[0:38] Good afternoon and welcome to our May Heritage Kitchener meeting. This afternoon we're pleased

[0:45] to have with us our reps who are going to talk about Victoria Park. And I just encourage

[0:57] everyone that, you know, if you have questions, we know the rules and how we do our reports

[1:09] and so on and so forth. So, again, for the audience, people interested

[1:16] in participating in future meetings can register online using the Delegation Registration

[1:24] form www.kitchener.ca delegation or via email at delegation at kitchener.ca.

[1:35] So first item of business, we would like to know if anybody has a disclosure of pecuniary

[1:44] interest and the general nature thereof.

[1:47] of. So are there any pecuniary interest? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the delegation.

[1:59] And

[2:00] what we're going to do is go straight to this presentation on Victoria Park. And you have

[2:13] as your agenda item, Heritage Consultation Memo for Victoria Park Master Plan.

[2:21] And we have two of our staff who are going to present because they've both been involved

[2:30] in this item.

[2:32] We have Michelle Drake, our Senior Heritage Planner, and Karen Lisa, Landscape Architect.

[2:41] So each of them will present, and we do have a five-minute presentation.

[2:48] However, I would think that this item may take longer than the five minutes.

[2:55] And since we don't have a long agenda, I will open it up,

[3:01] and you do what you have to do to present.

[3:06] All right.

[3:07] So, Michelle, are you going to present first?

[3:12] We're going to present together.

[3:18] Karen and Melissa and Michelle, please.

[3:28] Thank you, Jean, for that introduction.

[3:30] So both myself and Ms. Lizard are here tonight to talk about the Victoria Park Master Plan

[3:39] and the Heritage Review that was undertaken by the firm of Archaeological Services Inc.

[3:47] ASI. The purpose of our presentation today is to not walk you through every single recommendation

[3:56] of the Draft Master Plan but rather to sort of highlight the theme areas and the findings

[4:04] as they relate to heritage with respect to ongoing work with the overall Victoria Park

[4:12] master plan review process.

[4:20] So as I mentioned, ASI was retained to assess how

[4:26] the draft Victoria Park Master Plan recommendations aligned with, as you know,

[4:33] the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan policies and

[4:37] guidelines. The review identified a few different things. One being, or I guess

[4:45] the purpose story of the review was to identify if there were any potential conflicts, but

[4:50] it also identified and looked at opportunities where we may be able to strengthen the heritage

[4:56] character that we see in Victoria Park today and in the broader Heritage Conservation District

[5:01] throughout the process.

[5:08] In terms of context, this committee should be fairly familiar that Victoria Park is

[5:14] the city's oldest park. It was established in the 1890s and forms a central feature within

[5:21] the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The plan that applies in that district

[5:28] identifies the park as a romantic landscape and then it mentions that it's characterized

[5:34] by things like the naturalistic forms, the meandering pathways, wooded areas, open

[5:41] lawns, framed vistas, and then it mentions the lake as a focal point within the park

[5:48] and the district.

[5:53] I'm going to turn it over to Karen for now.

[6:03] All good?

[6:03] Okay.

[6:04] Thanks, Michelle.

[6:06] Good afternoon.

[6:07] Thank you for taking the time to hear about the master plan and the progress we've made

[6:12] since we last met in November of 2025.

[6:16] I just wanted to bring some additional information to the committee in terms of the recommendations

[6:23] that we've brought forth and how it relates to what Michelle had just mentioned about

[6:28] the Heritage Review.

[6:30] As far as the process for the project, since we last met, we were working through draft

[6:37] recommendations.

[6:38] So we'd finalized phase one and phase two, and we were validating all the data we

[6:44] had collected from those two phases and drafting recommendations based on capital, policy and

[6:50] strategic initiatives. We worked through an internal stakeholder process where we verified

[6:58] that information and basically circled back to those folks in our working group and made

[7:03] sure that we weren't missing anything. And then we're looking at a prioritization of

[7:07] those recommendations. So in terms of the internal stakeholder verification, we worked

[7:16] through, like I mentioned, the internal working group, but also feedback from our CLT, our

[7:24] corporate leadership team. And then, as Michelle mentioned, we jointly retained ASI to look

[7:32] at the overall recommendations and are here today for our second update.

