Good afternoon and welcome to our May Heritage Kitchener meeting. This afternoon we're pleased
to have with us our reps who are going to talk about Victoria Park. And I just encourage
everyone that, you know, if you have questions, we know the rules and how we do our reports
and so on and so forth. So, again, for the audience, people interested
in participating in future meetings can register online using the Delegation Registration
form www.kitchener.ca delegation or via email at delegation at kitchener.ca.
So first item of business, we would like to know if anybody has a disclosure of pecuniary
interest and the general nature thereof.
of. So are there any pecuniary interest? Seeing none, we'll proceed to the delegation.
And
what we're going to do is go straight to this presentation on Victoria Park. And you have
as your agenda item, Heritage Consultation Memo for Victoria Park Master Plan.
And we have two of our staff who are going to present because they've both been involved
in this item.
We have Michelle Drake, our Senior Heritage Planner, and Karen Lisa, Landscape Architect.
So each of them will present, and we do have a five-minute presentation.
However, I would think that this item may take longer than the five minutes.
And since we don't have a long agenda, I will open it up,
and you do what you have to do to present.
All right.
So, Michelle, are you going to present first?
We're going to present together.
Karen and Melissa and Michelle, please.
Thank you, Jean, for that introduction.
So both myself and Ms. Lizard are here tonight to talk about the Victoria Park Master Plan
and the Heritage Review that was undertaken by the firm of Archaeological Services Inc.
ASI. The purpose of our presentation today is to not walk you through every single recommendation
of the Draft Master Plan but rather to sort of highlight the theme areas and the findings
as they relate to heritage with respect to ongoing work with the overall Victoria Park
master plan review process.
So as I mentioned, ASI was retained to assess how
the draft Victoria Park Master Plan recommendations aligned with, as you know,
the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan policies and
guidelines. The review identified a few different things. One being, or I guess
the purpose story of the review was to identify if there were any potential conflicts, but
it also identified and looked at opportunities where we may be able to strengthen the heritage
character that we see in Victoria Park today and in the broader Heritage Conservation District
throughout the process.
In terms of context, this committee should be fairly familiar that Victoria Park is
the city's oldest park. It was established in the 1890s and forms a central feature within
the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The plan that applies in that district
identifies the park as a romantic landscape and then it mentions that it's characterized
by things like the naturalistic forms, the meandering pathways, wooded areas, open
lawns, framed vistas, and then it mentions the lake as a focal point within the park
and the district.
I'm going to turn it over to Karen for now.
All good?
Okay.
Thanks, Michelle.
Good afternoon.
Thank you for taking the time to hear about the master plan and the progress we've made
since we last met in November of 2025.
I just wanted to bring some additional information to the committee in terms of the recommendations
that we've brought forth and how it relates to what Michelle had just mentioned about
the Heritage Review.
As far as the process for the project, since we last met, we were working through draft
recommendations.
So we'd finalized phase one and phase two, and we were validating all the data we
had collected from those two phases and drafting recommendations based on capital, policy and
strategic initiatives. We worked through an internal stakeholder process where we verified
that information and basically circled back to those folks in our working group and made
sure that we weren't missing anything. And then we're looking at a prioritization of
those recommendations. So in terms of the internal stakeholder verification, we worked
through, like I mentioned, the internal working group, but also feedback from our CLT, our
corporate leadership team. And then, as Michelle mentioned, we jointly retained ASI to look
at the overall recommendations and are here today for our second update.
And concurrently are working on the document in the background just to make sure that we
meet our June 1st deadline for council.
Next slide.
So in terms of the internal stakeholder verification, that was in March that we went individually
to heritage planning staff, economic development, our parks operations staff, as well as transportation.
Those four were sort of key groups that we had heard from in our engagement process that
had a lot of input when it came to some of those recommendations, and we wanted to make
sure that what we were presenting aligned with staff's thoughts and strategic goals
as well. And then CLT came in April where we confirmed support and or revisions to some
of those recommendations, keeping in mind that the 43 recommendations that we presented
in our memo to this committee as well as to ASI have since been refined. But we will
move forward with the original list that we had presented just so we can have that
discussion if there's any specific questions. And then, again, in April, we were working
with ASI to make sure that we had that reference point for committee today. Next slide.
