← Back to summary
Full Transcript
Heritage Approves Demolitions, Designations - 2026-03-03 - Heritage Kitchener
Kitchener · March 04, 2026
to our March Heritage Kitchener meeting. Welcome everyone. And we have a very full agenda, so we'll try and move along as quickly as possible. Uh just a reminder, anyone interested in future meetings to participate. You can register online using the delegation registration form at the kitchener.ca delegation or via email delegation@kitchener.ca. Uh so our first item that we need to do is uh see if there are any pecunary interests or general nature. anyone with acute interest. Council Chapman. Yeah. Um I'm not sure what number it is. Hang on. Um yes. Item 4.7, 85 Strain Street and 4.8 99 Strain Street. Um because I live close to both of those addresses. Thank you, Councelor Chapman. And I'd like to remind everyone that even though we have the sound system all updated, please speak into the mic uh because uh it doesn't seem to pick up evenly uh and distribute the sound equally. So again, a reminder, speak into the mic when you are delegating or when you are asking questions for the committee. Thank you. So, uh, we're now going to go on to our delegations. And, um, we do have, um, let's see, we do have two, Vanessa Hicks and Andrea Sinclair for our 4.1 notice of intention to demolish. Um and just a reminder and I don't think I have to remind people about this but um how we um do our participate participation and our dialogue with respect to committee members and the audience and again um I will use my chair power if there are any derogatory statements and um about committee members staff or anybody body else and we do not use hate speech or language that's considered harmful or defamatory. So, uh coming on to 4.1 notice of intention to demolish 63 Courtland Avenue East. Uh first of all, we have Michelle Drake, senior heritage planner, um who will provide a fiveminut presentation regarding the matter. Michelle, please. Through the chair. Yes. So, I have uh a presentation to go through some background information in advance of the delegation on this item. Um so, we are in receipt now of the notice of intention to to demolish 63 Courtland Avenue East. The proposal is to demolish uh sections of building one and then the entirety of building one uh sorry building two and three on the site as per the approved heritage impact assessments for the property. The reason for the notice is that it will help to facilitate the work that's required to be undertaken for a record of site condition. It will reduce the number and size of vacant buildings in the interim before develop redevelopment proceeds and it will allow for the redevelopment to take place. Apologies. So to review the information that's been provided with the request, uh there have been three structural reports completed. They were all completed by Tacoma Engineers and they were all completed by an author um who has uh membership with the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals. So the first structural report um in May of 2024 outlined the condition for building one which is um the building where there is a proposal to retain uh sections of the building as being in fair condition and that it would be possible to remove sections um to proceed with demolition. Uh the second report also concluded that the building uh was in fair condition. It also noted that the masonry was starting to show or was showing signs of distress and also concluded that sections could be demolished uh without impacting the remaining sections. And then the most recent report in February of 2026 concluded that some of the sections of the building could be removed and also outlined five recommendations. Those recommendations were outlined in the staff report, but I'll just go through them quickly. So, the first was that the roof framing should be removed by hand where it interfaces with the portions of the building that are to remain. The second was that during demolition, the floor and roof framing of the building should remain intact to provide lateral support of the loadbearing walls. The third was that the floor framing of the addition should be reviewed and again separated by hand from the uh remaining buildings so not to damage that building during that demolition process. Fourth, all openings created by the demolition should be sealed and weathertight to prevent damage to the heritage assets. And then fifth, demolition should be carried out by a licensed demolition contractor with experience in the demolition of heritage buildings. The uh property has also had a heritage impact assessment that has come to this committee twice. um the first time primarily looking at some of these demolitions and then the more recent time primarily looking at the proposed new construction. The revised uh draft HIA does conclude that the subject property meets the criteria for designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Um and it also re provides three mitigation recommendations. One was related to the submission of a conservation plan detailing how the building will be conserved or over the short, medium and long term and also to include related structural systems needed to ensure the building is stabilized uh during demolition and construction activities. The second was the submission of a documentation and salvage report um for the existing buildings using photographs and identifying materials that can be salvaged and reused through the chair. Would you like me to continue? And then the third one being the submission of the commemoration and interpretation strategy um to outline uh future interpretations and commemoration on the site. The city is also in receipt of a site plan application. All of these processes are working together. This uh application is proposing to redevelop the property with stacked town houses while reusing and adaptively reusing a portion of that existing built heritage resource. In terms of the final heritage conditions for site plan approval in principle, um the city has required uh that the uh heritage impact assessment be approved that additional heritage studies be submitted and approved. And those include the conservation plan, the demolition stabilization and temporary protection plan, the hoarding and construction plan, structural assessments, vibration monitoring plan, risk management plan, document salvage and reuse plan, and a commemoration and interpretive interpretation plan. Also require what's called uh heritage work certification forms. This is to be signed by the qualified consultants um to certify that the recommendations and the steps outlined in the various studies are completed when they are completed along with the requirement for those heritage studies to be approved um prior to commencement of work. There's also conditions related to uh requiring a cost estimate and related letter of credit uh that the city holds to ensure that any short and medium-term conservation works are completed and then ultimately uh pursuing uh part four designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. So a draft conservation plan has been submitted. That is a document that is submitted to