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...
Access lane on the other side of 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
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 will 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 the final impact to 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 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, 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
be, you know, 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 might have, Committee might have
seen this previously, but we're looking at a Canadian supplier, Shave View, that could
potentially provide a replacement for the existing picnic shelter. We've
discussed materiality and like 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 will 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... I'll turn it 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 you know when
we move forward with implementation of the recommendations we will need to
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 could have a larger impact.
And then depending as well on the scope of change,
You know, 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 counsel.
So that is the conclusion of the presentation by staff.
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, I'd hate to see the part full of signs.
All right, it's a large part 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 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. The Parks Master Plan does provide some information in
of like moving forward with a 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 if it's a grassroots initiative or something
maybe you hear from constituents we're happy to place it in the
location like that. Okay because I do think as Karen said there are a lot of
multi-generational families that do use the park and you know hold parties and
that sort of thing so it'd be nice if they had that infrastructure available to
them. I can hold off if others have questions. 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
or 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 of 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 yeah that conflict so
So our colleague Carol Bacon is managing that piece, and the location is Indigenous-led
in terms of citing that appropriately, and it's quite a distance away from the playground
in an open green space that I think we are going to have a communication of that publicly
in the next couple 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?
or at least like we can I was the aiming to for post heritage committee to
afford ASI's report if I think that that we can keep that internal to the
working group but I think if 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, Arons.
I just
had a question about the, it was noted that there was the potential for land
acquisition and expansion of the park beyond the railway, keeping in mind that
it should 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 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...
We'll work on the design in conjunction 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 some more 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 specifics and receive feedback accordingly and balance
with our own facilities management, 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 that sounds like there's a working group or of the Victoria Park community group, something
like that to 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 with the
park itself, the neighborhood. They are part of the 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, 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 like the 70s and the 80s and it
seems to come up every decade so there was 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
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'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.
called. And I wondered whether there might be some, 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
I wondered whether something like an aggregate or a brushed aggregate, brushed stone, 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
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'd say,
of both of those where we get the accessibility benefits of the firm's
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
well to help 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 Kira Karen through
the chair though 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, you know, where a heritage
permit is required.
We will, you know, seek advice from the neighbourhood representative to see, you
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
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.
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 on a 0.59 acre parcel of land
located on the northeast corner of Brightup 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
lands and the property formally housed the Dare Foods factory before a fire
destroyed the building in 1943. Dare Foods has since relocated to its location on
Kingsway Drive. So AB Kaia of Kaia Fabrics purchased the property and
relocated the company to 130 Weber Street West in 1947. Kaia Fabrics is
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.E. 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 now. Are there any questions for Victoria on this property?
Well, I have one. It's a bit of nostalgia. Does anyone remember buying Kaia fabrics
or having someone make clothing of Kaia fabric?
I do.
I was really sorry when that
fabric company left our city and it 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 question all right we'll proceed then
to the onward property all
right thank you Madam Chair so the second property
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 Krause 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
And then nearby, each plan apartment building is at 141, 149 Borden Avenue and 265 Weaver Street
East. 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, Councilor 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.