[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[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.