heritage planning staff for review and approval. The documentation that has been submitted addresses the demolition stabilization and temporary protection of building one. The hoarding and construction that will be adjacent to building one. The structural assessment related to building one. the vibration and monitoring approach um to be used during demolition and construction on the property. The risk management plan to be followed uh before, during and after the development, and then finally the commemorative and interpretation of the property piece. In order to form a recommendation in response to this notice of intention to demolish heritage planning staff have reviewed the revised HIA, the three structural reports, the draft conservation plan, as well as a draft documentation and salvage plan. Staff are satisfied that sections of building one can be demolished without compromising the structural integrity of the remaining building. Prior to sections of building one being demolished, the applicant is required uh to review um uh or sorry the applicant is required to have their team review the condition of the cornice and provide recommendations for its conservation. They are required to also update the draft conservation plan to address the boarding requirements um that are outlined for for demolition building demol demolition of uh buildings when parts or full heritage buildings remain vacant. And then in addition prior to sections um oh my apologies in addition through the site plan process the applicant would then also be required um to do a number of things. Um, one relates to their structural engineer providing the condition assessment of all heritage attributes. Another being related to uh the proposed cladding for building one and the site redevelopment. Another being related to updating the draft conservation plan to address risks associated with vacant buildings and to identify the qualifications of those should who should undertake inspections. And then lastly, an update to the documentation and salvage plan to identify the minimum number of salvaged um bricks and and their storage um with a preference for inside storage on-site being provided. So based on the heritage planning staff comments that I just went through, um there are three options to proceed. uh heritage planning staff are recommending that we proceed with option two. This option results in council receiving the notice of intention to demolish and allowing the 60-day notice period to run its course. And as a result, uh, the recommendation is that in accordance with section 27 sub9 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the notice of intention to demolish received on February 3rd, 2026 regarding a portion of building 1 and the entirety of building 2 and three as per the approved heritage impact assessment at the property municipally addressed at 63 Courtland Avenue East be received as information and that the notice period run its course. And that's it for my presentation. Thank you, Michelle. And uh we'll uh hold the questions for staff. Uh we'll call the delegation forward, Andrea and Vanessa. Again, just a reminder, speak into the mic. Thank you. And um do you have a presentation or a are you here for questions? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you so much. And um good afternoon u madam chair and members of the heritage advisory committee. It's a pleasure to be back here today to um talk to you about 63 Courtland Avenue East. We were here just a month ago on February 3rd and we had some wonderful feedback from you in support of the development um that Cano Cano is looking to develop here. Um the main points are that we're looking to um save and conserve the portions of the site that have significant heritage value and the remainder would be developed um with stacked town houses. And we're here in support of the staff recommendation that the report be received for information so that we can start to move forward with the um the the so the dominoes can start to fall so that we can make this happen. Um we have been working very closely with engineers um to make sure that the portion of the building that is proposed to be conserved can be conserved and can be done safely. So, as you heard from Michelle, I think the main points that we want to make is that everyone right now is satisfied that the portion of the building that's proposed to be conserved can be conserved and it can be done safely. What we're working on now with staff is just the implementation and just the finer minor details about making sure that um all of that happens. So, through the site plan application, I'm working with Michelle very closely right now to make sure she has all the information she needs to make sure um the demolition happens safely and we answer any questions um provide any finer details that we need to to make sure this all happens. And we're really looking forward um to this project. Thank you for your comments that we received last month. Um, we're still working on some finer details with staff. Like I said, um, we're submitting a conservation plan, documentation, salvage, commemoration, and, um, we're also discussing those options to designate in the future. And happy to answer any more questions that you have or to have any, um, final comments about commemoration or things like that. But I'm really happy to see this moving forward and um, thank you for your time. Thank you, Vanessa. Are the questions for the delegation? Councilor Ch. Yeah, thank you and thank you for your presentation. Um, you say that you'd be willing to consider designation in the future. Is there any reason why now? Uh, certainly. So, we're working with staff um for options to designate. I think that we are we're all working through the same process to make sure that designation happens and just to make sure that we're not duplicating processes. So, you know, we've been to the committee, you know, three times already. We're just looking to um have the site plan go through the site plan process and um make sure everyone's in agreement and then um designate to make sure that the process is I'll say streamlined. So what we're ending with is the same project which is the conservation of the building and um designation and work through that with staff. But in terms of designation now since we are conserving the important part of the building and not proposing to um demolish the significant parts and only the parts of the property that don't have heritage value are being demolished, then I don't think there's a that would be an option. If we were proposing to do that, that would be an option before you as it always is. But um since that not that's not what we're proposing, then we're hoping to gain your support today. um so that we can move forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Chapman. Other questions? Grant, did you have one? Magna, thank you. Um I just had a question about the um the uh salvage aspect um with staff recommending that uh um salvage bricks be stored on site. Um, I was just wondering what whether there was there were ideas about what that material might be used for and whether it might be used for the uh the as