I I I I — m m��m m Ili �en�I a I �'�'li li�� II mpg ill II a II VIII <III <III all I o m <III <III =III <III <III =lillllll I I I I D ml I I I I mI l ad �Ilm= s I I I .o ,o III — — — —W— q Lj li li �li li li li e li oO6m - I� ml ml �III� ml II I, li s I I ej� a� o al li li '. e ml iiI I I s � a s I, I I I I I I ml I m �m�o,,orv�a I j �Y — n r -i ri wOo — 3a 1 ' J 1 1 1 Jll -------------- '� i�------�I uxau uxau uxau uuxa xaxa 0 Yw _ -4g4 - - mpoao <pza as - - - - - � _ EY, Y WWI SNtlld 4D kkM# #kM# #kM# #kkM kMkM -- �u w ----- — - - - I I I I I I I Ira, �3a I I I �a, wd3a Ii i � II II I II II II II II II II II II II Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii li SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII m1l - - i� m Ii m Ii m Ii m I�D�i m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Iii a w ---p--ry>3p,1 --pl - - Ira, II —'-, r�bml II I - — I I I J Z Edi I Eo I ---rar-d3a----- � 'I II II II II II II II I � I �� I I Qp u mIi mIi mlipo mIi mlli mIi mIi mIi mIi mllioo=mli mIi mIi e_mIi mIi mliill ---- ��'�'----�� �1-- -- --3 ������------I� ---- — — — -- I. ca — � =Oom ewo � �3e" �<m� —m7ry iiaiw ooaa.; =E.E - I AH- ---------- C) --------) i I I I I Tj m m m m b b b b q, b b b Fw sqz c-.iz o :oz o :oz Q .o -oz U .o -az m s :si Q > J o¢ Qa k �o J(D QW cc ON J w O Q LLGpN n Z �` < LLI LL, L7Zc �aOG S ` - Q w O w u) W w y�LL, c ® Q LL ZO O Z O w S ~ W N 2 w JO O � w a w w O -- �u w ----- — - - - I I I I I I I Ira, �3a I I I �a, wd3a Ii i � II II I II II II II II II II II II II Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii li SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII SII m1l - - i� m Ii m Ii m Ii m I�D�i m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Ii m Iii a w ---p--ry>3p,1 --pl - - Ira, II —'-, r�bml II I - — I I I J Z Edi I Eo I ---rar-d3a----- � 'I II II II II II II II I � I �� I I Qp u mIi mIi mlipo mIi mlli mIi mIi mIi mIi mllioo=mli mIi mIi e_mIi mIi mliill ---- ��'�'----�� �1-- -- --3 ������------I� ---- — — — -- I. ca — � =Oom ewo � �3e" �<m� —m7ry iiaiw ooaa.; =E.E - I AH- ---------- C) --------) i I I I I Tj m m m m b b b b q, b b b Fw sqz c-.iz o :oz o :oz Q .o -oz U .o -az m s :si Q J---------- b - I I - Ii I I I I Ica, rvd3a i i-iiiai � II II I II II II II II II II II II II li li li li li li li li � - 'moa ml< II rar pa3a i i rar ��a I I I cm wd3a I I mr rvd3a I I I tai wd3a i - - = - - � i li li li li li li li � lP l Eo3o_ � 0 Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali �ldl ' II II II II 0 I I I I I te b- li b ii li II �� a I w m m I ml ml � ml ml ml ml I 1 --- --- - �-�------ ------ I �� ---cap-rvd3a - �p----i-clic Asa i- ry>3a I ---gyp--- iia,-ry>3e ml ml ml�� ml ml ml O ml ml ml ml Bim; ml ml ml e` ml ml mll' - - - - I I I I - VIII ?I al al al al all'' _ I I I I I I ell ¢ O m O I ?Oom _- I I mli ml ml ml ml I d' o 0 - --- � m z � II n o ew� ml mO � �e i i i (m wv3e i I M) rvd3e I I (t� rva3a I w - L X11 Y� III I I uoiyi�orv3o �o��l�l - 5e4E w mow:: • caa rv»a � mi rv»a AT - 4,",,, - �I el l m m m m sss-jos-szzss °N311f,.w z Y x-Q�N o�Go `� U O J z O m gM L"cC4- i __ WOW WOZO NQOG w w z W~06 `s -GW Q ® Q LL Z 0 O t - 'g8 W N w O O O O Ckf HM J---------- b - I I - Ii I I I I Ica, rvd3a i i-iiiai � II II I II II II II II II II II II II li li li li li li li li � - 'moa ml< II rar pa3a i i rar ��a I I I cm wd3a I I mr rvd3a I I I tai wd3a i - - = - - � i li li li li li li li � lP l Eo3o_ � 0 Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali Ali �ldl ' II II II II 0 I I I I I te b- li b ii li II �� a I w m m I ml ml � ml ml ml ml I 1 --- --- - �-�------ ------ I �� ---cap-rvd3a - �p----i-clic Asa i- ry>3a I ---gyp--- iia,-ry>3e ml ml ml�� ml ml ml O ml ml ml ml Bim; ml ml ml e` ml ml mll' - - - - I I I I - VIII ?I al al al al all'' _ I I I I I I ell ¢ O m O I ?Oom _- I I mli ml ml ml ml I d' o 0 - --- � m z � II n o ew� ml mO � �e i i i (m wv3e i I M) rvd3e I I (t� rva3a I w - L X11 Y� III I I uoiyi�orv3o �o��l�l - 5e4E w mow:: • caa rv»a � mi rv»a AT - 4,",,, - �I el l m m m m sss-jos-szzss °N311f,.w 2025 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 10 The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order thal their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(a)kitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 • Repointing of brick Page 2 of 10 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 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. 2025 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2025 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 27, 2024 January 7, 2025 December 31, 2024 February 4, 2025 January 28, 2025 March 4, 2025 February 25, 2025 April 1, 2025 April 1, 2025 May 6, 2025 April 29, 2025 June 3, 2025 - No July Meeting July 1, 2025 August 5, 2025 July 29, 2025 September 2, 2025 September 2, 2025 October 7, 2025 September 30, 2025 November 4, 2025 October 28, 2025 December 2, 2025 Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 Page 4 of 10 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavor to process the application within 10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 Page 5 of 10 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 Page 6 of 10 Masonry Work The application should include: A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials, methods of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritage(o-)-kitchener.ca. Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS �—� Development & Housing Approvals .L 200 King Street West, 6th Floor MNER Kitchener ON N2G 4V6 519-741-2426; plan ning@kitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION Page 7 of 10 ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ® Demolition ❑ New Construction ❑ Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener ON PT LOTS 10, 11 &12, LTS 13, 14 &15, PT LANE CLOSED BY BY-LAW #971978 PI -374, PTS 2-9 58R6453: Kitchener. S/T INT IN Legal Description (if know): 983885. S/T983887 Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ® Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ® Part IV (Individual) ❑ Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes ® No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Multimodal Hub Project Coordinator- Christa De Wys, Regional Municipality of Waterloo Address: 150 Frederick Street City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener ON N2G 4J3 Phone: 226-752-9282 Email: cdewys@reg ion ofwaterloo.