[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] Access lane on the other side of the machine shop. It's all sort of working together in conjunction
[15:08] with some of those life cycle efficiencies that we are looking at moving forward. Next slide.
[15:19] So with that, we're really focusing on, for the master plan, bringing forward a bit of
[15:26] conceptual overview of that space. We don't have specific finalized design to be presented
[15:34] in the master plan itself, but it's more of a conceptual understanding that we'd like
[15:40] to move forward with. Each one of those individual capital projects will talk to our colleagues
[15:46] in heritage planning and understand if the process would be to bring that forward
[15:51] to heritage each like in an individual sense or as a collective. We want to make
[15:57] sure that the point that Michelle made about cumulative impacts that were
[16:02] being cognizant of that and that as a whole we are making good choices in terms
[16:09] of the design and the the final impact to the park itself. So the picnic
[16:14] shelter we're looking at upgrading that to match the aesthetic of existing
[16:19] park buildings, similar to the recently renovated bandstand, and shifting that structure away
[16:28] from the machine shop, as it's not in an ideal location currently.
[16:32] It's kind of pushed to the farthest back corner of the park.
[16:36] The summer kitchen considering potentially a new use there or location to support the
[16:43] Indigenous people's gathering space and the active play zone that I referenced.
[16:48] for the play area specifically. We'd like to move the swings a little bit
[16:53] closer to the existing play area because currently they are not meeting
[16:57] accessibility requirements and open up that Vista as the Heritage District
[17:03] Plan references Vistas and sweeps of grass. We want to alleviate some issues
[17:11] with accessibility and consolidating those play areas, improving maintenance for our staff but
[17:19] also kind of improving that at the same time. And as well as the seating options around the
[17:27] playground and the splash pad that would kind of concurrently work in tandem with those upgrades.
[17:32] the splash pad replacing what's existing but adjacent to the playground, the
[17:40] basketball, look at that as more of a dedicated team area close to the outdoor
[17:47] exercise equipment that's existing and then the trail piece keeping in mind the
[17:53] point made about meandering pathways and not expanding widths where absolutely
[18:00] be, you know, not necessary, but looking at mitigating pedestrian conflicts and improving
[18:06] the surfaces where we can.
[18:09] Next slide.
[18:11] So this is just an example, and I believe Heritage might have, Committee might have
[18:17] seen this previously, but we're looking at a Canadian supplier, Shave View, that could
[18:24] potentially provide a replacement for the existing picnic shelter. We've
[18:31] discussed materiality and like wish list options with our facilities
[18:34] management staff, so they've given us an understanding of what they'd like to see
[18:39] in terms of power, lighting, durability, specs as they relate to a new
[18:45] structure in the park, but will also obviously be considering the aesthetic
[18:49] to be consistent with like Michelle had mentioned the existing buildings and
[18:55] structures in the park whether that be cedar shingles or stone cladding of the
[19:01] base something that really fits within the context of the park next slide and
[19:07] this is just another alternative with a metal structure roof but there's you
[19:14] know there's a lot of different opportunities to work with this
[19:18] supplier to achieve an aesthetic that's agreeable to Heritage and to all those
[19:26] stakeholders as well. Next slide. I think that's... I'll turn it over to Michelle.
[19:35] And so I guess in conclusion what came out of the Heritage review was
[19:41] that as the draft recommendations are presented now they will not detract
[19:47] from the heritage character and in some instances will actually create these
[19:53] opportunities to enhance the heritage character. Most of the changes that Karen
[20:00] had described are located in that south end of Victoria Park and you know when
[20:07] we move forward with implementation of the recommendations we will need to
[20:14] what is the right process so that we have that bird's eye view of the park as a whole
[20:23] and can understand sort of the cumulative impact of changes that might be more minor over time,
[20:31] but collectively could have a larger impact.
[20:35] And then depending as well on the scope of change,
[20:38] You know, whether those changes are things that would be considered under our delegated
[20:46] approval authority bylaw and or whether the scope of change requires consideration through
[20:54] the Heritage Committee and potentially counsel.
[20:57] So that is the conclusion of the presentation by staff.
[21:02] staff. We do have our consultant here if there are questions with respect to the memo that
[21:12] you may want to address to the delegation. Karen and I are obviously available if there's
[21:18] questions of staff, but generally we just like to open it up to the committee for comments
[21:25] and questions.
[21:26] Thank
[21:35] you, and it gives us a really good overview of both the practical and the heritage items.
