Good afternoon and welcome to our May Heritage Kitchener meeting. Um this afternoon we're uh pleased to have with us um our reps who are going to talk about um Victoria Park and um I uh just encourage everyone that um you know um if you have questions we know the rules and um how we do our uh reports and so on and so forth. So um again for the audience, people interested in participating in future meetings can register online using the delegation registration form wkitner.ca delegation or via email at delegation.ca. So first item uh of business we would like to know if anybody has a disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof. So are there any pecunary interests? Seeing none we'll proceed to the delegation. Um and um what we're going to do is um go straight to um this presentation on Victoria Park. Um it's and you have as your agenda item heritage consultation memo for Victoria Park master plan. And we have uh two of our staff who are going to um present because they've both been involved in in this item. Uh we have Michelle Drake, our senior heritage planner, and uh Karen Lisa, landscape architect. So each of them will prevent will present and we do have a fivem 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 um open it up and you do what you have to do to present. All right. Um so, Michelle, are you going to present first? Uh we're going to present together. Karen and um Meliss and Michelle please. Thank you Jean for that introduction. So, uh, both myself and, uh, Miss Lear are here tonight to talk about the Victoria Park master plan and the heritage review, uh, that was undertaken by, uh, the firm of Archaeological Services, Inc., ASI. Um the purpose of our presentation today is to not walk you through every single recommendation of the draftmaster plan, but rather to sort of highlight the the theme areas and the findings as they relate to heritage um with respect to ongoing work with the overall Victoria Park master plan review process. So, as I mentioned, uh, 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 uh, a few different things. one being um or I guess the purpose sorry of the review was to identify if there were any potential conflicts. Um 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, uh, 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 an 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 uh lake as a focal point within the park and the district. And I'm going to turn it over to Karen for now. All good. Okay. Thanks, Michelle. Um, good afternoon. Uh, thank you for taking the time to uh to hear about the master plan and the progress we've made um since we last met in November of 2025. Um, I just wanted to bring some additional information uh to the committee um in terms of um the recommendations that we've brought forth and um how it relates to what Michelle had just mentioned about the heritage review. As far as the process for the project um since we last met, we were working through um draft recommendations. So we'd finalized phase one and phase two um and we were validating all the data we had collected from those two phases and drafting recommendations based on uh capital policy and strategic initiatives. Uh we uh 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. uh and then we're looking at a prioritization of those um recommendations. So um in terms of the internal stakeholder verification, we worked through um uh like I mentioned the internal working group, but also um feedback from our CLT, our corporate leadership team. Um, and then as Michelle mentioned, we uh jointly retained uh ASI to look at the overall recommendations and are here today for our second update. Um, and concurrently are working on the document in the background just to make sure that we meet our June 1 deadline for council. Next slide. So um in terms of the internal stakeholder verification uh that was in March that we went individually to heritage planning staff, economic development, our park per parks operations um staff as well as transportation. Those four were sort of key groups that we had heard from um uh in our engagement process but had a lot of um input uh when it came to some of those recommendations. and we wanted to make sure that what we were presenting um aligned with uh with staff's thoughts and strategic goals as well. Um and then CLT came in April um where we confirmed support andor revisions to some of those recommendations keeping in mind that the 43 recommendations that we presented uh in our memo to this committee as well as to ASI have since been refined. Um 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. Um and then again in April we were working with ASI to make sure that we had um 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. um of those they're um covered under the topics to the right. I know that's kind of small text, but uh it gives you an understanding of the depth of the engagement and the the feedback we received last year um and how we've sort of grouped those topics and and move forward in providing recommendations that um align with with what we heard internally and externally from the public. Next slide. So, I'll pass it back to Michelle. So, in terms of the overall findings, uh, 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 um recommendations actually present opportunities where we may be able to uh restore andor improve and enhance the character within the park and the broader district. The primary risk that they did share um was the idea of like cumulative impacts. So the idea that if there are numerous um small andor uncoordinated changes in the park that their collective impact could be um a concern and specifically with respect to um 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 uh 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 um perhaps you know straightened or hard angles. Um and ideally not over widening of the pathways as they exist today and where new structures may be proposed that there be you know 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 