So as I mentioned, the 43 original recommendations, there was 25 capital, nine strategic, and
nine policy. Of those, they're covered under the topics to the right. I know that's
kind of small text but it gives you an understanding of the depth of the engagement and the feedback
we received last year and how we sort of grouped those topics and moved forward in providing
recommendations that align with what we heard internally and externally from the public.
Next slide.
I guess I'll pass it back to Michelle.
So,
in terms of the overall findings, what ASI reported back to us was that the majority
of the draft recommendations found in the draft Victoria Park Master Plan were not inherently
in conflict with the policies that this committee is familiar with within the Victoria Park
Area Heritage Conservation District Plan.
many of the recommendations actually present opportunities where we may be
able to restore and or improve and enhance the character within the park in
the broader district. The primary risk that they did share was the idea of
like cumulative impact so the idea that if there are numerous small and or
or uncoordinated changes in the park,
that their collective impact could be a concern,
and specifically with respect to the idea
of cumulative visual clutter.
So some of the key considerations that were outlined
were related to focusing on protecting the Victoria Park
in terms of its landscape elements.
So looking at maintaining views to,
from and around the lake preserving the open grassy sweeps such as the commons
and the meadow retaining the wooded areas and then protecting the important
vistas. Also of interest is the pathways where we would like to continue to see
them meandering in their alignment instead of being perhaps you know
straightened or hard angles, and ideally not
over widening of the pathways as they exist today,
and where new structures may be proposed,
that there be thoughtful consideration to the need
and then careful consideration of the appropriate location
for those new structures.
And so with respect to some of the details
around these changes, the guidance emphasized compatibility rather than a
replication of historic styles. So looking at new or replacement elements that
are high quality, natural materials, muted tones, historically appropriate tones
like those suggested in the Heritage Conservation District Plan, and gave
these examples of like park furniture and signage looking to sort of coordinate how their design
happens and vegetation strategies that can also help us reinforce that romantic landscape
while still integrating some of the ecological and forestry best practices that the city would
like to achieve. And
with that I will turn it back to Karen.
Great thanks Nichelle. So this
Next slide references the active play zone in the back, like southern portion of the park.
In speaking to Michelle's previous slide about designing with a thoughtful approach and in
context of the space, we had some conversations about prioritizing work and with the picnic
shelter that has recently come down and some of the other capital life cycle replacements
at the back end in this zone that we're referring to. We were looking to find efficiencies in
making improvements and for lack of a better phrase, getting the most bang for our buck
in terms of that space. We know the following to be true currently in that existing location
in Victoria Park.
So the picnic shelter was removed last fall
due to its age and safety concerns.
The splash pad needs a complete overhaul.
It's at the end of its life cycle as well.
The playground's rubber eye surfacing needs repairs
and a few minor play elements need to change.
The trail surface needs repairs
and there's some user conflicts there as well.
Seating improvements and basketball court improvements
for all sort of highlighted is initial targeted capital work that can be, we can look at funding
within a short term period. Next slide.
So it's hard to see from this slide up that high but
we've tried to outline the like general area in context of the entire park itself
Really, just including the playground, the splash pad area, the picnic shelter, the existing
basketball court, the...
The machine shop. It's all sort of working together in conjunction with some of those life
cycle efficiencies that we are looking at moving forward. Next slide.
So with that, we're really
focusing on, for the master plan, bringing forward a bit of a conceptual overview of that
space. We don't have specific finalized design to be presented in the master plan itself,
but it's more of a conceptual understanding that we'd like to move forward with. Each
one of those individual capital projects we'll talk to our colleagues in heritage planning
and understand if the process would be to bring that forward to heritage each like
in an individual sense or as a collective, we want to make sure that the point that Michelle
made about cumulative impacts that were being cognizant of that and that as a whole we are
making good choices in terms of the design and the final impact of the park itself.