[7:38] And concurrently are working on the document in the background just to make sure that we

[7:42] meet our June 1st deadline for council.

[7:45] Next slide.

[7:47] So in terms of the internal stakeholder verification, that was in March that we went individually

[7:54] to heritage planning staff, economic development, our parks operations staff, as well as transportation.

[8:02] Those four were sort of key groups that we had heard from in our engagement process that

[8:09] had a lot of input when it came to some of those recommendations, and we wanted to make

[8:14] sure that what we were presenting aligned with staff's thoughts and strategic goals

[8:21] as well. And then CLT came in April where we confirmed support and or revisions to some

[8:28] of those recommendations, keeping in mind that the 43 recommendations that we presented

[8:35] in our memo to this committee as well as to ASI have since been refined. But we will

[8:42] move forward with the original list that we had presented just so we can have that

[8:47] discussion if there's any specific questions. And then, again, in April, we were working

[8:52] with ASI to make sure that we had that reference point for committee today. Next slide.

[9:00] So as I mentioned, the 43 original recommendations, there was 25 capital, nine strategic, and

[9:08] nine policy. Of those, they're covered under the topics to the right. I know that's

[9:13] kind of small text but it gives you an understanding of the depth of the engagement and the feedback

[9:20] we received last year and how we sort of grouped those topics and moved forward in providing

[9:28] recommendations that align with what we heard internally and externally from the public.

[9:35] Next slide.

[9:38] I guess I'll pass it back to Michelle.

[9:40] So,

[9:45] in terms of the overall findings, what ASI reported back to us was that the majority

[9:51] of the draft recommendations found in the draft Victoria Park Master Plan were not inherently

[9:58] in conflict with the policies that this committee is familiar with within the Victoria Park

[10:04] Area Heritage Conservation District Plan.

[10:07] many of the recommendations actually present opportunities where we may be

[10:14] able to restore and or improve and enhance the character within the park in

[10:21] the broader district. The primary risk that they did share was the idea of

[10:27] like cumulative impact so the idea that if there are numerous small and or

[10:34] or uncoordinated changes in the park,

[10:37] that their collective impact could be a concern,

[10:42] and specifically with respect to the idea

[10:46] of cumulative visual clutter.

[10:53] So some of the key considerations that were outlined

[10:56] were related to focusing on protecting the Victoria Park

[11:01] in terms of its landscape elements.

[11:04] So looking at maintaining views to,

[11:06] from and around the lake preserving the open grassy sweeps such as the commons

[11:14] and the meadow retaining the wooded areas and then protecting the important

[11:20] vistas. Also of interest is the pathways where we would like to continue to see

[11:26] them meandering in their alignment instead of being perhaps you know

[11:31] straightened or hard angles, and ideally not

[11:35] over widening of the pathways as they exist today,

[11:39] and where new structures may be proposed,

[11:42] that there be thoughtful consideration to the need

[11:46] and then careful consideration of the appropriate location

[11:50] for those new structures.

[11:57] And so with respect to some of the details

[12:00] around these changes, the guidance emphasized compatibility rather than a

[12:08] replication of historic styles. So looking at new or replacement elements that

[12:16] are high quality, natural materials, muted tones, historically appropriate tones

[12:23] like those suggested in the Heritage Conservation District Plan, and gave

[12:28] these examples of like park furniture and signage looking to sort of coordinate how their design

[12:35] happens and vegetation strategies that can also help us reinforce that romantic landscape

[12:42] while still integrating some of the ecological and forestry best practices that the city would

[12:49] like to achieve. And

[12:56] with that I will turn it back to Karen.

[13:01] Great thanks Nichelle. So this

[13:04] Next slide references the active play zone in the back, like southern portion of the park.

