much for joining our November uh 2026 Heritage Committee meeting today. Um for any folks interested in participating in future meetings, you can register online using the delegation registration form at www uh.kitcher.ca-delegation. CA ordelegation or via email at delegation@kitchener.ca. Uh before we start here, we will be uh just disclosure of any peculiar interest or general nature thereof. I will request any members right now to disclose any peculiary interest regarding matters of this agenda. Seeing none. Okay. So we will move on to discussion item 4.1. Victoria Park Picnic Shelter Design Options DSD-2026-386. Uh Karen, our landscape architect, will provide a fivem minute presentation. Hi, Madam Chair. I'm just going to jump in here really quick first. Um yeah, so this uh item before the committee this evening um regarding the uh proposed picnic shelter um designs uh that it's it's an information item for the the committee just to present um the the options that are being considered at this time. So I'm going to uh pass it over to um to Carrie and Lisa to kind of walk through what the options are. Thanks, Victoria. Um, so let me just double check. Uh, the proposed uh new location that we mentioned in the report um is outlined. Uh, here you can see the uh previous location that's in the aerial photo is uh being demoed. Uh we want to shift the new location to where the basketball currently is. Um and in the Victoria Park master plan that was recently approved by council in June of this year, uh we are looking to um first move that basketball court and um make some upgrades to that location. Uh it's the yellow marked in as uh C in that graphic. So before the um the new location is um is prepped, we have to uh first look through the uh like design intent the um conceptual design and the detailed design of that space. But as we move forward to those tenders in 2027 um we are looking uh for feedback from uh this committee in terms of uh two different options. The first one in option one uh that we're proposing is uh they're both the same size. They're a 10 meter by 20 meter shelter um uh steel structure. Um the only difference is the uh the roof specifically would um either be cedar shake um in this option one um both would have a uh masonry columns uh on the base. So there's the rendering and uh detailed drawings that we've provided as well in the report. Um and then uh the columns themselves will um the specification for the masonry will match the park entry monuments uh stone. So we through all of um the review of options, we were definitely looking at uh the aesthetic and what would match and um uh align with uh what we've uh viewed in the master plan as well as uh the heritage um heritage impacts of um a new structure in the park. Um both of these come with a a 15-year warranty uh for the structure. The first steel structure, sorry, the first um structure with uh cedar shake roofing is approximately 390,000 for the structure only, but it would be mounted on a reinforced concrete pad. We'd have accessible entry to the uh the structure from the adjacent trail as well. And then the next option is this um Kitchener standard green color of the roofing. So it would be uh metal roofing. There is an option to also have tongue and groove uh wood underneath of the structure which provides a little bit of um I guess sound dampening and uh uh option there for um a bit more warmth I would say in terms of the aesthetic. Same thing, the detailed drawings are included and uh the cost is slightly less for the metal um or at around 360,000. There's also um additional options to potentially suggest laser cut decorative metal uh clear story panels in like a raised portion of the roof. Um, and we would also suggest that there be GFCI accessible outlets um along some of the posts and we would include standard um picnic tables and accessible tables um within the contract as well. Um but I think Victoria, unless you have many other points um that I I didn't touch on from the report, I think that that's generally what we wanted to show is that there's uh two kind of aesthetic options that we're um looking to introduce. And if anyone has any specific questions about the materiality, the um the structure itself, the size, the location, we're happy to um take questions. >> All right. And I believe we do not have any delegations here. Okay. Any questions or comments for staff? Laura. Laura. Thank you. Um just wondering what planting or other landscape treatments are proposed to help the shelter blend into the park and will those details be reviewed alongside the shelter design? Um so typically we would restore um the saw around the shelter. We would make sure that the um the edge that's adjacent to the fence line um and if I go back to I don't know if we can show the screen again that's possible. Thanks. Um you can see where the um where the shelter picnic shelter one um and then behind that there's sort of plantings that are screening what's uh between the existing shelter location uh and the machine shed um the operational building. So the intent is to kind of screen that edge that's a uh a bit undesirable at the moment until we have a new operational building potentially in the future. Um so I think that that uh both the grading and the approval of the grading of this lab um will part and parcel become like uh the submission that we will review. So it will include um screening behind as well as kind of like surface uh plantings around Right. Thank you, >> Grant. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, just a really quick question. Is there a difference in um the longevity of the two materials, the like the metal versus the cedar shake, for example? >> Yeah. Um, so we are um we're looking at about I would say like a 20-y year time frame for um the metal, but I I want to double check on the cedar shake. Obviously, the the metal is a bit more robust and longterm. Uh we've heard that from our uh facilities management and operational staff that they would prefer that option. Um, and we just wanted to make sure that there was an aesthetic option to uh for the cedar shake, but that'll be a um more labor intensive and maintenance intensive option if we do choose that. >> Ma, >> thank you. Um so are you seeking feedback from the committee or is it more >> um ju just a um any feedback in terms of a preference of one versus the other um and we'll take that into account when we talk to operations and um our own staff to to make a decision. >> Yeah. So I think from a heritage standpoint, the cedar uh would be highly preferred if you know um you review the uh the uh heritage conservation district plan for the the area. Um that material is mentioned as a kind of original material for uh most of the residences in the area. Um a lot of the existing buildings in the park have uh have cedar roofs. Um, so from that perspective, I think cedar would be preferred. Um, of course there's other considerations, but um, yeah, I just wanted to mention that I, uh, I co-led a walking tour through the park a couple weeks ago during the National Trust Conference, and one of the participants from out of town remarked on the the cedar roofs. And I think that's um just a very like distinctive element of the the heritage of the park. Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Great. >> Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um is there a significant difference in the cost of the two materials just for the initial capital expense of them? Uh, so generally the quotes that came back were um a $30,000 difference between the two. So it's not a significant difference in comparison. >> I guess I'll just make my comment. I think I think overall I think the cedar is probably more consistent with the character in the park. I mean I think I think there are other considerations. I I think that maybe I'd want to see what the most effective material in the fullness of time is, but I I think just from an aesthetic point of view and and consistent with the park's characteristics, the cedar's probably preferred >> Peter. So, the uh the if I'm standing looking at the new um uh new building, the new uh picnic area, and I look around 360 and um the other park buildings uh there. Um can I see the pavilion from that point >> through the tree canopy? >> And that's got a that has an exceptional cedar roof on it. It's it's a thing of beauty. Um, there's the uh there's a washroom building there. I'm not sure what the the roof on that is. It is cedar as well. We don't know. Not sure. >> Not the washroom building, but the um uh the recently updated band stand also had Cedar Shake. We've >> Okay. So, I think just in in terms of like, you know, all of these things belong together, right? um that cedar shake is the sort of appropriate uh appropriate choice and the sort of appropriate language for uh matching the rest of the uh um buildings in the park. Um, for me the metal roof has uh has more association with industrial uses and the um that kind of really intense uh color um that would has a really sort of like deep hue to it. that that green is uh uh much more contemporary um technology that you wouldn't find on uh metal roofs um from an age uh uh gone by. So, I think that really the for me the that the cedar is the appropriate choice and um yeah, the life cycle isn't as as long as a as a metal roof and um it probably has a premium to the cost, but I think that um this is in a prominent position, right? And uh and it's a it can be a beautiful uh beautiful addition to uh the park. So, I'm on uh the side of Cedar. Thanks, Any final questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, uh, so we do have an option here to do a vote. Maria, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, we can do a vote today. Uh, if this report receives unanous unanimous approval from the committee here, it will proceed under um delegated approval authority. Is everyone okay to do a quick vote here? All right. So I will base it on option one which will be this shingled roof which we were first presented here with the um cedar shingles. Option two will be the green uh roof here uh with the metal option. So all in favor for >> so sorry to interject and um the vote in the agenda is just to receive this report for information at this time. >> Just for information. Thank you so much. Okay. How would how would you want to proceed with the question? Okay, we have the report and information here and all in favor sorry of the roof here. This the shingle one. Correct. >> Okay. Report for information. All in favor? Okay. Unanimous carried. So, um motioned here today. Uh it was resolved that the design options for Victoria Park Picnic Shelter will receive as information. Moving on here to uh permit item number 4.2, Heritage Permanent Application HPA-2026-IV-02 uh one pregnant avenue replacement of side porch DSD-2026-376. Luke, our student planner, will provide a fiveminute presentation. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. The development services department is in receipt of the heritage application for the property municipally addressed as 1 Peanut Avenue. The property is a corner lot located on the west side of Peanut Avenue and the south side of Mansion Street. It is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act by way of designating bylaw 1992 210. It contains a two-story dwelling constructed in the Italian8 architectural style. And the designation includes all elevations in the hip roof but with emphasis to specific architecture features such as the tongue and groove wooden sophet bracketed cornice and two double hung windows with segmental arches. What is being proposed in this application is to replace the side porch of the dwelling with a threeseason sunroom. The replacement of the side porch is limited to the interior sideyard, so it won't impact the facade of the dwelling and its location is circled in red on the elevation and plur uh plan drawings above. In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff have determined that the application will not adversely impact the historical or architectural value of the dwelling. What is being proposed will complement the dwellings's Italian8 architectural style as it will contain matching ashold shingles, a white board and batten siding along with a vinyl double hung porch window and a porch door in wood finish. In some the color and finish of the proposed sun room will be complimentary uh but also subordinate to the existing dwelling. As a result, heritage planning staff recommend approval of the application subject to the condition that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance uh be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Luke. Luke, I don't believe we have any delegations for this matter here. Um, any questions or comments for staff? Yes, Magda. >> Thank you. Um, I just wanted to get some clarification on um how the proposed sun room integrates with the existing house. Um because it seems to me like the um in the report uh figure three uh the rendering um it appears like it's in line with the uh the side facade but in the um the elevation drawings it looks like it comes out a considerable extent possibly about a meter from behind the the house >> uh through the chair. Uh that is correct. The rendering of the uh proposed sun room uh does not match the uh floor plan drawings and the elevation drawings which are correct and will be um abided by as per the uh recommendation that the final building permit drawings be reviewed and the heritage clearance uh be provided by heritage planning staff. So, uh they'll be looking at the uh the elevation drawings and uh it is approximately I believe um a meter out on on those but the rendering was provided by the the applicant. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Seeing none here. Um so if there's anybody wanting to move the motion. Okay. Thank you, Grant. Um so if this report receives uh unanimous approval from committee it will be processed under a delegated authority. We do have a motion from grant. All those in favor? Okay. Passed unanimously. So it was resolved that pursuant to section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act heritage permit application HPA-2026-IV-023 be approved as outlined in the development services department report DSD-2026-375 to permit the replacement of the side porch of the property mun municipally addressed as one pregnant prrenant avenue in accordance with the supplementary information subitt itted with the application and subject to the following conditions. That the final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Okay, moving on to um item 4.3. Heritage permit application HPA-2026-IV-033 50 Brookside Crescent Replacement of SH Cedar shingle roof DSD-2026-369 uh Victoria um from Heritage Planner will provide a fiveminute presentation. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the development services department has received a heritage permit application to replace the cedar shingle roof at the property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent. Uh this property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and contains a 19th century two-story house uh constructed in the Georgian architectural style. Uh the gable roof um which are clad in cedar shingles is identified as a heritage attribute of the property and the existing roof has reached the end of its life cycle uh and is currently in poor condition. The proposal is to replace the existing roof with a product called Hillcore CF shingle in the weathered wood color. This product is a stamped metal and designed to reflect the general look um of cedar shingles. The profile of this product um closely aligns with the profile of the uh existing cedar shingles. In reviewing the merits of the application, staff note the following. Um the existing cedar shingle roof is in poor condition and requires replacement. Um the replacement product offers an acceptable alternative to a cedar shingle as the form and profile um of the existing roof will be maintained. Um there's general compliance with the applicable standards and guidelines for um conservation. The existing cedar shingles could be reinstated in future um based on documentary and and physical evidence. Um and the similar appearance and profile um of the existing dwelling will be maintained. Uh and it is the opinion of heritage planning staff that um the replacement product will not have an adverse impact on um the overall character of the dwelling. Uh, heritage planning staff recommends um the following uh that pursuant to section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act that the heritage permit application um is approved subject to the following condition. That photographs of the existing cedar shingles be taken uh and provided to plan heritage planning staff uh and a sample of the existing cedar shingles be stored securely and appropriately on site um prior to the issuance of a heritage permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. >> Thank you, Victoria. And we do have a delegation today here, Mike Krauss, which I understand is here to answer questions, but will not have a presentation. Are there any questions or comments for the delegation? Mike Krauss. It does appear we do have a question. So, Mike, if you'd like to come down, please. Thank you. Hello. Um, so presumably these existing cedar shingles are not original given the age of the house. Um, do we know when they were installed, the the current ones? >> Uh, I've owned I've owned a house for about 15 years. Um, they probably were installed 5 to 10 years before that. So, I'd say probably 25 years. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for our delegation? Peter, >> will the existing uh cedar roof be removed before the new roof is installed? >> I I would imagine that would happen around the same time as as it's usually usually done with roofs. Um >> there there is a style of metal shingle designed to go over top of existing roofs. And I just wanted to confirm that that is not the style of that is proposed. >> No, no, we're taking them all off. They're in pretty bad shape and all curled up. They need to be removed. That's part of the contract. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for delegation? Mike just had a quick question here um regarding the roof line. So, I noticed there are quite some damage along that I would assume gutter area. Would that be replaced as well or is it only the shingles? >> Um, would you be able to point out exactly where that is? >> I'm not aware of it right now. just those wooden beams there. They do really look in bad condition. So, just wondering if those will also be >> Yeah, we can definitely fix those. I don't think that's part of the contract yet, but we'll definitely get those updated as well. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. >> I'm willing to commit to that. Yeah. >> Just wondering what we're voting on just the shingles. All right. Thank you. All right. Any last questions or comments for our delegation? Okay. >> Yeah. Um, kind of similar to the conversation we had about the picnic shelter, what was the decision to go with the simulated material? >> It was mostly a financial decision. Um, we I had uh the replacement of the roof priced out over the last couple of years cuz it was evident that we needed it already two years ago. Uh, I think the days of the $5,000 roof are over. And, uh, I think my cheapest quote was 36,000 and the highest was 100,000 four-seater. And I think it was actually the heritage department that a year or two years ago suggested that there is a comparable product, a metal product. >> Yeah, for sure. And with your house being designated, do you find that maybe in this example or in other examples that that has increased the cost of some of the upkeep that you've had to to do? Maybe in this case, do you find that the heritage designation and having to pick a particular type of product has been, you know, increasing the cost of of this project? >> Well, if I had to do it in cedar, um it certainly would have. Yeah, the highest uh quotes were definitely in cedar. Um it's also that the cedar that they're using nowadays is not the same quality as they used 50 years ago. It all comes from BC. It's a red cedar product and the way it was explained to me, it's it's just not the quality. It doesn't last the 50 years that it used to last. So, it's much thinner now as well. >> So, >> is this your first time getting a heritage permit for renovations on your home? >> Uh, I believe so. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Any final questions or comments for delegation? All right. Seeing none, thank you so much, Mike. >> Thank you. >> All right. And we'll just move on to questions or comments for staff. >> Yes, Preston. Yeah, just for staff, I was wondering what the um the purpose of retaining the um sample shakes on site was and whether there was a timeline for that retention and just what the overall purpose was. >> Uh you madam chair. Um the the purpose for uh just retaining the this the shingles was just to um get the dimensions and and things like that if uh cedar was to be reinstated on on the property. Um the size and profile of these shingles is a little bit different than um like a traditional cedar shake. And so I just wanted to ensure that if there um was going to be a replacement back to to cedar that it was, you know, in keeping with with what was originally there. Okay. Any other questions, comments for staff? >> Okay, Grant. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, was it the proponent that came to us with this particular product or is this a product that heritage staff are aware of and we've been accepting of in the past? >> Uh, through Madam Chair, um, heritage planning staff provided um, some advice and direction with respect to alternative u materials and the uh, proponent came to us with uh, with this one. Any other questions, comments? All right, seeing none, uh, so I would just like to call who would like to motion. Thank you, Laura. All right, so uh we will take a vote um to pass this motion. If the report receives unanimous approval from this committee, it will be processed under delegated um approval authority. All those in favor carried unanimously. Thank you. All right, moving on to item 4.4, heritage permit application. HPA-2026-IV-036 67 King Street East, replacement of entrance doors. Uh, DSD-2026-383 and Victoria or heritage planner will provide a five-minute presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application to remove and alter doors on the property municipally addressed as 67 King Street East. Uh the property is designated under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and contains a late 20th century commercial building constructed in the international architectural style. The steel frame doors and windows are identified uh as a a heritage attribute of this property. So the proposal before the committee this evening um contemplates two alterations to the property. Uh the first involves the removal of the door on the King Street East facade of the building and replacement with a window to close off um the al cove area and fit into the existing opening. The entrance on this side of the building is redundant and a reason for its removal is to improve wayfinding and clarity of the building. The replacement window um has been designed to be compatible uh with the existing facade and to maintain the existing rhythm and proportions of the building. The second alteration uh involves the replacement of the door on the Benton Street facade uh with a more secure and accessible entrance. The existing opening and predominantly glazed character of the facade will be maintained. And it should also be noted that um the view to the door along Benton Street um is obscured as a result of the grade change uh along this portion of the building, further minimizing um any visual impacts uh as a result of the replacement of the door. In reviewing uh the merits of the application, uh heritage planning staff note the following that visual reference to the existing door on King Street East will be maintained. Um removal of this interest will or of this ent ent entrance uh will result in greater wayfinding for the continued use um of this building while not adversely impacting uh the facade. The replacement of the existing door on uh Benton Street facade will improve accessibility and security uh and will not adversely impact the facade. And um overall the the cultural heritage value or interest of the building um is not adversely impacted um by these proposed changes. Um, as such, Heritage Planning staff um recommends approval of the heritage permit application um subject to the following condition. That the building permit drawings be reviewed in heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. >> Thank you, Victoria. I am aware that we also do have a delegation uh Matt Shaw here with us today who I believe is also here for questions but will not be making a presentation. Do we have any questions or comments for our delegation? Matt Shaw. Yes, Preston. Matt, if you could please come down here. Thank you. >> Hi there. Um I was just wondering about on the the King Street entrance where the door is proposed to be removed. I didn't get quite a sense from the drawings. Is the alcove proposed to be removed and to have that as a flush entrance or is it just the door being replaced with a window? >> It's it's proposed to be a flush entrance. >> Okay. And then will the al cove be retained in the interior or is it proposed to be removed as well? It's proposed to be removed entirely, but um the owner has advised that they're willing to uh they have a lot of storage in the basement and they're able they were going to uh store it, label it, date it, and if there was um a purpose or an opportunity to reuse it in the future if that entrance was intended to be reintegrated for some reason, um we would uh store that heritage element as well as the doors and the glass. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Any other questions for our delegation? Magda, >> thanks. Um, so I I think this is a really uh nice balance of uh you know, adapting a heritage building when it you know, things aren't about it quite aren't working. Um but uh you know really responding to the the the like what have been identified as the heritage attributes and and trying to um work with the building. Um I was just wondering um cuz I I know that the the um the report we saw uh talked about matching the bronze metal. Um I was wondering if there's also a process for matching the glass. um just thinking about the age of the building and um you know potentially just uh glass composition and kind of differences in in color and and that sort of thing that that might arise between then and now if uh if you're taking that into consideration. >> Uh so as of right now we don't have any stipulations for that but I think it's a fair comment and we can definitely accommodate it. um we're not replacing a significant amount of glass. So the the change and it would it would likely be um more economical to do it that way um to have a um uh the glass match the existing rather than trying to go for the super clear uh more modern style of glazing. So I I I think that's a fair comment. we'd be able to uh accommodate um uh getting samples from the glazing subcontractor to match that glass as closely as possible similar to the the mullions. >> Yeah, great. Thanks. Especially with the the um the King Street Hassad like the you know the um the the is it Frederick or Benton? >> Benton. >> Benton. um it you know you're replacing that entire um entrance and it's sort of recessed so it's not it wouldn't be as obvious but I think especially with that King Street facade that would I think uh we would appreciate that. >> Yeah. And um just one comment to that too. Um I believe before this this property was designated um there's clearly uh panes of glass that have been replaced and uh likely did not take that into account. So, um uh I guess I I I want to match the existing historical uh glazing, but um whether or not the glass directly adjacent to it is original to the building, I'm just not sure um uh how we address that. Do you want just the the glazing that is directly adjacent to it, or do you want us to look into to try to confirm um what has been replaced and what hasn't been replaced? I hadn't considered that. Um I mean I I I guess I was thinking of just that new piece of glass kind of standing out. So I from my perspective it would make sense to match it to what's there currently. Um but >> yeah, >> that's just my opinion. >> Okay. Yeah, we will make an effort to to do that for sure. >> Great. Thank you. >> Any final questions or comments for our delegation today? Seeing none, thank you so much, Matt. Thank you guys. >> Right, just moving on to any questions for or comments for staff. >> Preston, >> um just just one comment like we we heard that there's a a commitment to storing the alcove and um looking at the uh looking at matching the glass and these these little things that give it just that much more um I guess viability from a heritage perspective. um and just wondering if we can incorporate that into Heritage's final approval of the um the application >> um through the chair. Uh would you like to see that be like a condition as the recommendation um this evening with respect to approval or just confirmation that staff's going to be, you know, looking at these things when we're issuing final approval through the the building permit process? Just confirmation that these items that have come up in discussion will be followed through with the staff. >> Yes, I've made note of what's been discussed here and can ensure that um we have some some confirmation before final approvals are issued. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Any final questions, comments for staff for this item? All right, seeing none, so we will move uh forward with the vote here. And if this report receives unanimous approval from the committee, it will be processed under delegated approval authority. Uh so I would just like to ask uh for someone to motion the recommendation by staff. Preston. Thank you. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. Moving on to item 4.5, heritage planner uh heritage permit application HPA 2026-V034 116 College Street Cons Oh, my apologies. Should I go back just to read the resolution? We're okay. Yeah. All right. So 116 College Street, item 4.5, construction of a porch in the rear yard addition and change in roofing material. DSD-2026-370 in Victoria. Our heritage planner will provide a presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the development services department um has received a heritage permit application for the construction of a new porch, the construction of a rear yard addition, and the replacement of a roof material on the property municipally addressed as 116 College Street. This property is located within the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District and contains a circa 1900 um dwelling constructed in the Berlin vernacular architectural style. The property contains a group C building uh as identified within the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District plan. Uh the existing dwelling does not contain uh a front porch. However, there is physical evidence that one existed on the building. Um it's not known when it was removed. Um but the the current proposal contemplates the construction of a porch in the general location um of the uh original porch and where the outline is is showing on on the existing dwelling. And it's proposed to be constructed with brick pillars and wood posts and guards uh and in a style that is um sympathetic to the Berlin vernacular architectural style. Uh the proposal also contemplates the construction of a two-story uh addition located at the rear of the existing dwelling. Uh the addition has been designed to fit behind the existing dwelling and is separated by a woodclad glazed mudroom to allow the existing brick on the rear of the uh of the building uh to be visible within the interior of the dwelling. The height of the rear edition is lower than the existing roof ridge and the addition is uh designed to be clad in a contemporary brick. Um, and I'll also note um as well that um the entirety of the uh the existing dwelling as well as the addition uh is proposed to be clad in a um a metal roof and there's currently ashvalt shingles um on the existing dwelling. Um so in noting the um the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following. Um that the proposal generally generally complies with the applicable policies for uh additions and alterations to existing buildings within the civic center neighborhood heritage conservation district. Um the proposed addition is located within the rear yard and the construction of the front porch is based on physical evidence. The proposed addition uh will not be visible from the public rightway. Uh the proposal is in general compliance with the design guidelines for alterations and additions. Uh and it's the opinion of heritage planning staff that the proposed works will not adversely impact um the heritage attributes or character of the subject property, adjacent properties or um the surrounding district area. And with that, um, heritage planning staff, um, recommend, uh, approval of the heritage permit application, uh, subject to the following condition. That, uh, final building permit drawings be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. And I do believe we also have a delegation here today that will not be here for a presentation, but will be able to answer any questions. We have an Emily Boone. Um, are there any questions for our delegation? Oh, Magda. Um, just wondering, um, what the, uh, color of the brick will be on the addition. Thank you for asking that. The I apologize, my voice is is gone. Um the existing brick on the house has been painted purple. Uh so we are the homeowners are currently on a mission to find some unpainted existing brick. And the goal is to find a brick that will pull out the purple hues of the existing painted brick, but also if a future homeowner decides to strip the paint off the existing home, it will also go with what's underneath. >> Thank you. That's uh very thoughtful, >> Grant. >> Thank you. Is is there any intention to strip the brick at this point? Remove the paint? There is not at this point. No. >> No. Do you know what's underneath it? >> We don't know. >> Okay. >> It was a previous homeowner who painted it. >> Okay. I used to live just just down the way. I I would I'm wondering if it would be like a yellow. >> We have wondered that as well. >> There's red or Yeah, it's hard to say. >> And as I mentioned, the the homeowners have been looking in the yard and in the basement for extra bricks that would be in the original color so we can work with that. >> Terrific. Yeah. And just a quick comment. I'm we see a lot of plans. I see a lot of plans in my professional role as well. I don't know if you're the agent here, but these are um very sharp, very attractive looking plans, very easy to read and uh I think uh yeah, done a really good job, not just on the renovation potentially, but certainly the plans and presentation of it. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments for delegation today? Oh, Peter, >> hi. I I I did send a ask a question regarding the uh regarding the guards. The the project in general is is great. My uh question was uh more of a a building code question uh regarding the design of the guards which is very very distinct and a nice design but whether um that it has been uh reviewed against the uh city's interpretation for clim for guard climbability. um uh you know the the building code best one of the best descriptions of the building code is is is a uh it's a it's a collectively interpreted document right so uh the interpretations may vary and um um I recently experienced um quite uh uh specific requirements for guards in the city of Kitchener um referring back to the appendix of the National Building Code um to take their direction and they have uh summarized those in one of their uh building guides for uh guards. I was just wondering whether um you had uh um compared the design of the guard to those requirements in the city guideline. >> Yes, and I appreciate you asking this question. It's actually been the source of a little confusion. The National Building Code in its entirety states that those climbability guidelines are for instances where the there's more than a 4.2 meter difference between the ground and the porch level, >> but in the summary that you sent, it does not state that distinction. So that is something that um I will be looking into further. If we do need to address the the design of the rails in order to comply with that climbability requirement, then we'll uh that will be of course resubmitted with the permit set for heritage to look over. >> Yes. And I and I appreciate that the that the the building code requirements and the heritage requirements are are are two different things. Um but when we see a um you know a heritage application committee with at the end of the day after it goes through the building code process may not be exactly as as what we see it's uh it's a discrepancy >> exactly. We don't want something that is has been approved here to then have to change when we go to permit. Um, so yes, I apologize that I I read the code as being not applicable because it was we're lower than 4.2 meters above the ground. Uh, but that's absolutely something I'm going to look into more to see if we need to address that. >> Okay, great. Thanks. Good luck. >> Any final questions or comments for our delegation today? All right, seeing none, thank you so much, Emily. All right, moving on to questions and comments for staff. Thank you. Uh just thinking of original features, um should the final heritage clearance uh confirm whether the existing front door will be reused and also require uh photographs and measurements of the rear window opening before it's enlarged? uh through the chair. Um we had not identified those as um conditions of of approval. Um but we can certainly request that of of the applicant um should the committee deem it appropriate to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any questions, comments? >> All right. Seeing none here. Uh, I did just have a quick question for staff regarding the front porch. Um, will it be in line with setbacks? Just because I'm looking at photos, it does look quite close to the street. So, just want to make sure that that's something um through the the chair. Um, that's something that will also be looked at through like final building um review as well. Um, but from what I can see, I believe it is compliant with um with current uh zoning requirements. Thank you. All right. Seeing no more questions here. So we will uh move forward here. Um and if this report it receives unanimous approval from the committee, it will be processed under a delegated approval authority. Uh so I would just like to see if anybody would like to motion the recommendation by staff. Laura. Thank you. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. It was resolved that pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, heritage application HBA 2026-V034 be approved as outlined in development services department report DSD 2026-370 to permit the construction of a front porch, the construction of a year yard addition and change in roofing material on the property municipally addressed as 116 College Street subject to the following condition. that final building permits be reviewed um and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Okay. And moving on to item 4.6, 6 heritage permit application HPA-2026-V-035 29 Ellen Street West Construction of addition removal of chimney and change of roof materials DSD 2026-371 Victoria Heritage Planner will provide a presentation. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the development services department is in receipt of a heritage permit application to construct a rear yard addition and um remove a chimney on the property municipally addressed as 29 Ellen Street West. This property is located within the Civic Center neighborhood heritage conservation district and contains a circa 1910 dwelling constructed in the Berlin vernacular architectural style. Um, this property has been identified as a group C building within the civic center neighborhood uh heritage conservation district plan. The proposal contemplates the construction of a rear yard uh addition on the second story uh proposed to be clad in a composite wood siding uh to complement the existing dwelling. um the existing or the addition is proposed to tie into the existing dwelling um uh based on the on the roof line and based on the existing um roof line of the dwelling. A portion of the the addition will be visible from the public right away. The rear brick wall will be retained um as an interior wall on the second and third stories and a new door opening um will be created for access into the addition uh at the second story. The footprint of the existing building uh is not proposed to change as a result of the construction of the addition to facilitate the construction of the rear yard um addition. Uh a sec uh one of the chimneys um on the property is proposed to be removed. Uh this is not a significant um visual feature of the existing dwelling um and its removal will not adversely impact um the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. Um the second chimney um located at the rear uh of the dwelling um will be retained and integrated into the new uh rear yard edition and um the uh roofing material of the existing dwelling um as well as the roofing material proposed um for the addition um is a uh a metal roof. In reviewing the merits of the application, heritage planning staff note the following. Um that the application generally complies with the applicable policies for additions to existing buildings within the Civic Center Neighborhood Heritage Conservation District. Um the proposed addition is located towards the rear of the property. Uh the proposed addition uh is partially visible from the the public right of way and the proposal is in general compliance uh with the design guidelines for additions. The proposed works will not adversely impact um the heritage attributes or character of the subject property uh the adjacent properties or the surrounding uh district area. And as a um result, heritage planning staff recommends uh approval of the application um subject to the following conditions. um that any bricks that are proposed to be um removed uh to facilitate uh this addition uh be salvaged and stored in an appropriate um location on site for uh reuse and that final building permit drawings um be reviewed and heritage clearance provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you. And we do not have a delegation here. So we will continue straight to questions and comments for staff. >> Grant. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, just a a quick question for staff. Um I'm wondering if there how much back and forth there was between staff and the applicant on the design of uh of this addition. And maybe that's a hard question to answer. I'm wondering like is this did they come in with this design initially or was there a bit of negotiation in coming to this design >> uh through the chair there was some uh negotiation with staff um on this design um particularly uh to to try to have this addition um tie into the uh existing roof line um so that um it was there was less of a visual impact um from from the street or public rightway. Um I know that um there were some challenges on on the proponent's end um with trying to configure uh you know floor plans and and things like that. Um but uh this is what was you know agreed upon between uh the proponent and staff in the end. >> Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Sorry. Seeing Oh, Magda. Um I mean I it uh it's it's challenging to to see this. It's I appreciate that there was discussion with the proponent. Um, I feel like it, uh, you know, even even though it's sort of at the rear, it sort of overwhelms the existing building. Um, and I was wondering if maybe could you provide a little bit more detail on the uh, how this fits the the HCD guidelines uh, when it comes to um, additions. uh through madam chair. So in um reviewing the uh the policies and guidelines within um the the heritage conservation district plan um it is noted that um it is you know located at the at the rear um of the of the property. Um the materials that are chosen um or have been selected are um subordinate yet complimentary to um the existing dwelling. um the it ties into the existing roof line. So um the roof is not going to be higher than than what um exists now. Um but because of the um I guess the the the shape of the the Berlin vernacular um roof on on this dwelling um a portion of the the addition is is going to be visible just um as a as a result of that. Um but in reviewing just the the the policies and guidelines um kind of collectively it was the opinion of heritage planning staff that this um it generally met um what the intent of of the of what was included in the district plan. >> Grant. >> Yeah. Sorry, just another quick one. Um, in terms of the submission materials for this application, is the supporting documents appendix B the only thing that was submitted by the applicant? Did we get more robust or complete floor plans for this uh through the chair? What's been provided as appendix B is what was uh provided by the applicant. I'll just make a quick comment maybe. Yeah, I I I think I feel similarly to some of my colleagues on the committee. I think um it is a bit of an imposing um addition to the dwelling. I think the massing just the way that it it pokes out over top of the the gable on this end is um you know I think it still creates a bit of visual clutter on on that that facade and you'll certainly be able to see that from the public right away and I think it's hard to tell the materiality. I'm I'm sure it probably looks better in person but I think the glazing is particularly curious. Um, I mean, certainly the the bay window on the back of the building and then all of the windows at up top and the rhythm or or lack thereof, I think. And um, yeah, I mean, it's I think the back is the most troubling, but also just the the minimal amount of glazing on the side is um is uh I don't think ideal either. Just the placement of the windows and the size of them, I think they're they're um out of proportion with the rest of that side of the building. Um, you know, I'm not certainly in the practice of going against people's uh wishes on their private property um on this committee. So, I mean, I'm willing to support it if staff think that um this is the best uh solution here. Um, but yeah, I think it's uh it's it's um curious and character, I'll say. Thank you, Grant. Any final questions or comments? All right, seeing none, so we will uh move forward here. Um, also noting that if this report receives unanimous approval from the committee, it will proceed under delegated approval authority. Is anyone wanting to motion the recommendation made by staff today? Peter. Thank you. All those in favor? Okay, three in favor. All those opposed, three opposed. All right, since it was non unanimous, this will proceed to council uh meeting on November 30th. All right. And moving on here. Item 4.7. That's correct. Right. Yes. Item 4.7, intention to designate uh 12 Wellington Street North, DSD-2026-372. Victoria has a presentation. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, so Heritage Planning Staff is bringing forward um four notices of intention to designate this evening. Uh, so the first property before the committee uh is 12 Wellington Street North. Um, this property was previously considered by Heritage Kitchener on August 4th um, 2026. And based on an evaluation of the property, it meets three out of the nine criteria relating to design, physical, and historic associative values. The design physical value of the property relates to the building being a representative example of the Italian Renaissance Renaissance architectural style. Uh this building is also rare and unique within the city given um the limited prevalence of this particular architectural style and the use of the green metal tile roof. The historical associative value of the property relates to uh the association with prominent local architect William H. Schmaltz. Uh the dwelling is directly associated with Schmaltz as the architect and designer of the dwelling in 1925 and is a a demonstration um of his work. and uh heritage planning staff recommends the following. Um that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act um that the clerk be directed to publish the notice of intention to designate. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. Does not appear that we have any delegations for this item. All right, so we will move on directly to questions or comments for staff. All right, seeing none for this item here. So, I guess we will move right into the vote here. Uh, if this report receives approval from committee, it will go to council for approval on November 30th, 2026. Is anyone wanting to forward the motion or recommendation by staff? Magda. Thank you. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. Moving on to item 4.8, notice of intention to designated 160 Margaret Avenue, DSD-2026-374. Victoria will have another presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the second property before the committee this evening is 160 Margaret Avenue. Uh this property was previously considered by Heritage Kitchener in October of 2024 and based on an evaluation of the property uh it meets three out of the nine criteria relating to design, physical and historical associative values. The property has design physical value as it is a representative example of the Gothic Revival architectural style um demonstrated through its irregular plan, cross gable roof, parapets and Gothic entry foil windows. And the property has historical associative value as the building is directly related to uh the new apostolic church and with Michael Krauss uh a prominent leader within the new apostolic church. The building also has direct associations with Albert Carl Reer uh the architect of the building as it is a demonstration of his work during his tenure with uh Reader and Heimman Architects and uh as such heritage planning staff is recommending the following that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate and that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. We do not have a delegation for this item, so we will move right to questions and comments for staff. Seeing none here, so we will move forward. If this report receives approval from committee, it will go to council for approval on November 30th as well. Would anyone like to move the motion for the recommendation made by staff? Thank you, Laura. All those in favor? Carried unanimously. And then moving on to item 4.9, notice of intention to designate 58 Louisa Street, DSD-2026-375. Victoria has a presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, the third property before the committee this evening is 58 Louisa Street. Um, this property was first considered by Heritage Kitchener in June 2026 and based on an evaluation of the property, four out of the nine criteria are met relating to design, physical, historical, associative, and contextual values. The design physical value of the property relates to the dwelling being a representative example of decorative decorative Berlin vernacular architecture and is unique given the influences of the Queen Anne architectural style. The dwelling also features the rare use of claus in the windows of the turret. The property is associated with William H. Dunker of Dunk Dunker Construction Company uh who was the original owner and builder of the dwelling um as well as uh Milton Carl Kaufman uh who was a former occupant of the the dwelling. And the contextual value of this property relates to the contribution of the dwelling um that it makes to the the continuity and character of the Louisa Street and War Avenue streetscapes. And the contextual value also extends to the connection between William H. Dunker and the development um of the surrounding neighborhood. As such, um, heritage planning staff is recommending, uh, the following. That per section, uh, that pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, uh, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. And I do not believe we have a delegation for this item either. So, moving right into questions or comments for staff. Magda. >> Um just a quick comment because I I've had a personal obsession with uh stained glass and including closing glass in the in the region um based on um the work of uh the Bullis Glass Company um over the last while. So, I just uh I I didn't notice that in when we um when we heard about or when we uh reviewed the the report earlier, but I appreciate the the inclusion and um I'm glad to see that they're part of the uh proposed heritage attributes. >> Just to to build on that as well, um I I wasn't aware that there was closet glass um on this building either. I thought it was just regular stained glass. Um but through conversation with the the property owner they informed me um that it was the the closet glass. Um so I am also happy to see that we were able to identify that as a as an attribute of the property. So thank you. Any final questions or comments for staff? Seeing none. So we will move forward here. If this report receives approval from committee, it will go to council for approval on November 30th as well. Would anybody like to forward the motion? Magda. Thank you. All those in favor of staff's recommendations carried unanimously. Moving on to item 4.10, 10 notice of intention to designate 86 Louisa Street DSD-2026-373 and Victoria will have her presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so the final property before the committee this evening is 86 Louisa Street. Um this property was considered by Heritage Kitchener in August of 2026. Based on an evaluation of the property, it meets two out of the nine criteria relating to design, physical, and contextual values. The property contains a dwelling that is unique and r that is a unique and rare example of um Italian architecture in Kitchener, particularly given the wood siding. Um so while the siding is not original to the dwelling, uh it has become an attribute um of the property in its own right. And the contextual value of the property relates to the dwelling being one of the earliest buildings constructed on this section of Louisa Street. And the dwelling also contributes to the continuity and character of the Louisa Street street streetscape. Uh as such, Heritage Planning staff recommends the following. That pursuant to section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the clerk be directed to publish a notice of intention to designate. And that concludes my presentation on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Victoria. And I am aware that there are no delegations for this item. Any questions or comments for staff? Okay, seeing none, so we will move right along here. And this item as well, if this report receives unanimous approval from committee, it will go to uh council for approval on November 30th. Would anybody like to motion the recommendation made by staff? Preston. Thank you. All those in favor. Carried unanimously. Right. And moving on to item 4.11 advisory committees of councils ACOC governance review project consultation. Uh Yasina Torres project manager hi of corporate services will provide a fivem minute PowerPoint presentation. Good. Thank you. Hi everyone. Uh thanks so much for having me here. As mentioned, my name is Yasina Torres, project manager with corporate services and I am supporting our review uh our governance review and advisory committees. Um this review commenced uh in 2026 with phase one uh where our terms of references were updated for advisory committees. And at that time council directed staff to uh explore um modernized uh committee structures. And so we are in phase two of the project um looking at uh conducting targeted consultation uh with key um groups including our current committee members. We'll be also consulting our newly appointed committee members in the new years um talking to members of council staff and external consultation as needed. uh since September we've been reaching out to all our advisories committees to get their input as to their experience of being members uh to the respective com committees and so I am here today to um gather feedback based on your experiences. Um participation today is voluntary. Um a survey was circulated if it is more comfortable or your preference to submit confidential feedback. uh but your feedback insights really support this review in terms of what we're looking for is what are the strengths of our committees where are the gaps in areas of improvement and so I have four themes that I will be um sharing and asking questions with. Um before I do so I just want to um ensure that uh to pardon me to communicate that your feedback will today will not be attributed to a specific individual or committee itself rather I'll be collecting highlevel notes that when the will then be consolidated across all the different advisory committees and it is those highlevel themes and findings that will guide the review and along with an environmental min uh scan plan and other data will be consolidated to bring forth recommendations to council in fall of 2027. Uh once we've completed consultation, um we will we aim to provide uh those feedbacks to the newly appointed committees in 2027. uh and then we'll uh re-engage in probably spring of 2027 to share some of those findings and get your input again as to what the priority areas may be. Um so our first theme is asking you our committee members in terms of um what is working well with with your experience as a committee member with this respective committee. Is there a a moment where your participation felt meaningful? What contributed to that experience um specifically or what made it possible? So, I open the floor to anyone who may feel comfortable with sharing. Calling on anyone may have comments. Thank you, Grant. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, I think one of the things that's particularly successful with um >> some of the advisory committees and legislative committees in um the city of Kitchener is the level of staff support that they receive. Um I know um some of my peers, they're on advisory committees in other cities. Um and um you know they don't necessarily receive the same level of resources um that uh that we do. I know uh certainly committees like the dog committee and dog dog designation heritage and committee of adjustment obviously need those resources but even when I was on one of the more informal advisory committees um I felt that the staff resources were there and and that um they take it really seriously you can tell that it's an important part of of their role. So, I think, you know, really instilling that within the staff members that support the committees and making sure that they're they're, you know, really involved in the committees that they're leading is something that I found to be really successful. >> Um, I don't know if there's a maybe I'll wait for like room for improvement, but yeah, I think the staff resources is one that's really important. >> Great. EQ. >> Any other feedback? No. Okay. No worries. Uh now let's move on to areas of um perhaps improvement. Uh specifically um what has been your experience compared to what you maybe expected when you first applied? Um what has been the most differences? Um perhaps that's made it better or worse. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I think the only point of recommendation I would have in terms of my experience on this committee and I and I think I came in midterm so maybe it was a little bit um different from from folks that had joined at the beginning of the term but um I think a more uh robust or separate orientation um for new committee members even if they are joining midterm um I I don't know if there's an opportunity to have like a workshop or a seminar that's um um sort of outside of the the committee that's scheduled for the public um and going over certainly the critical aspects of the committee itself like the work that they're doing obviously in our case it' be the Ontario Heritage Act and the processes related to that >> um but similarly even the technology in the council chamber right and getting familiar with that >> um I I think could be uh useful and again I don't know if that experience was given to others at the beginning of the term in the first instance but um I think it would be helpful uh to provide those resources I was going to also go back to the things that we do really well. I think the formal setting um for dog designation for the legislative committees, I think having those in the council chamber is actually really valuable. And I think having the the staff support in by way of um like legislative staff is actually super helpful as well. I think they're indispensable to this and they make the whole process really smooth and take the stress away. So, I'd like to say thank you to them for their contribution as well. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts? feedback. Preston, >> yeah, I was I was contemplating another comment along those lines and my experience echoed um what Grant identified that um having some kind of orientation would be useful. um we all we all have different strengths that we bring to the committee and I think that's one thing that going back to things that are going well um is that we do have a lot of different um perspectives represented on this committee which I think um contributes to the quality of the discussions. So that's a a positive sidebar. Um but by the same token, we're all coming from different um backgrounds. Um and there wasn't a lot of um >> I guess information about the the day-to-day workings. Um basically we had terms of reference and then began um at least that was my experience. Um so a lot of the day-to-day operations and um the workings of the committee was kind of learned as as we went. Um so I think having an orientation or something similar um or even if we can um devise some sort of mentorship thing between previous committee members and and new uh committee members just to ensure that the the day-to-day functioning of the committee how things work um how it works in terms of of process of responsibilities of um I guess direction of of comments um and and how basically the the day-to-day function of it works. I think that would be a valuable addition moving forward. >> Great. Thank you. >> Just going to jump in there as well myself. Yeah. So, I think I'm generally I think pretty much in agreement there. I myself like this is will be my third term on the committee, but I remember like in my first term I feel the training was a little bit more intense. You know, we kind of went to a back room before we had a meeting. I kind of had a better understanding of what was going on and then I feel like maybe last term the training wasn't as in-depth and I think that will really be helpful and maybe also just getting to know everyone and you know especially if we have new people on the on the committee it can be a little bit of a challenge you know folks opening up something like that so maybe just having you know the first meeting just be a training a social getting to know everyone on the committee rather than jumping right into it and I mean it's a lot to ask staff is busy obviously you know resources is funding and you know we all are busy obviously too but I think that's something that might be beneficial in the in the future there thank you any other comments >> I'll make a really quick one in the same vein I think that um well my experience on this committee versus one of the advisory committees is that um it it is harder to get to know people maybe there isn't that sort of formal interaction because when you record it and it's in the council chamber it's um you don't kind of have those conver conversations during the committee whereas when you're in a committee room with with other folks on downtown advisory or whatever it might be. I think they get to know each other um a little bit better just as a matter of course. So I think on the more formal committees that opportunity at the beginning to to kind of meet and greet and get to know everybody I think would be would be really valuable. So I'm echoing that. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Great. Thanks very much. There's no other comments, I'll move on to the next question. So, in terms of uh enhancing your volunteer experience or your experience as a member, um what has helped you get up to speed as a new committee member and what would have improved your onboarding experience? Although some of you have already mentioned it. Um specifically, uh clearer materials. I I heard mentorship which is one of the suggestions we had and perhaps what other supports would make your experience better or if you're thinking for the newly appointed membership um what uh materials perhaps would support their on boarding. >> Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. Um I think what this is often the case for uh members of council of course at different levels of government or even other politicians but um kind of like an onboarding package I I thought might be helpful. I think especially for the ones that have a very particular scope right like >> you know advisory committees you can make up the scope as you go potentially depending on you know what that looks like from the structure that's provided by staff and the city. Um, but the legislative committees, you know, have a particular focus and I think putting it in writing, kind of breaking it down to the fundamentals, a crash course on, you know, the legislation that governs it and really what is in scope for the decisions that that committee makes. Um, I mean, I guess again touching on the three committees, the committee of adjustment, heritage, and dog designation. I think those ones in particular should have some kind of formal package that, you know, provides people with some additional literature that, you know, I think that they, you know, it'd be incumbent on them to to review and read before they uh start on the committee. And would you say um that package would it be beneficial for it to be made public so that folks understand what perhaps the requirements of what the committee is about before they even choose to apply? >> Yeah, that's a really good question. I think I think generally uh on these types of materials, the city does a really good job. I think making it public would be a good idea. kind of making a more consumable version of the terms of reference. Uh similar to how the city of Kitchener has um provided a bit of a a literature piece around like ARUS, kind of taking the zoning bylaw and converting it into something that's a little bit more consumable for the public. I I know it's different, but um I I envision something similar to that, like a booklet that kind of breaks it down to its fundamental pieces, makes it a little bit more consumable. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts, comments, feedback? Yeah, >> just bring this up here. I don't know if it really fits under the scope of your question. Uh, but I believe it was earlier this year, maybe late last year, did have the opportunity to attend the all advisory committee uh group there. So, I believe the chairs and vice chairs were invited to represent there. It was a great opportunity to meet you know lots of different advisory committees that you know as a general member I never got to experience before and just understanding there and even folks on the other committees you know I I don't want to toot my own horn but my little presentation I think had very very like large amount of questions because many folks may not know what we're doing specifically even on other committees and perhaps having you know one a year maybe just having a lot of different count like the advisory committees available you know we can kind of intermix and you know have just some kind of ideas you know bounce off you know nothing official but you know just some general ideas understanding what we're all kind of doing and how we're all all have the same goal of you know helping Kitchener and becoming a better city overall but definitely you know maybe just some more interaction within our own committees as well as maybe with other committees as well. Okay, awesome. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, I'll move on to the last question uh which focuses on increasing the committee's impact which I know Heritage is a legislative uh committee. Um but just kind of thinking about your experience over the last two years, are there any um suggestions or idea that can strengthen um the future advisory committees? Whether it's the committee structure, recruitment, onboarding, recognition, meeting format, decision- making, etc. Perhaps this will be my last comment. Um I think in general the city does a really good job. I know I know the experience in other municipalities isn't the same. I think Kitner takes advisory committees pretty seriously and they have a pretty um organized structure for administering them. I mean even even up to including you know having these committees in the council chamber that that format uh the recording of it is super important. I don't I don't know if I'd want to see the other advisory committees recorded necessarily, but the ones that really matter to proponents and and putting those online is like indispensable really. I know some municipalities in the region don't do that right for committee of adjustment for example. Um but generally I think what the city is doing is is good. I know you know to name names I suppose city of London and and the way sometimes that the council treats the advisory committees and tries to consolidate them and break them down and and really not take their advice very seriously um I think is troubling to see sometimes. Um and and then similarly, you know, council taking the decision to uh you know, not be the heritage committee themselves, I think is is a big step. So kind of keep doing what you're doing in that respect. I think the format works really well and I think you know council's uh difference or respect for for the advisory committees and the legislative committees is really uh good to see in the context of other comparisons. >> Thank you. Any last thoughts? Great, that's all my questions for today. Thank you so much for um your feedback, your insights, and again, if you think of anything else later on, um you're more than welcome to submit your feedback through the survey, which will be open until November 30th. Thanks so much. >> Thank you so much. All right. And just moving on to our next item here number five under information items 5.1 heritage permit applications tracking sheet. There are any updates? All right. No, there are not. So moving on to item six, adjournment. Who would like to adjourn? Oh, sorry. >> Journ first. >> Uh, no. >> No. Okay, Garrett. Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence and and allowing me to speak at the uh end of the meeting uh this evening. Uh I first I want to acknowledge uh you for stepping in and chairing today. If if you haven't done it, there's a million moving things happening on that screen and it's no easy feat to make sure that everyone feels heard. So uh well done and thank you for uh for keeping us on track this evening. Um, I also want to do a little bit of a reflection on the end of this this term of of Heritage Kitchener, uh, and share with you our gratitude and thank you on behalf of staff for all the the work that you do. Uh, we are very grateful for your hard work, your positive energy, and the commitment that you have brought to this work for the last uh, some of you two years, some of you four, some of you much longer than that. uh and we you know when we think back on our successes they we would not have those successes without uh Heritage Kitchener and the work that you do and contribute to that important fundamental part of uh celebrating our culture and building our city together. This committee has been very flexible uh been willing to change course has been able to work with us in order to meet some of the legislative challenges that we've had uh this last term and the term before were a little bit different. We spent a lot of time uh looking at individual property designations uh and we were able to bring forward 68 designations and there's another additional five pending. I think back to when I first heard about the changes to the uh register and that work. It seemed impossible. Uh, and we we came to this committee with with an ask if we could focus on this work, if we could rely on your expertise, if you would help us uh with your architectural background, help us with some of the writing uh to be able to describe the attributes that are important as part of the designating bylaws and and everyone was willing to do that work. I remember when we were first distributing the folders and and asking you to do site visits, uh we were able to to really uh respond to that challenge and that was all on top of the regular routine matters. So you also hear heritage permanent applications, city projects like we heard today and other work that that's important that this uh committee weighs into uh that that could not wait. Uh so really we wanted to say uh thank you for all of your hard work uh and uh your perspective and expertise really matters and we really relied on it. So, we will continue to see some of you around the horseshoe in the new year. And I uh want to thank you for your ongoing commitment. And I know uh some of you won't be joining us in the new year. And I wanted to spend say a special thank you uh and acknowledge your uh work and uh wish you all the best because we won't see you in the new year, we'll miss you. For those of you who who won't be joining us, uh and those who will be, we'll see you in the new year. So, thank you on behalf of staff uh and on behalf of council. Thank you so much for everything you've done. Uh, I'm really proud of the work we've been able to do. I was really excited to share some of the projects on walking tours as part of the National Heritage Trust. Uh, and I was really proud to see Victoria and Sandro lead an excellent walking tour of recent changes that have happened that really celebrate our cultural heritage and show that we are adaptable and we're also changing and growing community while ensuring that we keep a focus on our past. So, uh, thank you very much and congratulations on a great term. Thank you so much, Gary, for those kind words. All right. Thank you. And uh thank you so much, Steph, for a wonderful, wonderful term as well. So, could not have done it without you whatsoever. And thank you so much, Mariah, for clerk. Amazing. Thank you all. Um All right. And moving on to a German grant motion. All those in favor. All right. Thank you all. And just some final thoughts as you all are heading out the door. Um so sorry you guys feel free to pack up. We you are adjourned to start again just adding my thanks to the committee members for your hard work and dedication as well. Um for those of you who did apply to serve again in the new term. Um I just wanted to note that the new committee membership will be ratified on November 23rd by council. So that's when everything will become official. Um, Heritage Kitchener does not currently have a meeting scheduled in December, but you can expect to receive communications, training, and orientation information in the next coming weeks. Um, that will help you prepare for the new term. So, again, thank you all again. And for those of you who aren't joining us new term, goodbye and thank you so much. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors. Thank you guys.