So the picnic shelter, we're looking at upgrading that to match the aesthetic of
existing park buildings similar to the recently renovated bandstand and shifting that structure
away from the machine shop as it's not in an ideal location currently. It's kind of pushed to the
farthest back corner of the park. The summer kitchen considering potentially a new use there
or location to support the Indigenous people's gathering space and the active play zone that
I referenced, for the play area specifically, we'd like to move the swings a little bit
closer to the existing play area because currently they are not meeting accessibility requirements
and open up that VISTA as the Heritage District Plan references, VISTAs and sweeps of grass.
We want to alleviate some issues with accessibility and consolidating those play
areas, improving maintenance for our staff, but also kind of improving that VISTA at the
same time.
And as well as the seating options around the playground and the splash pad that would
kind of concurrently work in tandem with those upgrades.
The splash pad replacing what's existing, but adjacent to the playground.
The basketball.
We'll look at that as more of a dedicated team area close to the outdoor exercise equipment
that's existing.
And then the trail piece, keeping in mind the point made about meandering pathways and not
expanding widths where absolutely not necessary, but looking at mitigating pedestrian conflicts
and improving the surfaces where we can.
Next slide.
So this is just an example, and I believe heritage committee might have seen this previously,
but we're looking at a Canadian supplier, ShaveView, that could potentially provide
a replacement for the existing picnic shelter.
We've discussed materiality and wish list options with our facilities management staff.
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.
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.
whether that be cedar shingles or stone cladding of the base, something that
really fits within the context of the park next slide. And this is just another
alternative with a metal structure roof but there's you know there's a lot of
different opportunities to work with this supplier to achieve an aesthetic
that's agreeable to Heritage and to all those stakeholders as well. Next slide.
I think that's an alternative over to Michelle.
And so I guess in conclusion
what came out of the Heritage review was that as the draft
recommendations are presented now they will not detract from the Heritage
character and in some instances will actually create these opportunities to enhance the heritage
character. Most of the changes that Karen had described are located in that south end
of Victoria Park and when we move forward with implementation of the recommendations,
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
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.
And then depending as well on the scope of change,
whether those changes are things that would be considered under our delegated approval authority bylaw
and or whether the scope of change requires consideration through the Heritage Committee and potentially council.
So that is the conclusion of the presentation by staff.
We do have our consultant here, if there are questions with respect to the memo that you
may want to address to the delegation, Karen and I are obviously available if there's questions
of staff, but generally we just like to open it up to the committee for comments and questions.
Thank
you and it gives us a really good overview of both the practical and the heritage items.
So I will open it up to committee for questions or comments, observations, and sure, Councillor
Chatlin.
Yeah thank you and thank you for this report. I just have a few questions and
maybe it's too early to answer them but there's mention of signage. I hope we
can keep that to a minimum, can we?
Through the chair, I think what the
recommendation is is to have a consolidated and comprehensive approach
and I think that idea would be to sort of minimize the signage but also likely
have sort of a consistent approach where we do introduce signs so that we
reduce that visual clutter both in terms of number but also in terms of like
design or style if that makes sense. Okay yeah just I'd hate to see the
park full of signs. It's a large park but it's not that big I guess. You
mentioned that the basketball area would be closer to the outdoor exercise area
and I was just wondering if that would in any way impact the the parking in that
area right now.
Yeah I can take that. So we're looking at kind of adjacent to the
existing parking lot. It won't impact the parking specifically it's just a
kind of a shift closer to that space,
so it reads as more of a consistent youth-focused space.
But yeah, no specific concerns about parking impacts.
Okay, great.
There's no mention of barbecues or outdoor,
I don't know if they're not called barbecues,
but pits, fire pits.
Have we decided not to do that?
So that's kind of come in tandem
with the picnic shelter I believe. We have sort of dedicated coal locations. There's a lot of
independent sort of multi-generational gatherings that we've seen over the last few years in the
park and people bringing their own facilities with them to the space. We do have a
the Parks Master Plan does provide some information in terms of like moving
forward with the pilot for that piece as well. So I don't know if Markey likes to
speak to that in more detail. I think there's room for minor improvements such
as that. So we didn't hear an outcome specifically for barbecues. We know it's
used but a permanent facility like that we can certainly add it after the
fact. It doesn't necessarily have to be part of the larger strategic plan. So
So if it's a grassroots initiative or something maybe you hear from constituents, we're happy
to place it in a location like that.