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Company: Address: City/Province/Postal Code: Phone: Email: Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 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. Please refer to the attached document for response. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Please refer to the attached document for response. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Please refer to the attached document for response. 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): Please refer to the attached document for response. 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: Expected completion date: b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ® Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner 519-741-2200 ext 7070 c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes ® No - If yes, who did you speak to? d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes ® No e) Other related Building or Planning applications Application number, Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 9 of 10 The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enter upon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization must be completed: I / We, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage 2025 Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff: ❑ Heritage Kitchener: ❑ Council: STAFF USE ONLY Working together • Growing thoughtfully • Building community rage Page 10 of 10 MTE Consultants MTE 1 520 Bingemans Centre Dr., Kitchener, Ontario N213 3704 April 3, 2025 MTE File No.: C33233-301 Christa De Wys, P. Eng., M. Eng. Senior Project Manager Region of Waterloo 20 Weber Street East, 3rd Floor Kitchener ON N2H 1C3 Dear Christa: RE: Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario INTRODUCTION MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) was retained by the Region of Waterloo to conduct a structural condition assessment of the 1913 Rumpel Felt building structure in preparation for the proposed partial demolition of the 1942, 1962, and 1968 additions. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any structural distress observed and comment on the feasibility and implications of the proposed demolition of the additions and make any recommendations for improvement given the observations. Paul Slater, P.Eng. of MTE Consultants Inc. visited the building at the above noted address on March 5, 2025 to conduct the assessment. Observations are made below and shown in the Photographic Log attached. BACKGROUND Paul Slater, P.Eng. completed a previous structural condition assessment of the building in 2011. Reference is made to letter report dated Oct 11, 2011, and subsequent roof shoring design drawing in 2012. The 1913 Building is designated as a Heritage asset. Reference is made to the Heritage Conservation Plan and Risk Management Plan presently being proposed by MTE to the City of Kitchener. MTE has prepared demolition plans that describe the demolition sequence and call for temporary bracing of the additions while they are demolished to protect the 1913 building. The work completed is a visual condition assessment. No structural analysis or testing (destructive or non-destructive), or Building Code review, was undertaken. Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors. Page 523 of 732 3.0 STRUCTURAL CONDITION 3.1 Building Construction Three building additions were made to the original 1913 building in 1942, 1962 and 1968, which were steel framed construction with reinforced concrete floors. Other than a few pits, there is no basement in the additions or the original 1913 building. All rubberized roof membrane exists over all building areas. A tall brick chimney at the northeast corner of the 1913 building is a separate independent structure and is included in the proposed demolition. The steel floor and roof beams bear on the multi-wythe load bearing masonry wall along the east walls of the 1913 building. The second entrance, stair shaft and elevator were added to the east wall of the 1913 building, as part of the 1962 building addition. It serves the 1913 building as an exit and is not part of the proposed demolition but will be preserved. General observations are made below and are limited to the 1913 building grouping them in the following four building areas: Exterior Facade, Roof, Interior, Courtyard. The Exterior facade section includes the original east wall of the 1913 building, presently an interior wall. Although the purpose of our scope is the building structure, some useful observations regarding the building envelope and architectural facade are included. Building — Exterior The following observations were made reviewing the exterior of the 1913 Building: 1. The masonry is generally in good condition with limited cracks and mortar deterioration. Newer brick has been added to infill window areas, in satisfactory condition. (Photograph 1). 2. East Entrance (Victoria St) - Concrete steps and landing slab badly cracked, heaved (door has trouble opening). Recommend repair, and/or partial reconstruction. (Photograph 2). Hollow metal door is badly corroded (non structural, recommend replacement). 3. Central Entrance (Victoria St) — Concrete entrance posts & canopy are cracked; paint badly cracked/peeling; Concrete piers badly deteriorated (Photograph 3). The concrete steps are also badly deteriorated. Recommend further investigation to determine the extent of delamination and deterioration and to decide on restoration or replacement. Recommend providing hoarding enclosure as soon as possible to protect the structure from further deterioration until structure can be assessed. 4. Brick mortar has deteriorated in areas; brick veneer cracked at entrance (Photograph 4). 5. Vines growing on the west wall hold moisture and are a threat to the long term durability of the brick and should be removed. (Photograph 7). 6. Window caulking worn/brittle; needs to be replaced/redone. 7. West shed was an addition; see door through blocked up window (Photographs 7-10). 8. Very few cracks in masonry; some windowpanes missing or cracked. (Photographs 11- 13). Evidence of step cracking and repointing of mortar (Photograph 13). 