part of the um the restoration of the the building that's being kept or what other purposes might the salvage materials be put to? Thanks. Thank you through the chair. I think the most important part and aspect of salvage in this particular case is making sure that if there are bricks or lentils or any parts of the building that are going to be demolished that before that gets demolished we say wait a minute those bricks are good we can salvage those and use them on the part of the building that is being conserved. That makes the most sense to me. Um so we have that in our conservation plan. Um there were no other there are different levels of um salvage. We didn't pick out any that was like a like let's say a brick that had JM Schneider etched in it or a date stone or things of that nature. So what we're really looking at is is there any basic building materials that can be used for the best p purpose possible which is conserving the part of the building that we're um all concerned about and that's being integrated into the conservation plan. Thank you, Magda. Are there any other questions for Vanessa? Um, I just have one. Um, considering the amount of demolition that's going to happen and the clearance, do you have any idea when uh construction might start on this property or when the project might start through the chair? Um, I think I might defer to cano. I know they've been very anxious to start construction, so I'll defer to them. quarter four of this year. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Now I'll go back for questions to staff. Are there any questions for staff? Yes, Grant. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um yeah, I'm also really excited to see this move forward and uh I think you addressed one of my questions um just there at the end in terms of the site plan process. So obviously there's an ambitious timeline for construction. So that clears that up. Um my question to staff is um are there any mechanisms in place to ensure that um should this uh demolition go forward or partial demolition go forward um that if the development doesn't go forward around it um that the building is the integrity of the the the building's maintained in situ or at least the part that that uh they're planning to retain. Thank you. uh through the chair. Uh I think our approach if for some reason there were going to be a delay and particularly a significant delay, we would potentially pursue designation and then implement our property standards bylaw for vacant buildings to ensure that the building and the heritage attributes are are maintained at a minimum standard um until a future, you know, use and development would proceed. Thank you, Michelle. Grant answers your question. Any other questions for staff? Yes, Preston. Um I'm just wondering if as part of the site plan process, you anticipate having the the building parcled off of the wider property. Um or what do what do um staff envision for the the bounds of the potential designation? through the chair. Our approach is typically to uh designate the properties as they exist. So it it is likely that the property as a whole would be designated. Uh however, the designating bylaw would identify the values and the heritage attributes that are to be uh retained. Thank you. Uh Preston, you have your answer. All right. Are there any questions? Any more questions? Seeing none, um I'd like to read the motion then that in accordance with section 27 the Ontario Heritage Act, the notice of intention to demolish received February 3rd, 2026 regarding a portion of building one and the entirety of building two and three as per the approved heritage impact assessment. at the property inspe 63 Corland Avenue East be received as information and that the notice period run its course. So uh who will move this motion? Councelor Chaplan any questions? Uh all right. Uh all those in favor of the motion, yes, it's uh resolved and it's approved and so it will go to council March 23rd. Thank you. 4.2 uh is a heritage permit application. HBA 2026B00498 College Street and Victoria Gruner Heritage Planner will provide a fivem minute presentation regarding this matter. Victoria, thank you madam chair. Uh, the development services department has received a heritage permit application for exterior alterations required to convert the existing building addressed as 98 College Street to eight residential units. Uh, the building currently contains one residential unit. The property is located within the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District and is therefore designated under part five of the Ontario Heritage Act. The building is described as a group B building in the district plan, meaning that it isn't is of importance to the district. And the building on the property um was constructed circa 1905 um in the Georgian architectural style. So to facilitate the conversion um and to comply with the uh Ontario building code um a second means of egress is required for the upper level units. Um given the age of the building the Ontario building code uh permits the use of fire escapes um as a form of egress. So the owner applicant has uh chosen this option over a second enclosed stairway um because it maintains a smaller footprint and reduces exterior impact to the building. Uh the fire escape is proposed to be constructed um from a uh black powdercoated metal uh to complement the uh existing iron features of the building. Uh it's proposed to be of a size and scale um as close to the Ontario building code u minimum requirements and located towards the the rear of the building. Uh so the image up on the screen here um just shows where the the fire escape uh will be located. So while the um heritage conservation district plan contains policies regarding uh the enclosure of exterior stairs in the event of building conversions um given the way that the the building has been uh demised to accommodate the eight units and retain um some of the original features um of uh original interior features of the building. um a second stairway uh contained within the exist existing building was not feasible. Um it was also determined that a second enclosed um exterior stair on the outside of the building um would have greater impact. So, while this exterior staircase uh is not fully compliant with the policies outlined within uh the Heritage Conservation District plan, um given that it's not enclosed, um and that the design, material, and location of the fire escape is in keeping with the recommended practices uh and design guidelines for for building uh conversions, um heritage planning staff were um supportive of uh of this alteration. Um the uh the second um component to this proposal um is in regards to alterations to some of the window and door openings on the building. Uh since the building will be divided into eight units um some alterations uh to these aspects of the building were proposed. Um and this is to accommodate uh property egress as required um by the building code. Um and the windows and doors that are proposed to be altered um are not located on um principal facads and are away from uh public view. Uh and lastly, um a roof dormer is also proposed um