[13:12] In speaking to Michelle's previous slide about designing with a thoughtful approach and in

[13:19] context of the space, we had some conversations about prioritizing work and with the picnic

[13:28] shelter that has recently come down and some of the other capital life cycle replacements

[13:35] at the back end in this zone that we're referring to. We were looking to find efficiencies in

[13:43] making improvements and for lack of a better phrase, getting the most bang for our buck

[13:48] in terms of that space. We know the following to be true currently in that existing location

[13:56] in Victoria Park.

[13:58] So the picnic shelter was removed last fall

[14:00] due to its age and safety concerns.

[14:04] The splash pad needs a complete overhaul.

[14:06] It's at the end of its life cycle as well.

[14:09] The playground's rubber eye surfacing needs repairs

[14:12] and a few minor play elements need to change.

[14:15] The trail surface needs repairs

[14:18] and there's some user conflicts there as well.

[14:21] Seating improvements and basketball court improvements

[14:24] for all sort of highlighted is initial targeted capital work that can be, we can look at funding

[14:32] within a short term period. Next slide.

[14:39] So it's hard to see from this slide up that high but

[14:43] we've tried to outline the like general area in context of the entire park itself

[14:50] Really, just including the playground, the splash pad area, the picnic shelter, the existing

[14:56] basketball court, the...

[15:00] The machine shop. It's all sort of working together in conjunction with some of those life

[15:07] cycle efficiencies that we are looking at moving forward. Next slide.

[15:16] So with that, we're really

[15:19] focusing on, for the master plan, bringing forward a bit of a conceptual overview of that

[15:26] space. We don't have specific finalized design to be presented in the master plan itself,

[15:33] but it's more of a conceptual understanding that we'd like to move forward with. Each

[15:38] one of those individual capital projects we'll talk to our colleagues in heritage planning

[15:45] and understand if the process would be to bring that forward to heritage each like

[15:50] in an individual sense or as a collective, we want to make sure that the point that Michelle

[15:57] made about cumulative impacts that were being cognizant of that and that as a whole we are

[16:04] making good choices in terms of the design and the final impact of the park itself.

[16:10] So the picnic shelter, we're looking at upgrading that to match the aesthetic of

[16:16] existing park buildings similar to the recently renovated bandstand and shifting that structure

[16:24] away from the machine shop as it's not in an ideal location currently. It's kind of pushed to the

[16:31] farthest back corner of the park. The summer kitchen considering potentially a new use there

[16:38] or location to support the Indigenous people's gathering space and the active play zone that

[16:44] I referenced, for the play area specifically, we'd like to move the swings a little bit

[16:50] closer to the existing play area because currently they are not meeting accessibility requirements

[16:56] and open up that VISTA as the Heritage District Plan references, VISTAs and sweeps of grass.

[17:04] We want to alleviate some issues with accessibility and consolidating those play

[17:12] areas, improving maintenance for our staff, but also kind of improving that VISTA at the

[17:19] same time.

[17:21] And as well as the seating options around the playground and the splash pad that would

[17:26] kind of concurrently work in tandem with those upgrades.

[17:30] The splash pad replacing what's existing, but adjacent to the playground.

[17:37] The basketball.

[17:38] We'll look at that as more of a dedicated team area close to the outdoor exercise equipment

[17:46] that's existing.

[17:47] And then the trail piece, keeping in mind the point made about meandering pathways and not

[17:54] expanding widths where absolutely not necessary, but looking at mitigating pedestrian conflicts

[18:02] and improving the surfaces where we can.

[18:05] Next slide.

[18:08] So this is just an example, and I believe heritage committee might have seen this previously,

[18:15] but we're looking at a Canadian supplier, ShaveView, that could potentially provide

[18:23] a replacement for the existing picnic shelter.

[18:27] We've discussed materiality and wish list options with our facilities management staff.

[18:32] So they've given us an understanding of what they'd like to see in terms of power, lighting, durability, specs as they relate to a new structure in the park.