Okay.
Because I do think, as Karen said, there are a lot of multi-generational families that
do use the park.
Yeah.
Well, you know, hold parties and that sort of thing.
So it would be nice if they had that infrastructure available to them.
I couldn't hold off if others have questions.
No?
Okay.
What about the multi-use trail?
What ideas do you have for that?
Because I know it can be there is conflict
with pedestrians and e-bikes in particular,
or e-scooters.
We are looking at, as part of that southern portion
in the active play zone,
to have a sort of bypass trail
around the backside of that space
if we can consolidate it closer together. Still meandering in a way, but I think that
that would really help the conflicts we're seeing with pedestrians and e-scooters and
the entrance from the parking lot near the pavilion. There's a lot going on in that
space. There's a lot of crossover to the washroom facility if that becomes a change
room in the future or if we look at retrofit for that building. There's even more sort
crossover of pedestrians in that space and we're seeing that through our like
sensor technology as well so I think that that provides even more data behind
making a change there in terms of the pathway and providing a better
connection from the iron horse trail around that space to neighboring side
streets and to the rest of the park. Right okay and what about the
indigenous people's gathering space? I know one concern when it was sort of an
impromptu arrangement was the close proximity to the kids play area. So
would it be moved back slightly to avoid that conflict? So our colleague Carol
Bacon is managing that piece and the location is indigenous lead in terms of
I'm citing that appropriately and it's quite a distance away from the playground in an open
green space that I think we're going to have a communication of that publicly in the next
couple of days.
So yeah, we'll have a better understanding publicly of where that will be and where
it'll be cited and what the materiality and the design will look like.
Right. My other question had to do with the Victoria Park Working Group. They haven't seen
this yet. Will they be seeing it before it comes to Council in June? I forget when the
next meeting is. The entirety of the master plan? Well, at least, like, we can, I was
aiming to for post heritage committee to forward ASI's report if I think that that we can
keep that internal to the working group, but I think if need be, we would share that
as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
I think it's, you've done a great job.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Councilor Chapman.
Are there any other questions, comments?
Yes.
I just had a question about the, it was noted that there was potential for land
acquisition and expansion of the park beyond the railway, keeping in mind that it
be differentiated from the rest of the park if that happens from like a heritage perspective.
I wondered if that is something that is being actively pursued or is it just a hypothetical
depending on how things work out for some of these these plants.
It is being pursued but it's part of the larger city initiative just because the
resources to acquire properties is finite so it's not just Victoria Park it's across the
city so it is being considered realistically and actively just as part of the larger picture.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Preston.
Any other questions?
I have one or two.
With respect to the picnic shelter, I'm sure that's a capital cost.
Is it planned for this year or is this when the plan is finished?
That's the first one of the gate once we're through council approval.
like assuming it is approved through council, that is our first project to replace that function
and service as quickly as we can.
So further, you showed a few designs, and I'm wondering if, like, how you will work
Thank you.
with our heritage committee.
And I've seen now the two designs and I think I have a preference
on one of them. However, I don't know what the other members of the committee feel about
the design. So how will that proceed?
So specific capital projects. We will come
back to heritage committee similar to bridge replacements and any other major capital works.
This would fall under that same process, so we're not here to talk about the specifics
of the design, although we alluded to it and showed a nice picture about it and what we're
thinking about it, but the specifics of the materiality, the design, the size, we will
come back to this committee with the specifics and receive feedback accordingly and balance
with our own facilities management and our own operations team too.
In years past, it seemed to me that we did have committee reps sitting down with staff
in building projects like this, and I wonder if this might be a project that would be worthy
of maybe a member of the committee, and it sounds like there's a working group or
of the Victoria Park community group, something like that to talk and have some discussion
on this picnic shelter since it's part and parcel of their neighborhood.
Certainly will include the Victoria Park working group. They are, like you said, part
and parcel of the park itself, the neighborhood. They are part of one of the groups that
we will speak to once the design is underway.