uh these changes, the guidance emphasized compatibility rather than a replication of historic styles. So looking at new or replacement elements um that are high quality natural materials, muted tones um 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, Michelle. Um so this next slide references uh the active play zone in the back like southern portion of the park. Um in in speaking to Michelle's previous slide about um designing with a thoughtful approach and in context of the space um we had some conversations about prioritizing work and um uh with the picnic shelter that has recently um come down and some of the other capital life cycle replacements um at the back end in this zone that we're referring to. Um, we were looking to find efficiencies and making improvements and for lack of a better phrase, getting the most bang for our buck in terms of that that space. Um, we know the following to be true currently in the that existing location uh in Victoria Park. So, the picnic shelter was removed last fall due to its age and safety concerns. Um, the splash pad needs a complete overhaul. It's at the end of its life cycle as well. Uh the playground's rubberized surfacing needs repairs and a few minor play elements need to change. Uh the trail surface needs repairs and uh there's some user conflicts there as well. Uh seating improvements and basketball court improvements were all sort of highlighted as initial uh targeted capital work that uh can be we can look at funding within a shortterm period. Next one. So, it's hard to see from this slide up uh that high, but um we've tried to outline the like general area in con in context of the entire park itself. Um really just including the playground, the splash pad area, the picnic shelter, the existing um basketball court, the uh access lane on the other side of the machine shop. Um it's all sort of working together um in conjunction with some of those life cycle um efficiencies that we're are looking at uh moving forward. Next slide. Um so with that um we're really focusing on uh for the master plan bringing forward a bit of a conceptual um overview of that space. uh we don't have specific uh finalized design to be presented in the master plan itself, but it's more of a conceptual um understanding that we'd like to move forward with. Each one of those individual uh capital projects will talk to our colleagues in heritage uh planning and understand if the process would be to bring that forward to heritage each like in an individual sense or um as a collective. uh we want to make sure that the the point that Michelle made about cumulative impacts that we're being cognizant of that and that as a whole um we are making good choices in terms of the design and the the final impact to the park itself. So, the picnic shelter, um, we're looking at upgrading that to match the aesthetic of existing park buildings, similar to the, um, uh, recently renovated bandstand. Um, and shifting that structure away from the machine shop as it's it's not in an ideal location currently. It's kind of pushed to the the farthest back corner of the park. uh the summer kitchen, considering potentially a new use there or location to support um the indigenous people's gathering space and the active play zone that I referenced. Um 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. Um and open up that vista. Um, as the heritage district plan references vistas and sweeps of grass, we want to um alleviate some issues with accessibility and um consolidating those play areas, improving um uh maintenance for our staff, but also kind of uh improving that Vista at the same time. Uh and as well as the seating options uh around the playground and the splash pad that would kind of concurrently work in tandem with those upgrades. Uh the splash pad replacing uh what's existing um but adjacent to the playground. The basketball um look at that as more of a dedicated team um area close to the outdoor exercise um equipment that's existing. And then the trail piece, keeping in mind the the point made about meandering pathways and um not expanding widths where um absolutely you know not necessary but looking at um mitigating pedestrian conflicts and improving the surfaces um where we can. Next slide. Uh so this is uh just an example and I believe Heritage might have committee might have seen this previously but um we're looking at a a Canadian supplier Shade View that um could potentially uh provide a replacement for the existing picnic shelter. Um 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, uh, specs as they relate to a new structure in the park. Um, but we'll also obviously be considering the aesthetic to be consistent with, um, like Michelle had mentioned, the existing buildings and structures in the park, whether that be cedar shingles or stone cladding um, of the base, something that really fits within the context of the park. Uh, next slide. And this is just another alternative with a metal structured roof. Um, but there's, you know, there's a lot of different um opportunities to work with this supplier to um achieve an aesthetic that's agreeable to to Heritage and uh to all those stakeholders as well. Next slide. I think that's I'll turn it over to Michelle. And so, uh, I guess in conclusion, what was came out of the heritage review was that, um, as the draft recommendations are presented now, um, they will not detract from the heritage character, um, and in some instances will actually create these opportunities to enhance the heritage character. Most of the changes um that Karen had described are located in that south end of Victoria Park. Um and you know when we move forward with um implementation of the recommendations we we will need to consider you know what is the right process so that we're have that um bird's eye view of the park as a whole and can understand sort of the cumulative impact of changes that might be more um minor over time but collectively you know could have a larger impact. Um and then depending as well on the scope of change, you