9. Painted brick masonry is generally in good condition; interior sheltered by additions (Photographs 13-31).; some openings through brick will need to be infilled with reclaimed brick from the Chimney (Photographs 22,23). MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 2 Page 524 of 732 3.3 Building - Roof All areas of the roof are covered with EPDM (black membrane) and TPO (grey/white) The following observations are made: 1. Roof is leaking badly through the grey TPO membrane raining down through the roof/structure to third, second and ground floors. The leak is suspected at the two south drains of the 1913 building (Photographs 32), but this should be confirmed through investigation. Roofing repair is needed. The condition of the wood deck structure should be assessed for rot damage. Similarly, potential corrosion of the concealed portion of the steel roof beams should also be investigated. This will require a separate investigation requiring the removal of the plywood ceiling, for the extent of the portion of roof where the leak is found to be. 2. Roof is leaking badly through obvious holes in the black EPDM membrane at the 1962 addition near the chimney (Photographs 36-38). 3. Standing water was observed on the main stair roof (Photographs 34,35). 4. Roof EPDM of 1913 building is not well supported at parapets particularly at corners, which could be a leak source (Photographs 34,35). Recommend further investigation by roofing consultant. 5. Some brick mortar deterioration was observed on the hoist shaft (Photograph 39). Recommend repointing mortar. 3.4 Building Interior The following observations are made regarding the interior of the 1913 building. Refer to Photographs 41 to 60 in the Photographic Log. 1. Water is infiltrating down through the concrete floors from leaks in the roof (Photographs 41,42,43,53,56,60). At least two sources of water leaks were observed. Refer to the Roof Section, above. 2. The brick is generally in good condition with very few cracks (Photographs 44-47, 52, 54, 57-60). 3. Standing water from roof leaking above was found on the second floor (Photographs 48- 49). Floor Structure did not show any distress or deterioration as a result of the leak. 4. Some cracking observed in plaster in the southeast corridor on second floor (Photographs 50). Assuming only surficial and do not suspect structural concern; However, further investigation would be required to assess whether structural in nature. 5. Brick is in good condition in stair to third floor (Photograph 51). 6. Doorway and other openings in walls should be infilled as the east wall will become an exterior wall exposed to the elements (Photographs 44,46). 7. In the past 2011 structural assessment report, the steel roof beams were identified as insufficient to support the snow loads and were shored. Shoring of the roof beams should be monitored during demolition (Photographs 53-55). Moving forward if the Region wants to remove the shoring, then the beams and columns will need to be replaced or reinforced. 8. Damage to ceiling board from rain leak (Photograph 55). Further investigation is recommended to confirm integrity of wood roof joists. This will require removal of ceiling board to properly assess wood condition throughout, at roof leak locations. MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 3 Page 525 of 732 3.5 Courtyard The following observations are made regarding the Courtyard at the northeast of the 1913 building. Refer to Photographs 61 to 67 in the Photographic Log. 1. Timbers on retaining wall are leaning due to earth pressure, laneway and tree; some timbers are in poor condition; rot observed. Photographs 62-66. Roof shown in Photograph 61 bears on the masonry block and timbers, but ineffectively braces the timbers from leaning. These timbers will need to be restored in alignment and anchorage, and some replaced that have rotted. 2. Lose laid masonry blocks are on top of the timbers. Only spikes are holding them from falling. Photograph 62. 3. Concrete buttress of retaining wall show signs of deterioration and should be repaired. Photographs 63, 65. 4. Free standing concrete beam on columns show signs of spalling. Photograph 66. This concrete beam and column structure is to be demolished, so no repair is recommended. 5. Drainage of the courtyard is believed to be natural, through soil infiltration, near center of courtyard. At first exploration, snow was vacant in local hole, likely thought be from heat. Snow was removed (prior to taking Photograph 67), but no catch basin or grate was found. 4.0 DISCUSSION The 1913 building structure is generally in good condition. The primary structural system comprised of load bearing masonry, interior steel framing, floor and roof diaphragms is intact. Although some cracks were observed in the brick, they were few in number and none of a significant structural concern. The concrete of second and third floors was as well as the steel beams were in good condition with no signs of structural distress or deflection. The wood decking on steel beams did not show any signs of structural distress such as sagging or deflection. However, further investigation at roof leaks is recommended to rule out rot of wood deck or roof joists. The exterior brick mortar has deteriorated in localized areas and should be repointed for proper maintenance and to restore integrity. Vines on the building should be removed since they hold moisture and provide a means for brick and mortar deterioration through seasonal freeze -thaw action. The steel beams of the westerly additions framing into the 1913 masonry wall structure of the east wall will need careful support and extraction during demolition. This has been identified on the demolition plans. The front entrance stair and canopy structure are in poor condition and require restoration. Stability of the 1913 Building The demolition plans prepared by MTE call for temporary building bracing to be installed by the demolition contractor within the westerly additions and for it to remain in place until the floors and roof framing are disconnected and removed from the 1913 building. This will safe guard the 1913 Building from being damaged as a result of the beams pulling away during demolition. The structural stability of the 1913 Building is provided by its own structural system and is intact as noted above. Gravity and lateral load resisting structures are in place within the 1913 building, and are not dependent upon the additions proposed to be demolished. There is no MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 4 Page 526 of 732 expectation for the 1913 building structure to conform to present day building code prescribed loads. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We did not observe any structural distress in the building of concern. The structural performance level of the original 1913 building prior to the three additions will be maintained following the proposed demolition. The following is recommended: • The front entrance concrete structure has undergone significant deterioration. Further investigation is required to determine the extent of delamination and deterioration and to decide on restoration or replacement. A hoarding enclosure should be placed as soon as possible to protect the structure from further deterioration until structure can be assessed. 1. The front entrance concrete landing slab and stairs have significant deterioration and should be rehabilitated. • Roof leaks should be addressed as soon as possible. Engage a roofing consultant to assess the roofing membranes and parapet details to ensure longevity. 2. The condition of the roof members and deck at leak sites should be investigated and confirmed or remedied if found to be deficient. 3. Remove vines from brick masonry. 4. Repoint all brick mortar deterioration. Monitor thru brick cracks or replace brick (Photograph 2). 5. Infill all masonry holes and openings, toothing in to match existing courses. (e.g. Photographs 22,23). 6. Remove tree which is applying pressure to the retaining wall. 7. Restore or replace timber members along courtyard retaining wall. Remove lose laid concrete blocks from timbers. 8. Restore the deteriorated areas of the concrete buttress of the courtyard retraining wall. MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 5 Page 527 of 732 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) at the request of the Region of Waterloo. The material in it reflects the best judgment of MTE in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MTE accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This assessment does not wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for existing or future costs, hazards or losses in connection with a property. No physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless specifically recorded. Conditions existing but not recorded were not apparent given the level of study undertaken. We can perform further investigation on items of concern if so required. Only the specific information identified has been reviewed. The consultant is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information obtained from the various sources or to verify the accuracy of the information. The Consultant may use such specific information obtained in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. Responsibility for detection of or advice about pollutants, contaminants or hazardous materials is not included in our mandate. In the event the Consultant or any other party encounters any hazardous or toxic materials, or should it become known to the Consultant that such materials may be present on or about the jobsite or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of the Consultant's services, the Consultant may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of its services under this Agreement until the Client retains appropriates consultants to identify and abate or remove the hazardous or toxic materials and warrants that the jobsite is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. Any user of this report specifically denies any right to claims against the Consultant, Sub - Consultants, their Officers, Agents and Employees in excess of the fee paid for professional services. Yours truly, MTE Consultants Inc. IP.A. SLATER 903796610 ,a 2025-04-03 11111�e OF Paul Slater, P.Eng. Division Manager, Building Structures 519-743-6500 ext. 1240 pslater(a-)-mte85.com PAS:smk Attach. cc: Jessica Vieira, Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener https://mte85.sharepoint.com/sites/33223-301/Shared Documents/Structural Assessment 2025/33223-301_ltr rpt Rumpel 60 Victoria Assesment 2025-04-03 - DRAFT.docx MTE Consultants I C33223-301 I Structural Assessment — 60 Victoria St. N., Kitchener, ON I April 3, 2025 Page 6 Page 528 of 732 OPMTE Exterior Facade Page 529 of 732 Photograph No. 1 — South Facade Photograph No. 2 — Right Entrance Floor Slab Deterioration MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 530 of 732 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ i 0/; Photograph No. 3 — Left Entrance Column Deterioration Photograph No. 4 — Brick Mortar Deterioration MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 2 Page 531 of 732 L7,26 Photograph No. 5 — Salt Storage Delivery System Photograph No. 6 — West Shed Addtion MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 532 of 732 Photograph No. 7 — West Elevation Photograph No. 8 — West Shed Addition, to be Removed MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 533 of 732 Photograph No. 9 — West Shed Addition Foundations, to be Removed Photograph No. 10 — West Shed Entrance Within Former Window MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 534 of 732 Photograph No. 11 — North Elevation - West Corner Photograph No. 12 — North Elevation - Middle MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 535 of 732 Photograph No. 13 — North Elevation - East Corner Photograph No. 14 — Ground Floor Door to be infilled 0 0 QQ _S 0 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 7 Page 536 of 732 Photograph No. 15 — Ground Floor Painted Wall to Become Exposed East Facade Photograph No. 16 — Ground Floor - Looking South MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 537 of 732 Photograph No. 17 - Ground Floor - Looking North Photograph No. 18 - Ground Floor - Looking West S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 9 Page 538 of 732 4 Photograph No. 19 — Ground Floor - Looking West Photograph No. 20 — Ground Floor - Wall