[21:47] So I will open it up to committee for questions or comments, observations, and, sure, Councillor
[21:57] Chatlin.
[21:58] Yeah, thank you, and thank you for this report.
[22:02] I just have a few questions, and maybe it's too early to answer them, but there's mention
[22:09] of signage.
[22:12] I hope we can keep that to a minimum, can we?
[22:18] Through the Chair, I think what the recommendation is is to have a consolidated and comprehensive
[22:25] approach, and I think that idea would be to sort of minimize the signage, but also
[22:33] likely have sort of a consistent approach
[22:36] where we do introduce signs so that we reduce
[22:40] that visual clutter both in terms of number
[22:43] but also in terms of like design or style,
[22:46] if that makes sense.
[22:47] Okay, yeah, I'd hate to see the part full of signs.
[22:52] All right, it's a large part but it's not that big,
[22:55] I guess.
[22:57] You mentioned that the basketball area
[23:00] would be closer to the outdoor exercise area and I was just wondering if that
[23:04] would in any way impact the the parking in that area right now.
[23:13] Yeah I can take
[23:13] that. So we're looking at kind of adjacent to the existing parking lot.
[23:20] It won't impact the parking specifically it's just a kind of a shift
[23:23] closer to that space so it reads as more of a consistent youth-focused
[23:28] space, but no specific concerns about parking impacts.
[23:35] Okay, great. There's no mention of barbecues or outdoor, I don't know if they're not called
[23:42] barbecues, but pits, fire pits.
[23:47] Have we decided not to do that?
[23:50] So that's kind of come in tandem with the picnic shelter, I believe. We have sort of
[23:58] dedicated coal locations. There's a lot of independent sort of multi-generational
[24:07] gatherings that we've seen over the last few years in the park and people bringing their own
[24:15] facilities with them to the space. The Parks Master Plan does provide some information in
[24:25] of like moving forward with a pilot for that piece as well. So I don't know if
[24:30] Markey likes to speak to that in more detail. I think there's room for minor
[24:34] improvements such as that. So we didn't hear an outcome specifically for
[24:38] barbecues. We know it's used but a permanent facility like that we can
[24:42] certainly add it after the fact. It doesn't necessarily have to be part of
[24:44] the larger strategic plan. So if it's a grassroots initiative or something
[24:48] maybe you hear from constituents we're happy to place it in the
[24:52] location like that. Okay because I do think as Karen said there are a lot of
[24:57] multi-generational families that do use the park and you know hold parties and
[25:02] that sort of thing so it'd be nice if they had that infrastructure available to
[25:07] them. I can hold off if others have questions. Okay what about the
[25:13] multi-use trail? What ideas do you have for that? Because I know it can
[25:19] be, there is conflict with pedestrians and e-bikes in particular, or e-scooters.
[25:29] We are looking at as part of that southern portion in the active play zone to have a
[25:37] sort of bypass trail around the backside of that space if we can consolidate it closer
[25:44] or together, still meandering in a way, but I think that that would really help the conflicts
[25:50] we're seeing with pedestrians and e-scooters and the entrance from the parking lot near
[25:55] the pavilion. There's a lot going on in that space. There's a lot of crossover to the
[26:00] washroom facility. If that becomes a change room in the future or if we look at retrofit
[26:08] for that building, there's even more sort of crossover of pedestrians in that space.
[26:12] and we're seeing that through our like sensor technology as well. So I think that that provides
[26:18] even more data behind making a change there in terms of the pathway and providing a better
[26:27] connection from the Iron Horse Trail around that space to neighboring side streets and
[26:34] to the rest of the park.
[26:35] right okay and what about the indigenous people's gathering space I know one
[26:43] concern when it was sort of an impromptu arrangement was the close proximity to
[26:51] the kids play area so would it be moved back slightly to yeah that conflict so
[26:58] So our colleague Carol Bacon is managing that piece, and the location is Indigenous-led
[27:06] in terms of citing that appropriately, and it's quite a distance away from the playground
[27:14] in an open green space that I think we are going to have a communication of that publicly
[27:20] in the next couple days.
[27:23] 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.
[27:33] Right.
[27:34] 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.
[27:45] The entirety of the master plan?
[27:47] or at least like we can I was the aiming to for post heritage committee to
[27:53] afford ASI's report if I think that that we can keep that internal to the
[28:00] working group but I think if if need be we would share that as well okay thank
[28:07] you I think it's you've done a great job thanks thank
[28:13] you
[28:14] Councilor Chapman. Are there any other questions, comments?