Thank you. Another item that was brought to my attention and I have wondered
about this as well. For instance you have a road that carries a fair amount of
traffic through the park and I wondered like has there been any thought of how
one would, instead of maybe having the stop at one point, like a different way of dealing
with the traffic and the crossing, and I don't know if that's a concern.
Sure.
So, we had a pretty substantial engagement phase last summer that included internal
and external engagement.
We had a transportation charrette, so staff internally from our transportation department
talked about a lot of these pieces in terms of crossover of active transportation,
parking, the connection along Jubilee.
There's even in some of the older documentation that Rich Mills had shared with us,
There was reference to closing Jubilee back in the 70s and the 80s, and it seems to come
up every decade.
So there was a lot of conversation about is the park for cars, is it for pedestrians,
and back and forth about how we're managing that overlap.
I think that we've landed on a point where we're focusing more through this master plan
on over the next 10-year period on pedestrian circulation through the park space.
We have a parking strategy that we're looking at and strategic items that we're bringing
forward over the next 10-year period that try to get at the crux of some of those conflicts.
But yeah, I think that that's become an ongoing dialogue in our engagement and you'll
see it represented in the master plan as well.
Thank you. One last item we've got Nandering Pathways and I do believe in
the script I read about perhaps sand and gravel finishes and I think that might
be a bit difficult and I wondered whether there might be some consent. I'm
I'm just trying to think of the Romantic era or the landscape era, the late Victorian period,
and how you blend that, and I will be honest, I abhor Ashfalt, and I don't think it has
a place in the park for it, but I wondered whether something like an aggregate or a brushed
aggregate brushstone might work on the paths where you are suggesting the
gravel and the sand and then again I don't know where those paths are but I
just put it out there for your consideration if you want to respond.
We probably hold off until maybe we do that work but I know any asphalt
installations there they use a different type it's a rougher category
of asphalt to maybe allude to that sand and gravel finish.
But beyond that, it's typically a cost decision really.
If we're speaking of concrete to brush concrete
or expose aggregate concrete or something to that effect,
to do it in mass quantity is costly.
So asphalt is the better, is the balance I say,
of both of those where we get the accessibility benefits
of a firm stable surface.
and not quite as expensive as concrete so we'll consider that I mean I think it's
part of the cost considerations but doing this under budget is also part of it
too and there are modifications we can do to ask well to help the the visual or
to help the what it what it appears like
thank you are there any other
comments.
So staff have you any concluding remarks or do you feel you've
exhausted what we need to know? Michelle and Kieran. Karen. Through the chair, Doe,
we just wanted to present the information to the committee today and
acknowledge that you know parks and heritage planning will continue to
work together as the broader master plan moves forward but also as some of
those implementation pieces are sort of targeted
to start work on and absolutely where
a heritage permit is required,
we will seek advice from the neighborhood representative
to see whether those permits need to come to committee
or whether they can be processed
at a staff level under delegated approval.
Very good, thank you.
Any further direction?
Great.
All right.
We'll now proceed to our Bill 23 Municipal, and thank you again for coming.
Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review.
So it looks like we have two properties, 130 Weber Street West and 105117 Onward Avenue.
And I assume, Victoria, you're going to be working on this and presenting.
All right.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
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.
The property contains a two-story early 20th century brick building constructed in the industrial vernacular style with subtle Art Deco influences.
influences. I just wanted to note to the committee that the statement of significance refers
to the building having subtle classical revival influences, but after some reassessment these
appear to be more aligned with the art deco architectural style. So the building is situated
situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Bright
Up Street and Weber Street West within the warehouse district cultural heritage
landscape and the principal resource that contributes to the heritage value
of the property is the commercial building.
So the property has designed
physical value as it is a representative example of industrial
vernacular architecture with subtle art deco influence. The property has
historical and associative value. So Charles Dorr, founder of
Dare Foods, was the original owner of these lands and the property formerly
housed the Dare Foods factory before a fire destroyed the building in 1943.
free. Dare Foods has since relocated to its location on Kingsway Drive. So A.B. Kaya of
Kaya Fabrics purchased the property and relocated the company to 130 Weber Street West in 1947.