[18:44] But we'll also obviously be considering the aesthetic to be consistent with, like Michelle had mentioned, the existing buildings and structures in the park.

[18:54] whether that be cedar shingles or stone cladding of the base, something that

[18:59] really fits within the context of the park next slide. And this is just another

[19:05] alternative with a metal structure roof but there's you know there's a lot of

[19:12] different opportunities to work with this supplier to achieve an aesthetic

[19:18] that's agreeable to Heritage and to all those stakeholders as well. Next slide.

[19:26] I think that's an alternative over to Michelle.

[19:32] And so I guess in conclusion

[19:34] what came out of the Heritage review was that as the draft

[19:40] recommendations are presented now they will not detract from the Heritage

[19:46] character and in some instances will actually create these opportunities to enhance the heritage

[19:52] character. Most of the changes that Karen had described are located in that south end

[20:00] of Victoria Park and when we move forward with implementation of the recommendations,

[20:09] we will need to consider, you know, what is the right process so that we have that bird's-eye view of the park as a whole

[20:19] and can understand sort of the cumulative impact of changes that might be more minor over time, but collectively, you know, could have a larger impact.

[20:31] And then depending as well on the scope of change,

[20:36] whether those changes are things that would be considered under our delegated approval authority bylaw

[20:44] and or whether the scope of change requires consideration through the Heritage Committee and potentially council.

[20:54] So that is the conclusion of the presentation by staff.

[20:59] We do have our consultant here, if there are questions with respect to the memo that you

[21:09] may want to address to the delegation, Karen and I are obviously available if there's questions

[21:16] of staff, but generally we just like to open it up to the committee for comments and questions.

[21:23] Thank

[21:32] you and it gives us a really good overview of both the practical and the heritage items.

[21:44] So I will open it up to committee for questions or comments, observations, and sure, Councillor

[21:54] Chatlin.

[21:56] Yeah thank you and thank you for this report. I just have a few questions and

[22:02] maybe it's too early to answer them but there's mention of signage. I hope we

[22:10] can keep that to a minimum, can we?

[22:15] Through the chair, I think what the

[22:18] recommendation is is to have a consolidated and comprehensive approach

[22:23] and I think that idea would be to sort of minimize the signage but also likely

[22:30] have sort of a consistent approach where we do introduce signs so that we

[22:37] reduce that visual clutter both in terms of number but also in terms of like

[22:41] design or style if that makes sense. Okay yeah just I'd hate to see the

[22:48] park full of signs. It's a large park but it's not that big I guess. You

[22:55] mentioned that the basketball area would be closer to the outdoor exercise area

[23:00] and I was just wondering if that would in any way impact the the parking in that

[23:04] area right now.

[23:10] Yeah I can take that. So we're looking at kind of adjacent to the

[23:15] existing parking lot. It won't impact the parking specifically it's just a

[23:19] kind of a shift closer to that space,

[23:23] so it reads as more of a consistent youth-focused space.

[23:27] But yeah, no specific concerns about parking impacts.

[23:32] Okay, great.

[23:34] There's no mention of barbecues or outdoor,

[23:39] I don't know if they're not called barbecues,

[23:40] but pits, fire pits.

[23:44] Have we decided not to do that?

[23:47] So that's kind of come in tandem

[23:49] with the picnic shelter I believe. We have sort of dedicated coal locations. There's a lot of

[24:00] independent sort of multi-generational gatherings that we've seen over the last few years in the

[24:08] park and people bringing their own facilities with them to the space. We do have a

[24:18] the Parks Master Plan does provide some information in terms of like moving

[24:23] forward with the pilot for that piece as well. So I don't know if Markey likes to

[24:28] speak to that in more detail. I think there's room for minor improvements such

[24:32] as that. So we didn't hear an outcome specifically for barbecues. We know it's

[24:36] used but a permanent facility like that we can certainly add it after the

[24:40] fact. It doesn't necessarily have to be part of the larger strategic plan. So

[24:43] So if it's a grassroots initiative or something maybe you hear from constituents, we're happy

[24:46] to place it in a location like that.