[28:23] Yes, Arons.
[28:27] I just
[28:27] had a question about the, it was noted that there was the potential for land
[28:31] acquisition and expansion of the park beyond the railway, keeping in mind that
[28:35] it should be differentiated from the rest of the park if that happens from
[28:38] like a heritage perspective. I wondered if that is something that is being
[28:42] actively pursued or is it just a hypothetical depending on how things
[28:46] work out for some of these plants.
[28:50] It is being pursued, but it's part of the larger city initiative just because the resources
[28:55] to acquire properties is finite, so it's not just Victoria Park, it's across the city.
[29:00] So it is being considered realistically and actively just as part of the larger picture.
[29:07] Okay, thank you.
[29:11] Thank you, Preston.
[29:12] Any other questions?
[29:16] I have one or two. With respect to the picnic shelter, I'm sure that's a capital cost. Is
[29:25] it planned for this year or is this when the plan is finished?
[29:35] That's the first one of the gate once we're through council approval, like assuming it
[29:39] is approved through council. That is our first project to replace that function
[29:43] and service as quickly as we can.
[29:48] So further, you showed a few designs,
[29:52] and I'm wondering if, like, how you will...
[30:00] We'll work on the design in conjunction with our heritage committee, and I've seen now the
[30:09] two designs, and I think I have a preference on one of them. However, I don't know what
[30:16] the other members of the committee feel about the design, so how will that proceed?
[30:25] So specific capital projects, we will come back to heritage committee some more to bridge
[30:29] replacements and any other major capital works, this would fall under that same
[30:33] process. So we're not here to talk about the specifics of the design, although we
[30:37] alluded to it and showed a nice picture about it and what we're thinking about
[30:41] it, but the specifics of the materiality, the design, the size, we will come back
[30:45] to this committee with specifics and receive feedback accordingly and balance
[30:49] with our own facilities management, our own operations team too. In years past,
[30:55] It seemed to me that we did have committee reps sitting down with staff in building projects
[31:05] like this.
[31:06] And I wonder if this might be a project that would be worthy of maybe a member of the committee
[31:16] and that sounds like there's a working group or of the Victoria Park community group, something
[31:23] like that to to talk and have some discussion on this picnic shelter since
[31:29] it's part and parcel of their neighborhood.
[31:35] Certainly will include the
[31:36] Victoria Park Working Group. They are like you said part and parcel with the
[31:40] park itself, the neighborhood. They are part of the one of the groups that we
[31:45] will speak to once the design is underway.
[31:50] Thank you. Another item that
[31:55] was brought to my attention and I have wondered about this as well. For instance,
[32:02] you have a road, carries a fair amount of traffic through the park and I wondered
[32:12] like has there been any thought of how one would instead of maybe having the
[32:20] stop at one point like a different way of dealing with the traffic and the crossing and I don't
[32:30] know if that's a concern.
[32:35] Sure.
[32:36] So, we had a pretty substantial engagement phase last summer that included internal
[32:44] and external engagement.
[32:45] We had a transportation charrette, so staff internally from our transportation department
[32:54] talked about a lot of these pieces in terms of crossover of active transportation,
[33:02] parking, the connection along Jubilee.
[33:06] There's even in some of the older documentation that Rich Mills had shared with us,
[33:13] there was reference to closing Jubilee back in like the 70s and the 80s and it
[33:19] seems to come up every decade so there was there was a lot of conversation
[33:25] about is the park for cars is it for pedestrians and back and forth about
[33:31] how we're managing that overlap I think that we've landed on a point where
[33:38] where we're focusing more through this master plan
[33:41] on over the next 10-year period
[33:44] on pedestrian circulation through the park space.
[33:48] We have a parking strategy that we're looking at
[33:51] and strategic items that we're bringing forward
[33:53] over the next 10-year period
[33:56] that try to get at the crux of some of those conflicts.
[34:01] But yeah, I think that's become
[34:04] an ongoing dialogue in our engagement
[34:07] and you'll see it represented in the master plan as well.
[34:12] Thank you.
[34:14] One last item.
[34:16] We've got Nandering Pathways.
[34:19] And I do believe in the script I read about perhaps sand and gravel finishes.
[34:29] And I think that might be a bit difficult.
[34:34] called. And I wondered whether there might be some, I'm just trying to think of the romantic
[34:42] era or the landscape era, the late Victorian period, and how you blend that. And I will
[34:52] be honest, I abhor Ashfalt, and I don't think it has a place in the park for it. But I
[35:01] I wondered whether something like an aggregate or a brushed aggregate, brushed stone, might
[35:09] work on the paths where you are suggesting the gravel and the sand.