Wrapping Chimney S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 10 Page 539 of 732 Photograph No. 21 — Second Floor Door to be infilled AMMEM ON ~- Photograph No. 22 — Second Floor Wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 11 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 540 of 732 Photograph No. 25 — Second Floor - Looking West Photograph No. 26 — Second Floor (Looking South) - North wall of Stair MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 13 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 542 of 732 Photograph No. 27 — Second Floor - East Wall of Main Stair Photograph No. 28 — East Wall of Main Stair MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 14 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 543 of 732 Photograph No. 29 — Third Floor Opening to be infilled 0 0 QQ n' r 0 cQ Photograph No. 30 — Third Floor East wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 15 Page 544 of 732 Photograph No. 31 - Third Floor East wall S 0 0 cQ n r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 16 Page 545 of 732 OPMTE Roof Page 546 of 732 Photograph No. 32 — Roof, Suspected source of water leak thru building Photograph No. 33 — Roof looking northwest S 0 0 QQ _S 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 17 Page 547 of 732 Photograph No. 34— Small roof over entrance stair, poor drainage Photograph No. 35 — Small roof over entrance stair, poor drainage S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 18 Page 548 of 732 Photograph No. 36 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of leak Photograph No. 37 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of roof leak S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 19 Page 549 of 732 Photograph No. 38 — Edge of 1913 east wall, source of roof leak Photograph No. 39 — Lift Hoist shaft MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 20 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 550 of 732 W % Photograph No. 40 - Looking west MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 21 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 551 of 732 014MTE Interior Page 552 of 732 Photograph No. 41 — Ground Floor - Rain water leaking thru Concrete floor slab above Photograph No. 42 — Ground Floor - Water from Roof Leak MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 22 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 553 of 732 Photograph No. 43 — Ground Floor, Water Leak from Second Floor above on Photograph No. 44 — Ground Floor looking at 1913 East Wall MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 23 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 554 of 732 Photograph No. 45 — Ground Floor Looking East Photograph No. 46 — Ground Floor Looking East, No Distress S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 24 Page 555 of 732 Photograph No. 47 — Second Floor Masonry in Good Condition Photograph No. 48 — Second Floor, Water leak from roof MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 25 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 556 of 732 Photograph No. 49 — Second Floor, Water leak from roof Photograph No. 50 — Second Floor - cracks in wall plaster MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 26 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 557 of 732 Photograph No. 51 — Stair to Third Floor Third Floor - masonry cracks MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 27 Page 558 of 732 Photograph No. 53 — Third Floor - shoring in place since 2012 Photograph No. 54 — Third Floor, Masonry in Fair Condition S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 28 Page 559 of 732 Photograph No. 55 — Third Floor - Ceiling Board damage from roof leak Photograph No. 56 — Third Floor - Water from Roof Leak MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 29 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 560 of 732 Photograph No. 57 — Third Floor - looking east, Masonry in fair condition Photograph No. 58 — Third Floor, looking south 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 30 Page 561 of 732 Photograph No. 59 — Third Floor - looking west Photograph No. 60 — Third Floor - looking northwest S 0 0 QQ _S n' 0 QQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 31 Page 562 of 732 014MTE Courtyard Page 563 of 732 Photograph No. 61 — Courtyard looking east Photograph No. 62 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, CMU Block at top MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 32 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 564 of 732 \ �1 I p 1, 1 p( i i I' Photograph No. 62 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, CMU Block at top MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 32 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 564 of 732 Photograph No. 63 — Courtyard Wall, Looking west, Timbers leaning, Vulnerable CMU Block at top Photograph No. 64 — Courtyard Wall, Timbers leaning, Tree pushing MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 33 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 565 of 732 Photograph No. 65 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, concrete deterioration Photograph No. 66 — Courtyard, Timbers leaning, rot MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 34 S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ Page 566 of 732 F Photograph No. 67 — Courtyard, drainage in Centre S 0 0 QQ _S r 0 cQ MTE Consultants 1 33223-301 1 Rumpel Felt 1913 Heritage Building — Structural Assessment I April 3, 2025 35 Page 567 of 732 LRO # 58 Application To Register Bylaw Receipted as WR1590968 on 2024 08 22 at 15:08 The applicants) hereby applies to the Land Registrar. yyyy mm dd Pagel of 8 Properties PIN 22319 - 0399 LT Description PT LOTS 10,11 & 12, LTS 13,14 & 15 PL 374, PT LANE CLOSED BY BY-LAW #971978 PL 374, PTS 2-9 58R6453; KITCHENER. S/T INT IN 983885. SIT 983887. Address 60 VICTORIA STREET NORTH KITCHENER Applicant(s) This Order/By-law affects the selected PINS. Name THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER Address for Service 200 King Street West PO Box 1118 Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 This document is being authorized by a municipal corporation BERRY VRBANOVIC, MAYOR and AMANDA FUSCO, CLERK. This