[24:50] Okay.

[24:51] Because I do think, as Karen said, there are a lot of multi-generational families that

[24:55] do use the park.

[24:56] Yeah.

[24:57] Well, you know, hold parties and that sort of thing.

[25:00] So it would be nice if they had that infrastructure available to them.

[25:05] I couldn't hold off if others have questions.

[25:08] No?

[25:09] Okay.

[25:10] What about the multi-use trail?

[25:11] What ideas do you have for that?

[25:16] Because I know it can be there is conflict

[25:19] with pedestrians and e-bikes in particular,

[25:24] or e-scooters.

[25:26] We are looking at, as part of that southern portion

[25:30] in the active play zone,

[25:33] to have a sort of bypass trail

[25:37] around the backside of that space

[25:39] if we can consolidate it closer together. Still meandering in a way, but I think that

[25:45] that would really help the conflicts we're seeing with pedestrians and e-scooters and

[25:50] the entrance from the parking lot near the pavilion. There's a lot going on in that

[25:54] space. There's a lot of crossover to the washroom facility if that becomes a change

[26:01] room in the future or if we look at retrofit for that building. There's even more sort

[26:07] crossover of pedestrians in that space and we're seeing that through our like

[26:11] sensor technology as well so I think that that provides even more data behind

[26:18] making a change there in terms of the pathway and providing a better

[26:24] connection from the iron horse trail around that space to neighboring side

[26:31] streets and to the rest of the park. Right okay and what about the

[26:36] indigenous people's gathering space? I know one concern when it was sort of an

[26:43] impromptu arrangement was the close proximity to the kids play area. So

[26:50] would it be moved back slightly to avoid that conflict? So our colleague Carol

[26:56] Bacon is managing that piece and the location is indigenous lead in terms of

[27:04] I'm citing that appropriately and it's quite a distance away from the playground in an open

[27:12] green space that I think we're going to have a communication of that publicly in the next

[27:18] couple of days.

[27:20] So yeah, we'll have a better understanding publicly of where that will be and where

[27:26] it'll be cited and what the materiality and the design will look like.

[27:29] Right. My other question had to do with the Victoria Park Working Group. They haven't seen

[27:36] this yet. Will they be seeing it before it comes to Council in June? I forget when the

[27:41] next meeting is. The entirety of the master plan? Well, at least, like, we can, I was

[27:48] aiming to for post heritage committee to forward ASI's report if I think that that we can

[27:56] keep that internal to the working group, but I think if need be, we would share that

[28:02] as well.

[28:03] Okay.

[28:03] Thank you.

[28:04] I think it's, you've done a great job.

[28:06] Thanks.

[28:10] Thank you.

[28:11] Councilor Chapman.

[28:13] Are there any other questions, comments?

[28:20] Yes.

[28:21] I just had a question about the, it was noted that there was potential for land

[28:28] acquisition and expansion of the park beyond the railway, keeping in mind that it

[28:33] be differentiated from the rest of the park if that happens from like a heritage perspective.

[28:38] I wondered if that is something that is being actively pursued or is it just a hypothetical

[28:42] depending on how things work out for some of these these plants.

[28:47] It is being pursued but it's part of the larger city initiative just because the

[28:51] resources to acquire properties is finite so it's not just Victoria Park it's across the

[28:57] city so it is being considered realistically and actively just as part of the larger picture.

[29:03] Okay, thank you.

[29:07] Thank you, Preston.

[29:09] Any other questions?

[29:13] I have one or two.

[29:15] With respect to the picnic shelter, I'm sure that's a capital cost.

[29:22] Is it planned for this year or is this when the plan is finished?

[29:32] That's the first one of the gate once we're through council approval.

[29:35] like assuming it is approved through council, that is our first project to replace that function

[29:40] and service as quickly as we can.