to be constructed on the rear facade. Uh this new roof dormer is located away from public view um and is similar to the existing uh roof dormer that's uh located on the the front facade of the building. So, in reviewing the merits of the application, um staff note the following. Um the proposed fire escape maintains a smaller footprint and reduces exterior impact of the building than a second enclosed stairway. Uh the fire escape will not remove or cover up um prominent features of the building. Uh and the proposed fire escape is located towards the the side and rear. Uh the window and door removal replacements are not located on the principal facades. Um and so there won't be impact to um character defining features of this property. And the new roof armor uh is proposed to be located at the rear of the building away from public view. Um and all of these alterations that are proposed um will not result in uh any negative impacts to the integrity of the building, the streetscape or the heritage conservation uh district as a whole. Uh so in summary um heritage planning staff's recommendation uh is that section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act uh that the heritage permit application before the committee uh this evening be approved um to permit the construction of the fire escape um the alteration to the windows and doors openings and the construction of the new uh rear roof at the property municipally addressed as 98 College Street um in accordance with all the information that's been included as part of the application and subject to the following condition um that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided um prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions for um staff? I'm sorry. Uh are there any delegations on this property or for this property? Seeing none, um, are there questions for staff? Yes, Laura, thank you. Um, I just wondered to what extent are the proposed changes, um, especially the fire escape anchoring into the brick reversible without long-term damage to the historic fabric. um through the chair. I'm actually going to defer this question. The the architect um uh for the the application is here this evening. Um so I'm just going to defer uh to him to answer that question. Thank you. A good portion will be supported by columns. So, we will try to minimally affect the anchoring through the uh heritage brick. So, I I don't I don't want to anchor through the brick, but there are some areas where um we need to anchor through the brick to maintain the uh dry vial. The urban fabric is actually really tight in this neighborhood. So, we don't have much space on either side of the of the prop of the house to get through to the back area where there is some parking. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. You have your answer. Okay. Uh, one more question. Uh, councelor Chapman. Well, this could be to staff or or maybe you can respond to this. Is anybody living in the house right now? Um, currently the house is actually being used mostly for office by the owner. Um, so there is no current residence there. So, we'd be increasing the um residency by a lot. So, there's we're proposing eight units um two of which are twobedroom, right? So, is it zoned for residential or for office? Maybe this is for staff. Um I I believe it's uh I I'm not I'm not sure what it's zoned for, but I believe the owner just uses as a part-time home office, but there's nobody living in it currently. uh through the chair. Office uses are permitted um within the the Heritage Conservation District um as well as residential um uses. Thank you, Council Chapman. You have your answer. Thank you. Are there any other question? Yes, Magda. Thank you. Um, I was just wondering about the uh the second floor landing of the uh of the fire escape that's proposed. It seems like it's longer than it needs to be to line up with the third floor landing. Does that make sense? Because it it provides access to two through two windows of the same unit. So, I was just wondering if you could speak to that. the um throughu chair. The fire escape only goes as far as it needs to. Um the second floor and the third floor both have two units. So there's one at the front and one at the rear. And um it just barely gets to the window that would allow access from the front unit. The third floor is has a different layout because of the the it's in basically in the attic space. Um, I mean, from what I saw on the drawings that were provided, uh, it the one on the second floor could be shorter because it has it provides access through two windows of the same unit. I'll I'll take a look at it. I don't want it I don't want to build any more than I have to, so I will shorten it if that's the case. I was just wondering if that was done just for aesthetic purposes because it lines up with the third floor landing um as it's currently drawn at least in the materials we were there's a chance it might be a structural uh consideration but I would have to I would have to look at the drawing again. Okay. Thank you Magda. You're fine. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the delegation? Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Will uh are there any questions for staff on this item? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the resolution. Pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, heritage permit application HBA 2026V- 004 be approved to permit construction of a fire escape, alterations to window and door openings, construction of a new rear roof dormer at the property municipally addressed as 98 College Street in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with this application and subject to the following condition. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Uh any questions on the motion? So, who would like to move this? Right, Grant, you are moving. Any further questions? All those in favor carried unanimously. Um so this one will be processed under delegated authority. Thank you. And we now have notice of intention to designate and several are in our package this week month. The first one uh that is before us is 1254 Union Street DSD 2026-046. Victoria Grun, heritage planner will provide a fivem minute presentation regarding this matter or perhaps uh it is to be deferred for another month. Victoria. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh yes, as the committee may recall, um the notice of intention to uh designate the property municipally addressed as 1254 Union Street um was intended to um come before the committee again uh this evening. Um heritage planning staff um have had preliminary conversations with the the owner's heritage consultant to discuss the statement of significance that's been prepared as well as the list of heritage attributes that have been identified. Um however um staff are not in a in a position right now to provide um a full um recommendation at this time. So we are requesting that the item be uh deferred for one additional meeting cycle um with the intent of the notice of intention to designate coming back to the committee um at the April meeting. Um and I am fairly confident that we will be able to have the item come forward for discussion at that time. So the um I'm recommending the the motion that's uh on the screen for the committee to consider. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. So, uh, rather than intention to designate, we have the notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 1254 Union Street be deferred for one meeting cycle to allow opportunity for consultation between Heritage Planning staff and the property owner. Any questions on this? Seeing none, who will move the intention to designate and leave it till next month? Laura will thank you. Any further questions? All those in favor? Carried. So, this will come back to us in April. Our next one is 156 Benton Street DSD 2026-084. Michelle Drake, senior heritage planner, will provide a fiveminute presentation regarding this matter. Michelle uh through the chair. Thank you. So, the committee should be familiar with this property. it has already come to you for review as part of our municipal heritage review process and the initial steps that are an informal opportunity to connect with yourselves council and the property owners. Uh before you tonight is now the formal process to uh give notice of intention to designate for the property municipally addressed as 156 Benton Street. The property itself is a two and a halftory early 20th century brick building built in the decorative Berlin vernacular architectural style. The property is located on the west side of Benton Street between Courtland and Martin and within the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek cultural heritage landscape. Our municipal review of this prop property concluded that it meets uh three criteria for designation relating to design, physical value and contextual values. The design physical value relates to the building that is a representative example of the de decorative Berlin vernacular architectural style. The building features brick construction, front gable roof line with shingled gabled ends, decorative brick work, veranda with brick peers, tapered square columns and shingle handrail pediment above veranda leading to the floor, hung windows, a front picture window with stained glass above and woodwork. The contextual value relates to the building's contribution to the character of the Benton Streetscape. Its location and orientation and setback are similar to the adjacent buildings along Benton Street, which helps to define the street edge and contributes to the architectural rhythm along the street. The building is similar in style and design details to the adjacent building at 158 to 160 Benton Street. The property is also in the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek neighborhood cultural heritage landscape and directly adjacent to the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. Our recommendation this evening is that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 156 Benton Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Michelle. Are there any questions on this property? Seeing none, uh I will read the motion. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property munically addressed as 156 Benton Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Who will move this? Councelor Chapman. Well, any further questions? All those in favor? Carrie. And so it goes to council March 23rd. We have the next notice of intention to designate 33 Ontario Street North. And Michelle Drake, uh, senior heritage planner will provide a fivem minute presentation regarding this matter. Michelle uh through the chair. Again, this is a property that uh came through our informal review process. Um and this evening we will potentially start the formal process which is to initiate the notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 33 Ontario Street North. The property itself is a six or the building on the property is a six-story parking garage built in the brutalist architectural style. The building is located on the east side of Ontario Street between Gaudis Lane and Duke Street within the downtown cultural heritage landscape. Our review concluded that the property meets four criteria for designation including design, physical, historical, associative, and contextual values. The design physical value relates to the brutalist architectural style. The parking garage is a representative example of the brutalist architectural style characterized by a functional utilitarian design with an open air deck and an an exterior helix exit ramp. The historical associative value relates to the direct associations with the theme of urban renewal and the association with the Kitchener parking authority, National Garages, Inc. of Detroit and Macarter Heckern and Associates, now known as Walter Phoeni. The parking garage was the first project in Kitchener's urban renewal plans of the late 1960s. The Kitchener Parking Authority championed the project by identifying the need for a large facility in downtown. A land use analysis report was provided by the committee. The committee chose the site at Duke and Ontario because it was accessible to major parking oper generators such as theaters, department stores, churches, and financial institutions. The director of planning at the time brought in National Garages, Inc. of Detroit, a parking garage expert to prepare the functional drawings with M. McCarter Hackburn and Associates um being the local engineers brought on to uh prepare the final designs and specifications. The contextual value relates to the parking garage's physical, functional, and visual links to adjacent properties and buildings. The parking garage is physically connected to the former Gaudi's parking store, now the museum, and continues to provide a functional link via hallway between the garage and museum. The parking garage is visually linked to the complex of buildings at 30 to 32 Duke Street East and together they represent mid-century modern architectural styles that broke from previous architectural representations um in the downtown and were um proposed as efforts to modernize through urban renewal plans of the late 1960s. The buildings are similar in age, style, and materials, and they help to define the upper end of Ontario Street North. As a result, uh, heritage planning staff are recommending a designation and the recommendation is that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed is 32 on Ontario Street North as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Michelle. Are there questions for Michelle? Seeing none, I will review the motion. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 33 Ontario Street North as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And um who will move this? Peter will. Thank you. Any more questions? Seeing none. All in favor of the motion. Any opposed? One opposed. It's carried. Um it receives approval from the committee and will go to council for approval March 23rd. All right. And now we have notice of intention to designate 5361 to 61 King Street East and Michelle Drake senior heritage planner will provide five minute presentation regarding this matter. Michelle please through the chair. This is my last one that you've seen before through our informal heritage review process. And this evening, the proposal is to commence the formal notice of intention to designate process for the property municipally addressed as 53 to 61 King Street East. The property uh contains a 20th century commercial building with an art deco inspired front facade. The building itself is located south of King Street East between Queen and Benton in the downtown cultural heritage landscape. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value is the facade. Our review has concluded that the property meets four criteria for designation including design, physical value, historical associative value, and contextual value. The art deco inspired facade was constructed around 1941 on an existing two-story commercial building which had been constructed with brick, steel tile and concrete block. The building to the north, which was destroyed by fire in December of 1959, was added to the building in 1966 to create a uniform art deco inspired facade from 53 to 61 King Street East. The property uh possesses historical and associative value for its direct associations with the theme of early development, economic development, early dollar stores being called five and dime stores at the time and examples like SH Knox company and the FW Warworth company and then various bargain stores and as well as the individual Walter P. Zeller Zeller, the founder of Sellers Limited. The contextual value relates to how the building helps to define, maintain, and support the commercial character of the surrounding area. It is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings. It's located in the downtown cultural heritage landscape and its location and proximity to other commercial buildings and its orientation, massing and setback add to a consistent street edge along King Street East. In addition, the orientation, massing, setback, design, and materials help contribute to the continuity and character of the full King Street East streetscape and the broader downtown cultural heritage landscape. Staff's recommendation this evening is that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish the notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 53 to 61 King Street East as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Michelle. Are there any delegations here on this? Seeing none, are there questions about this uh proposal um from committee to stop? Seeing none, I will then read the uh motion again. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 53-61 King Street East as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Who would like to move this one? Laura will. Thank you. Any other questions? All those in favor? carried and it will go to council March 23. Uh we now proceed to 4.7 a notice of intention to designate 85 Strange Street. Victoria Grun heritage planner will provide a fivem minute presentation regarding this matter. Victoria. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Heritage Ketchinar and Council previously provided uh direction to formally initiate the notice of intention to designate um the property municipally addressed as 85 Strange Street. Um, this property, more commonly referred to as St. John's Catholic Church, is located on Strain Street between Dominion Street and Waverly Road and contains uh two buildings which are now connected. uh the 1937 main church building and the 1948 rectory building. The property was evaluated um and determined uh that it meets four out of the nine criteria for designation. Uh and it has design, physical, historic, associative, historic, associative and contextual value. Uh the design physical value of the church building is demonstrated through the neo gothic architectural style. Uh the church building features a recticular a rectangular plane plan of uh brick construction, red brick construction and Gothic arched windows and doors. Um the rectory uh which is beside the church building kind of uh set back there on the image on the screen um was constructed in 1948 um and features a symmetrical front facade uh brick construction and a uh classical entrance. The historic associative value of the church relates to uh its original and continued use as a church and it being one of the first churches in the city. Um it is also associated with the neighboring property uh which contains St. John's Catholic School. Um and the church uh once used the school's basement for Sunday mass uh until the construction of the church was complete in 1938. And finally, uh the contextual value of the church in rectory is demonstrated through its original location and that it continues to serve the predominantly low-rise um established neighborhood of which it is a part. Um and as noted previously, the property also has ties with the uh the neighboring school property. Uh so based on this information, um staff is recommending that, uh pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, uh that the clerk be directed to publish the notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 85 Strange Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions for staff? Seeing none, I will once again read the resolution. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 85 Strange Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. Who will move it? Natalie will. Thank you, Natalie. Any other questions? Seeing none, all in favor? Right. And councelor Chop has stained. Thank you. It's carried. Our next one is 99 Strange Street intention to designate. And Victoria, would you present please? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so this property was also before um Heritage Kitchener and and council and we've received direction to formally uh initiate the the notice of intent to designate uh this is the neighboring property to um the one that was uh just previously discussed. So the property municipally addressed as 99 Strange Street as more commonly referred to as St. John's Catholic School is located on Strange Street between Dominion Street and Waverly Road and contains a 20th century building constructed in the collegiate tutor architectural style. Uh this property was evaluated and determined to meet four out of the nine criteria for designation. Um and it has design, physical, historic, associative and contextual value. Uh the design physical value is demonstrated through its collegiate tutor architectural style. Um originally constructed in 1929 um with later additions towards the rear. Uh the building was planned um in an H shape though uh this design was not fully realized until the two additions um in 1946 and 1954 were constructed. Uh the school is two stories in height with brick exterior and cast concrete decorative details. And the original rear portion of the building um has been concealed with an addition that was constructed in 2011. Um the historic associative value of the school building relates to its original and continued use as a school. Uh it was constructed in response to the influx of new families um and increased birth rates following World War I. And the school is associated with the neighboring St. John's church and has direct association um with the theme of educational development in Kitchener and the contextual value resides in its original location and continued use as a school. Uh the school continues to support the low-rise established neighborhood of which it is a part. Um and it is tied to the neighboring St. John's Church. Um and both buildings were constructed around the same time and have served uh this community since their construction. Um and through discussions with uh the school board, the heritage attributes um have been clarified to pertain to the original 1929 uh portion of the building. Uh given that um there have been later additions uh towards the rear of the building um which are not reflective of the um original building and the and attributes um or they were removed um as a result of the um the expansion of the building in in 2011. Um and so based on the evaluation um of this property, heritage planning staff are recommending the following. Um that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 99 Strain Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And that concludes my presentation on this matter. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions on this item? Yes. Great. Thank you, chair. Um, quick question for staff. Um, in your experience, have have the school boards, either public or the Catholic school board, expressed um, concerns with heritage designations either on this property or or just schools more generally? I know they certainly have uh, stay a good good repair backlog a mile long. And so, I'm wondering um, sort of how they respond to some of these designations or this one in particular. Um I think through the chair I think there's been um a general uh level of support. Um we have worked with uh the the school boards to um pair down the the heritage uh attributes to ensure that um what's reflective in the in the designating bylaw um is something that both the the school board and and city can can work with. So, I can say from my experience, it's been fairly collaborative. Yeah, thank you for that. And just to follow up, um in terms of the programs that we offer in terms of grants and whatnot for um heritage properties and restorations, do would those uh would would the school boards be eligible for those programs or is it only sort of individual private property owners? uh through the chair, the school boards would be eligible for um for funding through our our grant program. Grant, you have your answer. Yes. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Uh and I do think from the report it sounded like you had worked through the difficulties uh prior to the designation statement and so on. Great. All right. I will read the um motion again. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish the notice of intention to designate the property municipally addressed as 99 Strange Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest. And who will move this one? Laura will thank you. Any other questions? All those in favor? Carried and councelor Chapman abstained. All right. Uh now we have the municipal register review March 26 update and Michelle Drake senior heritage planner will provide a fivem minute presentation regarding the matter. Uh right and I see that we have three properties. Um, and I will ask after Michelle makes the presentation if you wish to have these voted on separately or if we can do it as a group. So Michelle uh through the chair I'm actually going to present the the first two uh properties and then Michelle will we'll take the third. Um so heritage planning staff are bringing forward three properties this evening to recommend pursuing designation um under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act. Um the first property is municipally addressed as 265 Weaver Street East. Um and based on staff's evaluation, this property meets five out of nine criteria. Um so the building meets design physical criteria as it is a representative example of the structuralist style of architecture marked by its functional and unadorned design and it features a flat roof age plan and is constructed in a red uh rugged brick and has a symmetrical facade. The building meets historic associative criteria as the construction of this building is associated with Kitchener's post-war housing boom and the early history of cooperative housing in the city. And this is uh the first cooperative uh multiple dwelling in the city and it still operates um as a cooperative today. The building is also associated with Michael Krauss uh a local entrepreneur, builder and church leader um who was the original owner uh and builder and the building uh or the property has contextual value as it continues to maintain the low-rise character of the area. The property is physically and functionally linked to its surroundings, giving given it's still in its original location and maintains its original use. Um, it's also historically linked uh with the neighboring H plan apartment buildings at 105 to 117 Onward Avenue and 149 to 1 141 to 149 Bordon Avenue North. Um, as the owners andor builders of these apartments um were all affiliated with the um new apostolic church. Um, and not to put uh Magda on the spot, but Magda did help with uh the research for this. So, I did just want to publicly thank her for for her efforts on on this one. Um, and that concludes uh my presentation on um this property. Thank you, Victoria. Are there questions regarding 265 Weber Street East? Um let us proceed then 141 149 Bordon Avenue North Victoria. Uh thank you madam chair. Uh so the second property uh before the committee this evening um contains two buildings and is m municipally addressed as 141 to 149 Bordon Avenue North. Um the property meets five out of the nine criteria for uh designation. Uh the buildings meet design physical criteria as they are a repres representative example of the structuralist style of architecture um marked by their functional and unadorned design. Uh they feature a flat roof age plan and are constructed in a multicolored uh rug brick and have a symmetrical facade. Um the buildings meet historic associative criteria as the construction of these buildings um are associated with Kitchener's postwar housing boom and the building uh is also associated with uh Martin Kler uh who was the original owner and builder um and he was a recctor of the new apostolic church and was strongly uh associated with this uh denomination in the city and the property has contextual value as it continues to maintain the low-rise character of the area. The property is physically and functionally linked to its surroundings given uh the buildings are still in their original location and maintain their original use. Um the property is also historically linked uh with the neighboring H plan apartment buildings at 105 to 117 Onward Avenue and 265 um Weaver Street East. Um as the owners uh andor building builders of these apartments um were all affiliated with the uh new apostolic church uh and were constructed around the same time. And again, I want to thank uh Magna Magda for her um research efforts on on this property as well. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions on this one? Seeing none, we'll proceed then to 55 King Street West. Michelle, it's yours through the chair. So 55 King Street West is a 20th century 12story building built in the contemporary international style. The building is located on the south side of King Street West between Ontario Street and Queen Street in the downtown cultural heritage landscape. Uh our review has determined that the property meets five of nine criteria for designation. So in terms of the design and physical value, the commercial building provides a strong example of the contemporary international architectural style characterized by a sleek material pallet, minimalist detailing, and urban scale. The building balances corporate functionality with architectural refi refinement while remaining visually distinct from the historic fabric and contributing to modernization in the downtown. Overall, the building displays four key architectural elements. The first is the glass curtain wall construction system which offers an elegant uninterrupted verticality while the use of tinted blue glazing as a corporate contemporary tone. The second is a structural expression which is overt with the rhythmic pre-cast framing hinting at the building's gridbased structure and thereby echoing the functionality of modernism. The third is minimal ornamentation which is true to the international style where decoration is absent. Instead, interest is created through material contrast such as glass versus stone, precise alignment of elements and the quality of finishes. The last is the roof line which is flat and understated and capped with a parapit and a mechanical penthouse that is fully integrated within the building envelope avoiding visual clutter. It's also interesting to note uh that the building that ex exists today represents only half of the original architectural vision. A second building had been planned to be built between Halls Lane and Charles Street with an 11story glass atrium above Hall's Lane connecting the two stories. the historical in terms of the historical associative value. Um this relates to the direct association with the theme of banking and related organizations including the Waterl County Loan and Savings Company, the Waterlue Trust and Savings Company, Canada Trust and ultimately the TD Canada Trust uh business. Um and the building is is often referred to as uh TD Canada Trust building. And then lastly, in terms of um other firms that were connected to the building, uh the design and construction was done by a general contractor, the Jackson Lewis Company, which was one of Canada's first general contractors. Um and they are now connected to uh the business known as Acon. The architect in this uh example was zero mic who's housed in partnership uh which was founded in 1961 by four associates of the iconic architect Peter Dick Dickinson. The structural engineer was Quinn Dussell Associates. The mechanical engineer was the Mitchell Partnership Limited and the electrical engineer was Mali and Benini International Inc. Um what I'll circle back and mention after mentioning all those those individuals who contributed to the building is that the building was also identified for um sort of technological advancements at the time in energy efficiency. Um and it did actually win a national award for the uh type and size of building um for energy efficiency I I think back in 1992. And then lastly, in terms of the contextual value, the property uh helps to maintain, define, maintain, and support the character of the area. It uses a three-story podium base with multiple base constructive granite and glass that generally align with the height of historic buildings on King Street and Ontario Street. The building is physically historically linked to its surroundings. And again, the podium helps doing this by fitting in to both streetscapes on King and Ontario. And it's also historically linked to the site of the original headquarters of the Warloo Trust and Savings Companies, which had existed on the site uh in the early uh 1900s. Uh then was demolished and relocated to another location on King Street West and then came back to this location um on 55 King Street West. And that concludes uh my presentation on 55 King Street West. Thank you, Michelle. Are there questions for Michelle on this item? Yes, Magda. Thank you. Um, I was just wondering in terms of design, physical value if there's um I'm just seeing like uh this building fitting into postmodernism and uh some of like these quite abstract but sort of historic, vaguely historical references like the clock tower, the um segmental arch at the corner entrance and the the domes um which I I can see this building out out of my my office window at home and it's like the if you if you step back a little bit the domes are quite prominent. Um as well as the you know a material like granite which is um kind of a maybe considered a more traditional material. So I was just wondering if um if that was considered at all. Thanks uh through the chair. Um I should have mentioned so I'll mention this briefly that um uh Ally, one of our members had also helped um prepare for this property similar to how Magda had helped prepare for the previous two properties. So I know he's not here this evening, but also wanted to to make that note so the committee's aware. Um, I mean definitely, um, I I acknowledge references like you mentioned to the towers, domes, and and arches and and that heavy, um, granite material being more uh, those all being more like historic references. I I can definitely, you know, review and and tweak the description. Um, if I'm hearing you correctly, are you thinking it doesn't fit solely in um, that contemporary style or or or did you just want to know like how those fit into that style? Um I I mean I haven't done a my own thorough analysis. It's just kind of like that's what I think of. I think of you know the the early 90s and the these elements and it's like late sort of like late postmodernism to me. So, um I don't know, just as I guess a suggestion to maybe look at that a little bit. Um particularly, um I quickly looked through Rickettt's um book on Canadian architectural styles and there were kind of a lot of it seemed to fit right into that section, that last section in on postmodernism. So, yeah, just uh something to look into through the chair. No, we appreciate that feedback. Thank you, Magda. Are there any other comments or questions for staff? Chapman, you have one. No. Thank you. Are there anyone? All right. Um do is there anyone that wishes to have um the three properties separated? All right. Then we will proceed with them as a group. Pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized in designation B pursued for the following properties. 265 Weber Street East, 141 to 149 Bordon Avenue North, and 55 King Street West. Any questions? Who will move it? Preston will. All right. All those in favor? Carried. Uh and so um uh this will go to council for approval on March 23rd as the other ones have. So, and that uh brings us to the information items, the uh permit application tracking sheet. Any questions on that? Seeing none, who would like to move adjournment for the meeting? Natalie, thank you very much. So, see you in April.