document is not authorized under Power of Attorney by this party. Statements This application is based on the Municipality By-law See Schedules. Signed By Whitney Charlene Kleine 200 King St. W. acting for Signed 2024 08 22 Kitchener Applicant(s) N2G 4G7 Tel 519-741-2268 Fax 519-741-2702 1 have the authority to sign and register the document on behalf of the Applicant(s). Submitted By CITY OF KITCHENER 200 King St. W. 2024 08 22 Kitchener N2G 4G7 Tel 519-741-2268 Fax 519-741-2702 Fees/Taxes/Payment Statutory Registration Fee $69.95 Total Paid $69.95 Page 568 of 732 BY-LAW NUMBER 2024-141 OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to designate the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North, in the City of Kitchener as being of historic and cultural heritage value or interest. WHEREAS section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 0.18, authorizes the Council of a Municipality to enact by-laws to designate real property, including all of the buildings and structures thereon, or portions thereof, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener has received and considered the recommendations of its municipal heritage committee (Heritage Kitchener) regarding the designation of a property located at 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener (the "Property"); AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener resolved at its Council Meeting held on March 18, 2024, to publish a Notice of Intention to designate the Property as being of cultural heritage value or interest pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 0.18, and which resolution was confirmed by By-law No. 2024- 070; AND WHEREAS a copy of the Notice of Intent to Designate was served upon the registered owners of the Property and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust; AND WHEREAS a copy of the Notice of Intent to Designate was published in the Waterloo Region Record, which is a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Kitchener on March 22, 2024, a copy of which is attached to this By-law as "Schedule A"; AND WHEREAS no Notice of Objection to the proposed designation has been served upon the Clerk of the City of Kitchener; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. The building and property known as 60 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, as more particularly described in Schedules "B", "C", and "D" to this By-law are hereby designated as being of cultural value or interest under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 0.18; 2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this By-law to be registered against the whole of the property described in Schedule "D" to this By- law with the Land Registry Office; 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this By-law to be served upon the registered owners of the property described in Schedule "D" to this By- law and on the Ontario Heritage Trust; and, 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to publish a notice of this By-law in a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Kitchener. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this 15"' day of July, 2024. Clerk Page 569 of 732 SCHEDULE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE 60 Victoria Street North, KITCHENER KI•l'cz fT>�t•.ii. IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER 0.18, AS AMENDED. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LANDS AND PREMISES AT THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALADDRESS(ES) IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Caporabon d the City of "rer Intends to designate the folkwing muncipal addresses as bang d wmr I haulage value or interest under Part N of the Ontario Heritage Pct R.S.O. 1990. Chapter 0.18. as amended 60 Yctorla Street North The original 1913 factory on the property municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North demastraias desigNphysaml historicallassociative and cantaxhuai value. The 1913 factory is a representative example of the vernacular industrial arcNtedural style and is chars tenstic of early b+aiGetlt-cerdury industrial mmple� in BerfinKili.ilenec Tia h1s0vi.01 and aasoumva vague of the sApa properly hes In Itr ca Bele an to the fele s�.utad.rirg ifdusby and shoe 4 mpodan membcs of the tnm ,Alg es wet .s the l" it da*-fs to regow)) sig: -&-v such as rarhspagpoy the lel irg n" -M Ras urban development R-"Ple reit Ca L—N& Oran (knovrn as the 6erlin Feu E Bebi C -u ,� war or y -00v esr:sdh ad by Granas Rlample m the d propedy m._Od)y ,t"*ee,ed W $Co V idorte 5tee Nath h 1lTS. Tann �9 7 sirs 4cinrlr g 60 urea® serve Norm � brYk tr!r wormer Rmpro, wlhv &IlEOjed Lrtr l� �9e as nla®gc d Cw canl>$y in iB1& lava avey d r1ac. indhs4tal 18uoea. d fir Ilt+he, W Ytxru 3014{ vrBF InDemtorraJOr mnaPi+daQ In pceori'rsay tl EW sail corridor, As a AgNbtaae hulk MO49e+Bs6tSYe, 0!c fbrnplo Pao Iaiidrg rvrrihrss 14 tM undwGrareinp 491he tv+m9ap.oenClry edusbialurban and ctiaaank. de.rtapinex Of Wtvst was then ll r: 60 Vidona Street forth supports the character Of the sunaundng area being located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape fCHL) The Warehouse District CHLis located in the west erd of dowrtoWn Kitdrenerantl encompasses a numberdremainug facbriesabog King Street and Victoria Stiml. These buildings Were the sten fa the manufacturing, storage, and a portadon of taw materials and other products across Canada and were one of the prominent reasons for Kitchener developing imoan urban Indatriaf centre. The cmiea4W value of the fxuiking also relates to its physical, historical, and funaimallink to ftsurrounditgs, sped6raly the rallwaytracie ad train statim. Finally the building ran also De cfassiedasa t»brichidustrial lendmarkand atoa.Ystone b the City's industrial heritage, made easiyrecog—eb[eby the ttufditg slocatlon on a comer property. rt+ n enit allrY iran5rq hmrtaclately anfl s mNm baa; and sl,— 77 vl—i4 S"v" $pain Tho ProFartY mu'ec ally atitlrasaed as 72 V.1b is Street South deltonalralas desigNphysical. h'todcflhssoctatfno and cutextaei va'iae. The design and physical value of five property miales to the Bertin Ndustrial Vermaaular architectural Ye of the baking. it disPlays artistic merit though the presence of detailed design