[29:45] So further, you showed a few designs, and I'm wondering if, like, how you will work

[29:56] Thank you.

[30:00] with our heritage committee.

[30:03] And I've seen now the two designs and I think I have a preference

[30:08] on one of them. However, I don't know what the other members of the committee feel about

[30:16] the design. So how will that proceed?

[30:22] So specific capital projects. We will come

[30:24] back to heritage committee similar to bridge replacements and any other major capital works.

[30:28] This would fall under that same process, so we're not here to talk about the specifics

[30:33] of the design, although we alluded to it and showed a nice picture about it and what we're

[30:37] thinking about it, but the specifics of the materiality, the design, the size, we will

[30:42] come back to this committee with the specifics and receive feedback accordingly and balance

[30:46] with our own facilities management and our own operations team too.

[30:50] In years past, it seemed to me that we did have committee reps sitting down with staff

[31:01] in building projects like this, and I wonder if this might be a project that would be worthy

[31:10] of maybe a member of the committee, and it sounds like there's a working group or

[31:16] of the Victoria Park community group, something like that to talk and have some discussion

[31:24] on this picnic shelter since it's part and parcel of their neighborhood.

[31:32] Certainly will include the Victoria Park working group. They are, like you said, part

[31:36] and parcel of the park itself, the neighborhood. They are part of one of the groups that

[31:42] we will speak to once the design is underway.

[31:45] Thank you. Another item that was brought to my attention and I have wondered

[31:56] about this as well. For instance you have a road that carries a fair amount of

[32:04] traffic through the park and I wondered like has there been any thought of how

[32:13] one would, instead of maybe having the stop at one point, like a different way of dealing

[32:21] with the traffic and the crossing, and I don't know if that's a concern.

[32:32] Sure.

[32:33] So, we had a pretty substantial engagement phase last summer that included internal

[32:41] and external engagement.

[32:42] We had a transportation charrette, so staff internally from our transportation department

[32:51] talked about a lot of these pieces in terms of crossover of active transportation,

[32:59] parking, the connection along Jubilee.

[33:03] There's even in some of the older documentation that Rich Mills had shared with us,

[33:10] There was reference to closing Jubilee back in the 70s and the 80s, and it seems to come

[33:17] up every decade.

[33:20] So there was a lot of conversation about is the park for cars, is it for pedestrians,

[33:26] and back and forth about how we're managing that overlap.

[33:31] I think that we've landed on a point where we're focusing more through this master plan

[33:39] on over the next 10-year period on pedestrian circulation through the park space.

[33:45] We have a parking strategy that we're looking at and strategic items that we're bringing

[33:50] forward over the next 10-year period that try to get at the crux of some of those conflicts.

[33:58] But yeah, I think that that's become an ongoing dialogue in our engagement and you'll

[34:05] see it represented in the master plan as well.

[34:09] Thank you. One last item we've got Nandering Pathways and I do believe in

[34:17] the script I read about perhaps sand and gravel finishes and I think that might

[34:30] be a bit difficult and I wondered whether there might be some consent. I'm

[34:38] I'm just trying to think of the Romantic era or the landscape era, the late Victorian period,

[34:43] and how you blend that, and I will be honest, I abhor Ashfalt, and I don't think it has

[34:55] a place in the park for it, but I wondered whether something like an aggregate or a brushed

[35:03] aggregate brushstone might work on the paths where you are suggesting the

[35:10] gravel and the sand and then again I don't know where those paths are but I

[35:15] just put it out there for your consideration if you want to respond.

[35:24] We probably hold off until maybe we do that work but I know any asphalt

[35:29] installations there they use a different type it's a rougher category

[35:34] of asphalt to maybe allude to that sand and gravel finish.

[35:40] But beyond that, it's typically a cost decision really.

[35:45] If we're speaking of concrete to brush concrete

[35:48] or expose aggregate concrete or something to that effect,

[35:52] to do it in mass quantity is costly.

[35:55] So asphalt is the better, is the balance I say,

[35:59] of both of those where we get the accessibility benefits

[36:02] of a firm stable surface.