[35:15] And then again, I don't know where those paths are, but I just put it out there for your
[35:21] consideration if you want to respond.
[35:27] We probably hold off until maybe we do that work, but I know any asphalt installations
[35:33] they use a different type.
[35:35] It's a rougher category of asphalt
[35:38] to maybe allude to that sand and gravel finish.
[35:43] But beyond that, it's typically a cost decision.
[35:47] Really, if we're speaking of concrete,
[35:49] to brush concrete or expose aggregate concrete
[35:53] or something to that effect,
[35:55] to do it in mass quantity is costly.
[35:58] So asphalt is the better, is the balance, I'd say,
[36:01] of both of those where we get the accessibility benefits of the firm's
[36:05] stable surface and not quite as expensive as concrete. So we'll consider that. I
[36:14] mean I think it's part of the cost considerations but doing this under
[36:18] budget is also part of it too and there are modifications we can do to
[36:22] well to help the visual or to help the what it what it appears like
[36:32] thank you
[36:33] are there any other comments so
[36:42] staff have you any concluding remarks or do
[36:46] you feel you've exhausted what we need to know Michelle and Kira Karen through
[36:54] the chair though we just wanted to present the information to the committee
[36:57] today and acknowledge that, you know, parks and heritage planning will continue to work
[37:03] together as the broader master plan moves forward, but also as some of those implementation
[37:09] pieces are sort of targeted to start work on and absolutely, you know, where a heritage
[37:17] permit is required.
[37:18] We will, you know, seek advice from the neighbourhood representative to see, you
[37:27] or whether they can be processed at a staff level under delegated approval.
[37:33] Very good. Thank you. Any further direction? Great. All right. We'll now proceed to our
[37:44] Bill 23 Municipal. And thank you again for coming. Bill 23 Municipal Heritage Register Review. So
[37:53] So it looks like we have two properties, 130 Weber Street West and 105117 Onward Avenue.
[38:02] And I assume, Victoria, you're going to be working on this and presenting.
[38:08] All right.
[38:11] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[38:13] So the first property that we're bringing forward to this evening as part of our Municipal
[38:17] Heritage Register review is 130 Weber Street West.
[38:22] The property contains a two story early 20th century brick building constructed in the industrial vernacular style with subtle Art Deco influences.
[38:35] I just wanted to note to the committee that the statement of significance refers to the building having subtle classical revival influences,
[38:46] but after some reassessment these appear to be more aligned with the art deco
[38:53] architectural style. So the building is situated on a 0.59 acre parcel of land
[39:00] located on the northeast corner of Brightup Street and Weber Street West
[39:06] within the warehouse district cultural heritage landscape and the principal
[39:11] resource that contributes to the heritage value of the property is the
[39:16] commercial building.
[39:20] So the property has designed physical value as it is a
[39:25] representative example of industrial vernacular architecture with subtle art
[39:30] deco influence. The property has historical and associative value so
[39:37] Charles Dorr, founder of Dare Foods, was the original owner of
[39:42] lands and the property formally housed the Dare Foods factory before a fire
[39:48] destroyed the building in 1943. Dare Foods has since relocated to its location on
[39:55] Kingsway Drive. So AB Kaia of Kaia Fabrics purchased the property and
[40:02] relocated the company to 130 Weber Street West in 1947. Kaia Fabrics is
[40:10] is a well-known entity in the Canadian textile industry.
[40:14] The company collaborated with a Danish-based designer
[40:18] and artist to produce textile art prints that
[40:20] helped shape Canadian art textile styles.
[40:23] And the company also had exclusive rights
[40:26] to a line of fire-retardant fabrics,
[40:28] making Kaia fabrics a leading supplier
[40:32] to schools, hospitals, and other institutions
[40:35] throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
[40:38] The current building at 130 Weaver Street West was designed by B.A. Jones.
[40:44] Jones worked with W.H.E. Schmaltz and assisted with the design of the 1922-23 Kitchener City Hall Building.
[40:57] And Jones also designed the 1932 Public Utilities Building and the 1936-37 Church of the Good Shepherd.
[41:05] And
[41:10] this property also has contextual value as it contributes to the
[41:14] continuity and character of the Brightup Street and Weber Street West streetscapes
[41:18] as well as the warehouse district CHL.