know, whether those changes are things that would be um considered uh under our delegated approval authority by law and or whether the scope of change requires consideration um through the heritage committee and potentially council. So that is the conclusion of the presentation um by staff. We do have uh our consultant here if there are questions um with respect to the memo um that she you may want to address to the delegation. Um Karen and I are obviously available if there's questions of staff. Um but generally we just like to open it up to the committee for comments and questions. Thank you. And uh that gives us a really good overview um of both the uh practical and the heritage items. So I will open it up to committee um for questions or comments, observations and sure councelor Chapman. Yeah. Thank you and thank you for this report. Um I just have a few questions and maybe it's too early to answer them but um there was mention of signage um I hope we can keep that to a minimum. Can we uh 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 um likely have sort of a 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. Um, yeah, just I'd hate to see the park full of signs, right? It's it's a large park, but it's not that big, I guess. Um, you mentioned that the basketball area um 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. Um, so we're looking at kind of adjacent to the existing parking lot. Um, it won't impact the parking specifically. It's just a kind of a a shift closer to that space. So, it reads as more of consistent youth focused space. Um, but yeah, no no specific um concerns about parking impacts. >> Okay, great. Um there's no mention of barbecues um or outdoor I don't know they're not called barbecues but um pits fire pits. Have we decided not to do that? >> Uh so that's kind of come in tandem with the um like picnic shelter I believe. Um we have sort of dedicated coal locations. There's a lot of um independent uh sort of multigenerational gatherings that we've seen over the last few years um in the park and people bringing their own um uh facilities with them to the space. Um we do have a um the park's master plan does provide some information in terms of like moving forward with a pilot for that piece as well. So, um, I don't know if Marky likes to speak to that in more detail. >> I think there's room for minor improvements s 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 you hear from constituents, we're happy to um place it in the location like that. >> Okay? because I do think as as Karen said, there are, you know, a lot of multigenerational families that do use the park and >> will, you know, hold parties and and that sort of thing. So, it' be nice if they had that that um infrastructure available to them. >> Um I can hold off if others have questions. No. Okay. Um what about the multi-use trail? Um what what ideas do you have for that? Because I know it can be um there is conflict with pedestrians and ebikes in particular scooters. >> Um we are looking at uh as part of that southern portion in the the active play zone uh to have a a sort of bypass trail um around the backside of that space if we can consolidate it closer together. um still meandering in a way, but I think that um that would really help the conflicts we're seeing with uh 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 um you know a change room in the future or if we look at you know a 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 um data behind making a a change there in in terms of the pathway and um providing a better connection from the Iron Horse Trail around that space um to neighboring uh side streets and to the rest of the park. >> Right. Okay. Um, and what about the indigenous people's gathering space? Um, I know one concern when it was sort of an impromptu arrangement was the um close proximity to the kids play area. So, would it be moved back slightly to avoid that conflict? Um so our colleague Carol Bacon is managing that piece and um the location is indigenousled in terms of um citing that appropriately. Um and it's quite a distance away from the the playground in an open green space that I think we're going to have a communication of that publicly in the next couple days. Um, so, uh, yeah, we'll have a a better understanding publicly of where that will be and where it'll be cited and what the materiality and the the design will look like. >> Right. Um, my other question had to do with the um, Victoria Park working group. They haven't seen this yet. Um, 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 >> well at least uh like >> we can I was aiming to for post heritage committee to forward uh ASI's report if um um I think that that we can keep that internal to the um working group but um I think if if need be we would share that as well. >> Okay. Thank you. I I think it's you've done a great job. Thanks. Thank you, councelor Chapman. Are there any other questions, comments? >> Yes, arms. >> Um, I just had a question about the it was noted that there was potential for land acquisition and expansion of the park beyond the railway. Um, keeping in mind that it should be differentiated from the rest of the park if that happens from like a heritage perspective. Um, I wondered if that is something that is being actively pursued or is it just a a hypothetical depending on how things work out for some of these these plans. >> It is being pursued but as part of the larger city initiative just because the uh resources to acquire properties is finite. So it's not just Victoria Park, it's across the city. So it is being considered uh realistically and actively just as part of the larger picture. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you Preston. Any other questions? Um I have one or two with respect to the picnic shelter. I I'm sure that's capital cost. Um is it planned for this year or um Is this when the uh plan is finished? >> That's the first one out of the gate. Once we're through council approval, assuming it is approved through council, that is our first project uh to replace that function and service uh as quickly as we can. So further um you showed a few designs um and I'm wondering if um like how you will um work on the design in conjunction with our heritage committee. Um and I I've seen now the two designs and I think I have a preference on one of them. Um however I don't know what the other members of the committee feel about the design. So uh how will that proceed? >> So specific capital projects we will come back to heritage committee similar to bridge replacements and any other major capital works. This would fall under that same process. So, uh, 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 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. Um, in years past, um, it seemed to me that, um, we did have committee reps, um, sitting down with staff in building projects like this. And I wonder if, um, this might be um, a project that would be worthy of um, maybe a member of the committee. And it sounds like there's a working group or of the Victoria Park community group, something like that to 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 um like you said, part and parcel with the park itself, the neighborhood. uh they are part of the uh one of the groups that we will uh speak to once the u the design is underway. >> Thank you. Uh another item that uh was brought to my attention and um I have wondered about this as well. For instance, you have a road um carries a fair amount of traffic through the park. Um and I wondered like has there been any thought of how one would um instead of maybe having the stop and at one point like a different way of of dealing with the um of the traffic and the crossing and I don't know That's a concern. >> Sure. Um, so we had a pretty substantial engagement phase last summer um that included um internal and external engagement. We had a um a transportation sharet. So staff um internally from our transportation department um talked about a lot of these these pieces in terms of uh crossover of active transportation um parking the connection along Jubilee. Um there's even in some of the um like older documentation that Rich Mills had shared with us um there was reference to closing Jubilee back in like the 70s and the 80s and like it seems to come up every decade. Um so there was there was a lot of conversation about um is the park for cars, is it for pedestrians and and back and forth about um how we're managing that overlap. I think that we've landed um on a point where we're we're focusing more through this master plan on um over the next 10-year period on pedestrian circulation through the park space. Um we have a parking strategy that we're looking at and strategic items that we're bringing forward over the next um 10-year period that try to get at the the crux of some of those conflicts. Um but yeah, I think that that's that's become a an ongoing dialogue in our engagement and you'll see it represented in the master plan as well. >> Thank you. Uh one last item. Um, we've got mandering pathways and I do believe in the script I read about um perhaps sand and gravel um finishes and I think that might be a bit difficult. Um, and I wondered whether um there might be some cons like I'm just trying to think of the romantic era or the landscape era, the late Victorian period and and how you blend that. Um, and I I I will be honest, I abhore I abhore and I don't think it has a place in the park for it. Um, but I wondered whether something like um an aggregate or a brushed aggregate brush stone might work on the paths where you are suggesting the um 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 should probably hold off until maybe we do that work. But um I know any asphalt installations there, they use a different type. It's a rougher uh category of of asphalt to uh maybe elude to that sand and gravel finish. Um but beyond that, it's typically a cost uh decision really. it if we're speaking of concrete to uh brush concrete or expose aggregate concrete or something to that effect. Uh to do it in mass quantity is costly. So asphalt is the better is the balance I say of uh of both of those where we get the accessibility benefits of a firm stable surface and um uh not quite as expensive as as concrete. So uh we'll consider that. I mean, I think it it's part of the the cost considerations, but um doing this under budget is also part of it, too. And there are modifications we can do to asphalt to to help the the visual or to help the uh um what it what what it appears like. >> Thank you. Are there any other comments? So staff, have you any concluding remarks or do you feel you've exhausted what we need to know? Michelle and Kieran Karen >> uh through the chair do 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 um the broader master plan moves forward but also as some of those implementation pieces um are sort of targeted to to start work on. Uh and absolutely, you know, where um a heritage permit is required, we will um you know, seek advice from the neighborhood representative to see, you know, whether those permits need to come to committee or whether they can be processed um at a staff level under delegated approval. >> Very good. Thank you. Any further direction? Great. All right. Uh we'll now uh proceed to our bill 23 municipal and thank you again for coming. Um Bill 23 municipal heritage register review. So it looks like we have two properties 130 Weaver Street West and 10517 Onward Avenue. Uh and I assume Victoria, you're going to be working on this and presenting. All right. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so the first property um that we're bringing forward to you this evening as part of our municipal heritage register review uh is 130 Weber Street West. Um the property uh contains a two-story early 20th century um brick building constructed in the industrial vernacular style um with subtle art deco influences. Um I just wanted to note to the committee um that the statement of significance refers to um the building um having subtle uh classical revival influences um but after some reassessment um these appear to be more aligned with um the art deco uh architectural style. Um, so the building is situated on a um 0.59 acre parcel of land located on the north uh east corner of Brideup Street and Weber Street West uh within the warehouse district um cultural heritage landscape. And the principal resource uh that contributes to the heritage value um of the property is the commercial building. Uh so the property has uh design physical value as it is a representative example of um industrial vernacular architecture um with subtle art deco influence. Uh the property has historical and associative value. Um so Charles Door um or Dare founder of Dare Foods uh was the original owner of these lands. and the property formerly housed um the Dare Foods factory uh before a fire um destroyed the building in 1943. Uh Dare Foods um has since relocated um to its uh location on Kingsway Drive. Um so AB Kaya of Kaya Fabrics um purchased the property and uh relocated uh the company to uh 130 Weaver Street West in 1947. Uh Kaya Fabrics is well known is a well-known entity uh in the Canadian textile industry. Um the company collaborated with a Danishbased designer and artist to produce um textile art prints that helped shape Canadian art textile styles. And the company also had exclusive rights um to a line of fire retardant fabrics um making Kaya fabrics a lead leading supplier um to schools, hospitals, and other institutions um throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The current building at uh 130 Weber Street West uh was designed by BA Jones. Um Jones worked with WH uh Schmaltz and assisted with the design of the um 1922 2020 20 or 1922 23 uh Kitchener City Hall building. And uh Jones also designed the 1932 um public public utilities building and the 1936 37 Church of the Good Sheeperd. And this property um also has contextual value as it contributes to the continuity and character of the Brideup Street and Weber Street West streetscapes as well as the warehouse district CHL. Um, so that concludes my presentation on this property. Um, Madam Chair, would you like me to just move to the the next one? Um, and we can consider them both together or do you want to pause here and have discussion? >> Perhaps we can pause and um, we can take them together, but I'll ask the question. Are there any questions for Victoria on this property? Well, I have one. Um, it's a bit of nostalgia. Um, does anyone remember buying Kaya fabrics or having someone make clothing of Kaya fabric? I do. I was really sorry when that fabric company left um our city. Uh, 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 uh comments or questions? Um, all right. We'll proceed then to the onward property. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so the second uh property that's being brought forward uh this evening is um the property municipally addressed as 105 to 117 Onward Avenue. Uh this property contains a three-story mid 20th century brick apartment building uh constructed in the structuralist architectural style. The apartment building is situated on a 1.19 acre parcel of land uh 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. Uh so the property has design physical value as the building is a representative example of the structuralist architectural style. Uh the property has historical associative value given its association um with the original owner and builder Michael Krauss. Um and it also has the potential to yield information about um post-war development within the city of Kitchener. So Michael Krauss um was founder of Krauss carpet mills and Strudex fibers um and was a prominent member of the new apostolic church. Uh his religious work and his work as a builder were intertwined. Um he served as the contractor for the church building at 182 Victoria Street North and helped build uh the current new apostolic church uh at 160 Margaret Avenue. Uh Krauss was the founder and president of Stam Investments, a company owned by the New Apostolic Church of Canada uh which was involved in apartment construction and land development. Uh the company's proceeds were partly dedicated to uh the church's missionary work in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. The building at 105 to 117 uh Onward Avenue illustrates the role of apartment buildings in addressing post-war housing needs in Kitchener. Uh this building is part of a series of several apartment buildings uh constructed by different owners on the same uh or modified plans um around 1948. And the property has contextual value as the building contributes to the continuity and character of the Onward Avenue streetscape. Uh 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. Uh and there is a link between this building and the nearby um H plan apartment buildings at 14149 Bordon Avenue and 265 uh Weber Street East. Um, so that concludes my presentation on uh these properties and I'm just going to put the recommendation up on on the slide for the the committee. Thank you. >> Thank you, Victoria. Are there any questions about this? >> Yes. Uh, councelor show, >> thank you. It's nice to see this apartment being put on the list. Um, was there not another apartment beside that of the same heritage at one point? I'm sure there was two. Uh, through the chair, I don't know if there was one like directly beside this property, but on um 265 Weber Street East, which is very close to this property, there is an H plan apartment building. And then the um the two uh properties that I mentioned uh at Bordon Avenue are also um sort of H plan blocks as well. >> Yeah, I thought there was one up closer towards um going towards East, but that's okay. It's nice to see this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Michelle. Any other questions for Victoria? Well, seeing none, um 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, 10517 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. Uh 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, Councelor Chapman.