[36:05] and not quite as expensive as concrete so we'll consider that I mean I think it's

[36:12] part of the cost considerations but doing this under budget is also part of it

[36:17] too and there are modifications we can do to ask well to help the the visual or

[36:22] to help the what it what it appears like

[36:29] thank you are there any other

[36:33] comments.

[36:38] So staff have you any concluding remarks or do you feel you've

[36:44] exhausted what we need to know? Michelle and Kieran. Karen. Through the chair, Doe,

[36:52] we just wanted to present the information to the committee today and

[36:55] acknowledge that you know parks and heritage planning will continue to

[37:00] work together as the broader master plan moves forward but also as some of

[37:05] those implementation pieces are sort of targeted

[37:09] to start work on and absolutely where

[37:13] a heritage permit is required,

[37:15] we will seek advice from the neighborhood representative

[37:20] to see whether those permits need to come to committee

[37:24] or whether they can be processed

[37:26] at a staff level under delegated approval.

[37:30] Very good, thank you.

[37:32] Any further direction?

[37:35] Great.

[37:36] All right.

[37:37] We'll now proceed to our Bill 23 Municipal, and thank you again for coming.

[37:46] Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review.

[37:50] So it looks like we have two properties, 130 Weber Street West and 105117 Onward Avenue.

[37:59] And I assume, Victoria, you're going to be working on this and presenting.

[38:04] All right.

[38:08] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[38:10] So the first property that we're bringing forward to this evening as part of our municipal heritage register review is 130 Weber Street West.

[38:19] The property contains a two-story early 20th century brick building constructed in the industrial vernacular style with subtle Art Deco influences.

[38:31] influences. I just wanted to note to the committee that the statement of significance refers

[38:36] to the building having subtle classical revival influences, but after some reassessment these

[38:46] appear to be more aligned with the art deco architectural style. So the building is situated

[38:53] situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Bright

[39:01] Up Street and Weber Street West within the warehouse district cultural heritage

[39:06] landscape and the principal resource that contributes to the heritage value

[39:11] of the property is the commercial building.

[39:17] So the property has designed

[39:20] physical value as it is a representative example of industrial

[39:24] vernacular architecture with subtle art deco influence. The property has

[39:30] historical and associative value. So Charles Dorr, founder of

[39:37] Dare Foods, was the original owner of these lands and the property formerly

[39:41] housed the Dare Foods factory before a fire destroyed the building in 1943.

[39:47] free. Dare Foods has since relocated to its location on Kingsway Drive. So A.B. Kaya of

[39:56] Kaya Fabrics purchased the property and relocated the company to 130 Weber Street West in 1947.

[40:06] Kaya Fabrics is a well-known entity in the Canadian textile industry. The company collaborated

[40:12] with a Danish-based designer and artist

[40:15] to produce textile art prints

[40:17] that helped shape Canadian art textile styles.

[40:20] And the company also had exclusive rights

[40:23] to a line of fire-retardant fabrics,

[40:26] making kaia fabrics a leading supplier

[40:29] to schools, hospitals, and other institutions

[40:32] throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

[40:36] The current building at 130 Weaver Street West

[40:39] was designed by B.A. Jones.

[40:41] Jones worked with W. H. Schmaltz and assisted with the design of the 1922-23 Kitchener City

[40:52] Hall building. And Jones also designed the 1932 public utilities building and the 1936-37

[41:01] Church of the Good Shepherd.

[41:06] And this property also has contextual value as it contributes

[41:10] to the continuity and character of the Brightup Street and Weber Street West

[41:14] streetscapes as well as the warehouse district CHL. So that concludes my

[41:20] presentation on this property. Madam Chair would you like me to just move to

[41:24] the next one and we can consider them both together or do you want to pause

[41:29] here and have a discussion? Perhaps we can pause and we can take them

[41:34] together but I'll ask the question. Are there any questions for Victoria on

[41:39] this property.