elementsndtyludng the cutoff conte' mein entrarxx Doric cohmned Portico with cornice, and semi-eflipti®1 main entrance door opening with red brick votffiars. The historic and associative values relate to Cie original owner am use of the property and buddirgs and the contribution, they made b dna eemonb dere(opment d Berm. The property was the former locatinn of The Berlin Ingle C. Corryary, LLL The Berlin Interior Hardwood Cotryaty initially nado furniture for banks, officm and similar irsifufons inckhdng The Canadian House of Commas_ It also manufactured wooden seaet for arenas, theaf es and auddeduns —hiding tete t(itcnener-Wamim Audtodvn. The original ownord72Vidoia Street Sout hwwWniamT. Sass, an active memberofthecommunity. Mr. Sass served on la City C Skil N 1917-1919, and for four yeas was a member of the K_ W. Collegiate 0oad. Fran 1922 to 1924, he was chairman of the Km:hener d Tirade, ade, and he served as president of the Kitchener.Waterloo Manufectrres'Assacistion. The caue<Wai value relates to the building's physical, hsbrical, lundimnnN and visual ink to Sts su h,oudkwgfs. The baking is Wmemative Of the ties among indstrial entrepreneurs in the early 1900s and ital-I �sthe corbs erdiobetween industry and the railroad aswen as betheen indstry and workers housing g It also maintains and supports the character of the area, bei located Within the Ware hose Distri t Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL} Supported by the convergence dile milfines In the area, the Warehouse District contains a number of large• historic warehouse and factory bbaldnpfmmeryusedforthe-.nitbchrkg,stomga.aMmp-L. noffawnalenalandproducts cross Canada. 33 Eby Street South The proprvty mu kr PellY addressed as 33 Eby Slee South demo straws desigrvphysicel, and hstoricaK—caive, and contextual mites. The design and Physical value relate o the house's arci tlech.e as an eary, and repressnfative erampae d the Ontario Gethb Revival cottagestyle In Kilchenec The hstenid and associative vale of the Propety relatos to the original owner, Henry Eby Part of the promme t Eby tidy. Henry Eby was the boder of the popular German newspaper Der Deutsche CA n sder end Neui9keitsboR. Having a broadly read German newWoper and varous books and ParrPNels sur the Gamran speaking people of Ktcheer apart from the largely rural and Me,nnoo to cvnmuraty, in surrounding areas- The reasThe contextual! value renes In the buildings functional, physcol. and visual fire to the sunoundmg area as Wei as the contribution that the house makes to the continuity and character of the Eby Street streetscape. The building is located in-situalong the Intersecbm dChaas Street East and Eby StmetSouft biswithin the CedarM Neghbwdmd CSutheal Heritage Landscape, (CHI.). which is home to a wide —etY dsome d tete eadier homes of Krtrhe he. The CHL is turf hercfaracesued by the eavafed topography. narrow street widths. and draoecaly long viem- ThefullStalememsdS9rdScar e_r WiringaTestdEnetwimgeatmbutes, isavaiintne in fhe Oaee of the City Clerk by contenting during nomma business hays Any person may Send by Registered Mal, or deliverto the Clerk dthe City of Kitchener. notice of their oblodions b Che proposed detIgnatimL togetherwilh a statem ant Of the reasors for objeclfon and all relevant fats. b be receded by the Cie* no Ater dun the 21 • day d April. 2024. B a Notice d Objection, s nseiead. the Con.fcil d the Corpordbm ofthe City dKdchenerwpl referthe materto Cue Omaio Lad Trihwsl (htas-rfdtaov hn fora hearing and repot. Dazed at Kdchener the 22e° day of Malt, 2024. Amanda I— Director of Legislated Services & City Cleric City Hall, P.O. Boz ilia 290 fGn9 Street West IGbhener, Ontario N2G 4G7 Page 570 of 732 SCHEDULE B STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 60 Victoria Street North, KITCHENER Description of Cultural Heritage Resource 60 Victoria Street North is located on the northwestern corner of the Victoria Street South and Duke Street West intersection. It is a complex of buildings, including an original 1913 three-storey brick factory constructed in the Vernacular Industrial architectural style with three contemporary additions. The structures are situated on a lot 0.85 acres in size within City Commercial Core of the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value of the property is the original 1913 portion of the building. Heritage Value 60 Victoria Street North is recognized for its significant design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual values. Design/Physical Value The original 1913 portion of the building municipally addressed as 60 Victoria Street North is a representative example of the vernacular industrial architectural style and is characteristic of early twentieth-century industrial complexes in Berlin/Kitchener. Its construct consists of load bearing brick exterior walls with steel frame interior bearing columns and beams infilled with board -formed concrete slabs_ Sloping steal beam and purlin framing with joist infill forms the roof. Typical of the vernacular iridustrial style is the buildings load bearing brick and riveted shear plate column construction, three-storey height, rhythmic large -arched window openings providing ample natural light into the factory production spaces, and modest design with a decorated main entrance. Three additions construction in 1942, 1962, and 1968 are present on the eastern side of the factory. Front Facade The front facade of the 1913 factory is three storeys in height and symmetrical in appearance. The first floor contains two window openings to either side of the main entrance decorated with a column and architrave porch. Multi -paned sidelights and a transom surrounded the main door. The first floor is divided from the subsequent two storeys by a large painted sign that spans the expanse of the front fade and reads "The Rumple Felt Co, Limited". The second and third storey each contain three window openings and windows as well. Well and the window and window openings present today are not original, the initial large and arched forms can stili be ideniifred by the spWface architectural concrete blocks that were used as infill. The brick voussoirs of the original openings are also still present. Page 571 of 732 Historical/Associative Value The historical and