Kaya Fabrics is a well-known entity in the Canadian textile industry. The company collaborated
with a Danish-based designer and artist
to produce textile art prints
that helped shape Canadian art textile styles.
And the company also had exclusive rights
to a line of fire-retardant fabrics,
making kaia fabrics a leading supplier
to schools, hospitals, and other institutions
throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
The current building at 130 Weaver Street West
was designed by B.A. Jones.
Jones worked with W. H. Schmaltz and assisted with the design of the 1922-23 Kitchener City
Hall building. And Jones also designed the 1932 public utilities building and the 1936-37
Church of the Good Shepherd.
And this property also has contextual value as it contributes
to the continuity and character of the Brightup Street and Weber Street West
streetscapes as well as the warehouse district CHL. So that concludes my
presentation on this property. Madam Chair would you like me to just move to
the next one and we can consider them both together or do you want to pause
here and have a discussion? Perhaps we can pause and we can take them
together but I'll ask the question. Are there any questions for Victoria on
this property.
Well, I have one. It's a bit of nostalgia. Does anyone remember buying
kaya fabrics or having someone make clothing of kaya fabric? I do.
I was really sorry when
that fabric company left our city and it was kind of a pleasant surprise to read
this in the in the script and I hadn't realized where this was made. Good. All
right. Are there any other comments or questions? All right. We'll proceed then
to the onward property.
All right. Thank you Madam Chair. So the second
property that's being brought forward this evening is the property
municipally addressed as 105 to 117 Onward Avenue. This property contains a
three-story mid-20th century brick apartment building constructed in the
structuralist architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a
1.19 acre parcel of land located at the corner of Onward Avenue and Weber
Street East in the Onward Avenue neighborhood cultural heritage
landscape. The principal resource that contributes to the heritage value of the
property is the apartment building.
So the property has designed physical value
as the building is a representative example of the structuralist architectural
style. The property has historical associated value given its association
with the original owner and builder Michael Krauss and it also has the
potential to yield information about post-war development within the city
of Kitchener. So Michael Krause was founder of Krause
Carbon Mills and Struidex Fibers and was a prominent member of the new apostolic church.
His religious work and his work as a builder were intertwined. He served as the contractor
for the church building at 182 Victoria Street North and helped build the current new apostolic
church at 160 Margaret Avenue. Krause was the founder and president of Stam Investments,
a company owned by the new Apostolic Church of Canada, which was involved in apartment
construction and land development. The company's proceeds were partly dedicated to the church's
missionary work in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. The building at 105 to 117
Onward Avenue illustrates the role of apartment buildings in addressing post-war housing needs
in Kitchener. This building is part of a series of several apartment buildings
constructed by different owners on the same or modified plans around 1948.
And
the property has contextual value as the building contributes to the continuity
and character of the Onward Avenue streetscape. The building is in its
original location and maintains its original use as an apartment building.
Prior to World War II, the area around this property represented the limits
of Kitchener's Urban Development and there is a link between this building
So that concludes my presentation on these properties and I'm just going to put the recommendation
up on the slide for the committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions about this? Yes, Councillor Michele.
Thank you. It's nice to see this apartment being put on the list. Was there not another
apartment beside that at the same heritage at one point? I'm sure there was
two. Through the chair I don't know if there was one like directly beside this
property but on 265 Weber Street East which is very close to this property
there is an H plan apartment building and then the the two properties that
I mentioned at Borden Avenue are also sort of H plan blocks as well. Yeah I
I thought there was one up closer towards going towards East Ave, but that's okay.
It's nice to see this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Michel.
Any other questions for Victoria?
Well seeing none, I'm going to read the motion that pursuant to Section 29 of the Interior
Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized and designation be
pursued for the following properties. 130 Weber Street West 105 117 Onward Avenue. Are
there any questions? Who would move this? Magda, thank you. Any further questions? All
right. All those in favor? It's carried. And this will go to Council for approval
June 29, 2026. Now we have the information items our heritage permit
applications tracking sheet. Are there any questions about that one? Seeing none
who would like to adjourn the meeting.
Thank you Councillor Chapman.