[41:44] Well, I have one. It's a bit of nostalgia. Does anyone remember buying

[41:52] kaya fabrics or having someone make clothing of kaya fabric? I do.

[42:04] I was really sorry when

[42:07] that fabric company left our city and it was kind of a pleasant surprise to read

[42:15] this in the in the script and I hadn't realized where this was made. Good. All

[42:21] right. Are there any other comments or questions? All right. We'll proceed then

[42:28] to the onward property.

[42:36] All right. Thank you Madam Chair. So the second

[42:38] property that's being brought forward this evening is the property

[42:43] municipally addressed as 105 to 117 Onward Avenue. This property contains a

[42:49] three-story mid-20th century brick apartment building constructed in the

[42:53] structuralist architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a

[42:58] 1.19 acre parcel of land located at the corner of Onward Avenue and Weber

[43:02] Street East in the Onward Avenue neighborhood cultural heritage

[43:06] landscape. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value of the

[43:10] property is the apartment building.

[43:16] So the property has designed physical value

[43:18] as the building is a representative example of the structuralist architectural

[43:22] style. The property has historical associated value given its association

[43:27] with the original owner and builder Michael Krauss and it also has the

[43:32] potential to yield information about post-war development within the city

[43:36] of Kitchener. So Michael Krause was founder of Krause

[43:41] Carbon Mills and Struidex Fibers and was a prominent member of the new apostolic church.

[43:46] His religious work and his work as a builder were intertwined. He served as the contractor

[43:51] for the church building at 182 Victoria Street North and helped build the current new apostolic

[43:57] church at 160 Margaret Avenue. Krause was the founder and president of Stam Investments,

[44:03] a company owned by the new Apostolic Church of Canada, which was involved in apartment

[44:07] construction and land development. The company's proceeds were partly dedicated to the church's

[44:12] missionary work in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. The building at 105 to 117

[44:19] Onward Avenue illustrates the role of apartment buildings in addressing post-war housing needs

[44:24] in Kitchener. This building is part of a series of several apartment buildings

[44:28] constructed by different owners on the same or modified plans around 1948.

[44:37] And

[44:37] the property has contextual value as the building contributes to the continuity

[44:41] and character of the Onward Avenue streetscape. The building is in its

[44:45] original location and maintains its original use as an apartment building.

[44:49] Prior to World War II, the area around this property represented the limits

[44:53] of Kitchener's Urban Development and there is a link between this building

[45:05] So that concludes my presentation on these properties and I'm just going to put the recommendation

[45:12] up on the slide for the committee. Thank you.

[45:18] Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions about this? Yes, Councillor Michele.

[45:25] Thank you. It's nice to see this apartment being put on the list. Was there not another

[45:29] apartment beside that at the same heritage at one point? I'm sure there was

[45:36] two. Through the chair I don't know if there was one like directly beside this

[45:41] property but on 265 Weber Street East which is very close to this property

[45:46] there is an H plan apartment building and then the the two properties that

[45:52] I mentioned at Borden Avenue are also sort of H plan blocks as well. Yeah I

[45:59] I thought there was one up closer towards going towards East Ave, but that's okay.

[46:03] It's nice to see this.

[46:04] Thank you.

[46:07] Thank you, Councillor Michel.

[46:09] Any other questions for Victoria?

[46:12] Well seeing none, I'm going to read the motion that pursuant to Section 29 of the Interior

[46:21] Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized and designation be

[46:26] pursued for the following properties. 130 Weber Street West 105 117 Onward Avenue. Are

[46:35] there any questions? Who would move this? Magda, thank you. Any further questions? All

[46:44] right. All those in favor? It's carried. And this will go to Council for approval

[46:54] June 29, 2026. Now we have the information items our heritage permit

[47:02] applications tracking sheet. Are there any questions about that one? Seeing none

[47:09] who would like to adjourn the meeting.

[47:14] Thank you Councillor Chapman.

Heritage Kitchener Committee

Transcript