associative value of the subject property lies in its connection to the felt manufacturing industry and several important members of the community, as well as the ties it displays to regionally significant themes such as transportation, the manufacturing industry, and urban development. Rumple Felt Co. Limited, then known as the Berlin Felt & Boot Company, was originally established by George Rumple on the adjacent property municipally addressed as 50 Victoria Street North in 1875. By 1909, the Rumple Felt Company employed over 300 workers, greatly contributing to the economic development and value of the downtown area. The industrial growth experienced by what was then Berlin at the start of the 20th century resulted in rapid population growth, with the number of residents increasing from 15,000 people in 1911 to over 19,000 in 1913. In addition to his establishment of a successful company that created jobs within the area and aided in local economic growth, George Rumple served his community as an active participant in the political scene. He was a prominent member of the Parks Board, Water Commission, and town council for five years. In 1897 he acted as Town Reeve and in 1898 Town Mayor. The existing 1913 factory at 60 Victoria Street North was built by Walter Rumple, who succeed his father George as manager of the company in 1916. Rumple Felt Co. Limited remained under the management of the Rumple family for over a century through a series of successors; George Rumple and Walter Rumple (1875-1916 and 1916 -1944 respectively) were followed by John W. Rumple (1944-1966), and David Rumple (1966- 2007). The company ceased production in 2007. 60 Victoria Street North, like many of the industrial factories of the time, was intentional constructed in proximity to the main rail corridor. The presence of the Grand Trunk (operational c_ 1856) within the city allowed for transportation of raw materials into the industrial area and exportation of manufactured goods out to the rest of the country. The rise and evolution of large department stores, such as Eaton's or Sears, was a direct cause of the large-scale transport of goods manufactured in major cantres such by train. As a significant built heritage resource, the Rumple Felt building contributes to the understanding of the twentieth-century industrial cultural and urban and economic development of what was then Berlin. Contextual Value 60 Victoria Street North supports the character of the surrounding area, being located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Warehouse District CHL is located in the west end Of downtown Kitchener and encompasses a number of remaining factories along }Ging Street and Victoria Street including: Kaufman Lofts (formerly the Kaufman Rubber Company Factory), Breithaupt Block (formerly the Merchants Rubber Co. Ltd_ Building), 283 Duke Street (formerly the Hibner Furniture Co. Ltd_ Building). the Glovebox (formerly the Huck Glove Factory), and the Lang Tannery, (formerly the Lang Tanning Co. Building}, These buildings were the sites for the manufacturing, storage, and exportation of raw materials and other products across Canada, and were one: of the prominent reasons for Kitchener developing into an urban industrial centre. Page 572 of 732 The contextual value of the building also relates to its physical, historical, and functional link to its surroundings, specifically the railway tracks and train station. Consistent with the siting of the historic industrial buildings in the district, the Rumpel Felt Building was organized along the rail line and constructed immediately adjacent to the property line with a main entrance fronting directly onto the public right-of-way on Victoria Street North. The establishment and proximity of this building to the convergence of the rail line, along with the other aforementioned industrial buildings within the Warehouse District, were important to the City's development as a urban industrial centre. In addition the building can also be classified as a historic industrial landmark and a touchstone to the City's industrial heritage, made easily recognizable by the building's location on a comer property, main entrance fronting immediately onto a main street, and sheer massing. Economic Value 60 Victoria Street North has economic value, being a building that has historically contributed to the economic development of what was then -Berlin at the start of the 20th century as well as creating employment opportunities for residents of the area. As a manufacture of felt, the Rumple Felt Company supplied material necessary for further production and manufacturing of other goods both locally and at a greater scale. Page 573 of 732 SCHEDULE C DESCRIPTION OF HERITAGE ATTRIBUTES 60 Victoria Street North, KITCHENER Description of the Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 60 Victoria Street North reside in the 1913 portion of the building, as well as its setting. The following are the identified heritage attributes: • Interior elements including: o Riveted shear plate column construction; and c Goods lift (circa 1913) Exterior attributes related to the vernacular industrial architectural style of the building, including: o The massing of the original 1913 portion of the building; o North, south, and west fagades of the original 1913 portion of the building; o Red brick walls; o Wooden pipes (presently used as top course of north retaining wall to north parking lot); c Entry columns and architrave to the roof of the entry porch; d Multi -paned windows with metal mullions and pivoting panels; o Painted sign above the first storey of the front fagade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited'; o Painted sign below the roof line of the rear fagade that reads "The Rumple Felt Co. Limited Felts for Every Purpose" Elements that relate to the building's contribution to the remaining industrial landscape known as the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape; including: o The north -south orientation of the building; o The massing of the building fronting onto Victoria Street North; a The proximity to the rail line. Page 574 of 732 SCHEDULE D LEGAL DESCRIPTION PTLOTS 10,11&12,LTB13,14&15PL874 PTLANE CLOSED BYBY-LAW #871978PL Being all of PIN 22319-0399 (LT) Page 575 of 732