[41:22] So that concludes my presentation on this property.
[41:25] Madam Chair would you like me to just move to the next one
[41:28] and we can consider them both together or do you want to pause here and have a discussion?
[41:34] Perhaps we can pause and we can take them together
[41:37] but I'll ask the question now. Are there any questions for Victoria on this property?
[41:47] Well, I have one. It's a bit of nostalgia. Does anyone remember buying Kaia fabrics
[41:58] or having someone make clothing of Kaia fabric?
[42:04] I do.
[42:08] I was really sorry when that
[42:10] fabric company left our city and it it was kind of a pleasant surprise to read
[42:18] this in the in the script and I hadn't realized where this was made good all
[42:24] right are there any other comments or question all right we'll proceed then
[42:31] to the onward property all
[42:39] right thank you Madam Chair so the second property
[42:42] property that's being brought forward this evening is the property municipally addressed
[42:46] as 105 to 117 Onward Avenue. This property contains a three-story mid-20th century brick
[42:54] apartment building constructed in the structuralist architectural style. The apartment building
[42:59] is situated on a 1.19 acre parcel of land located at the corner of Onward Avenue and
[43:05] Weber Street East in the Onward Avenue neighborhood cultural heritage landscape. The principal
[43:11] resource that contributes to the heritage value of the property is the
[43:14] apartment building.
[43:19] So the property has designed physical value as the building
[43:22] is a representative example of the structuralist architectural style. The
[43:27] property has historical associated value given its association with the
[43:31] original owner and builder Michael Krause and it also has the potential to
[43:36] yield information about post-war development within the city of
[43:39] Kitchener. So Michael Krause was founder of Krause Carbon Mills and Struidex Fibers
[43:45] and was a prominent member of the new Apostolic Church. His religious work and
[43:50] his work as a builder were intertwined. He served as the contractor for the
[43:55] church building at 182 Victoria Street North and helped build the current new
[43:59] Apostolic Church at 160 Margaret Avenue. Krause was the founder and
[44:04] president of Stam Investments, a company owned by the new Apostolic
[44:07] Church of Canada, which was involved in apartment construction and land development.
[44:12] The company's proceeds were partly dedicated to the church's missionary work in Asia, Africa,
[44:17] South America and the Caribbean.
[44:20] The building at 105 to 117 Onward Avenue illustrates the role of apartment buildings
[44:25] in addressing post-war housing needs in Kitchener.
[44:28] This building is part of a series of several apartment buildings constructed by different
[44:32] owners on the same or modified plans around 1948.
[44:40] And the property has
[44:41] contextual value as the building contributes to the continuity and
[44:44] character of the Onward Avenue streetscape. The building is in its
[44:48] original location and maintains its original use as an apartment building.
[44:52] Prior to World War II, the area around this property represented the limits
[44:56] of Kitchener's Urban Development and there is a link between this building
[45:00] And then nearby, each plan apartment building is at 141, 149 Borden Avenue and 265 Weaver Street
[45:07] East. So that concludes my presentation on these properties and I'm just going to put
[45:14] the recommendation up on the slide for the committee. Thank you.
[45:21] Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions about this? Yes, Councilor Michele.
[45:28] Thank you. It's nice to see this apartment being put on the list. Was there not another
[45:32] apartment beside that at the same heritage at one point? I'm sure there was
[45:39] two. Through the chair I don't know if there was one like directly beside this
[45:44] property but on 265 Weber Street East which is very close to this property
[45:49] there is an H plan apartment building and then the the two properties that
[45:55] I mentioned at Borden Avenue are also sort of H plan blocks as well. Yeah I
[46:02] I thought there was one up closer towards going towards East Ave, but that's okay.
[46:06] It's nice to see this.
[46:07] Thank you.
[46:10] Thank you, Councillor Michel.
[46:11] Any other questions for Victoria?
[46:15] Well seeing none, I'm going to read the motion that pursuant to Section 29 of the Interior
[46:24] Heritage Act, the cultural heritage value or interest be recognized and designation be
[46:29] pursued for the following properties. 130 Weber Street West 105 117 Onward Avenue. Are
[46:37] there any questions? Who would move this? Magda, thank you. Any further questions? All
[46:47] right. All those in favor? It's carried. And this will go to Council for approval
[46:57] June 29, 2026. Now we have the information items our heritage permit
[47:05] applications tracking sheet. Are there any questions about that one? Seeing none
[47:12] who would like to adjourn the meeting.
[47:17] Thank you Councillor Chapman.