HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-11-132 - HPA 2011-V-018 - Alterations to Victoria Park assoc with Victoria Lake Improvements ProjectStaff Report
KrT �T� R Community Services Department wwwlitchenerca
REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener
DATE OF MEETING: October 4, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Leon Bensason, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning
519 - 741 -2306
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: September 16, 2011
REPORT NO.: CSD -11 -132
SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011 -V -018
Alterations to Victoria Park associated with the Victoria Park
Lake Improvements Project
Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application
HPA- 2011 -V -018 be approved to permit alterations to Victoria Park associated with the
Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project, in accordance with the plans and supporting
information submitted with the application.
BACKGROUND:
The Community Services Department is in
receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA -
2011 -V -018. The City of Kitchener (through the
Infrastructure Services Department), is seeking
Council's permission to make alterations to
Victoria Park as part of the Victoria Park Lake
Improvements Project.
The Infrastructure Services Department is
proceeding with the design and construction of
the Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project to
address water quality and ongoing
sedimentation at Victoria Park Lake. The
proposed work builds on the Environmental
Assessment which was completed in 2009.
The Class EA study explored five (5)
alternatives for the lake as well as separate
alternatives for the upstream watershed areas. The preferred alternative for the Victoria Park
Lake (Lake) was Alternative 3 — Reconfigure Lake to improve Function. The main features of
this alternative are deepening the Lake and constructing a sediment forebay at the upstream
2 -1
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department
www.kitchener.ca
end of the Park to minimize sediment from settling in the main portion of Victoria Park Lake.
The general configuration of the Lake will be maintained.
In addition to the proposed design outlined in the EA, the City is also including a number of
directives contained in the Victoria Park Strategic Plan, which was approved by Council in 2003.
Some of the Park enhancements that have been included in the project scope result from the
fact that the implementation and construction of these elements necessitate the lowering of
water levels as well as the dredging of the Lake. Examples of such enhancements include:
• Installing a new pedestrian bridge closer to the railway tracks
• Repairing the Roos Island bridge piers and abutments
• Replacing the lake edge treatment around the perimeter of the lake
• Removing the existing flag /lighting pole
• Decommissioning the weir pumping station near the Fountain bridge
Other planned Park related work such as replacing the dock/patio associated with the
boathouse; upgrading the Roos Island bridge railing; and constructing a trail across the railroad
to connect Victoria Park to the Iron Horse Trail, may be implemented after completion of the
Victoria Park Lake Improvements, as budgetary considerations allow.
A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated September 9, 2011 and prepared by Stantec
Consulting Ltd., was submitted in support of the Heritage Permit Application (see Appendix `B').
The HIA evaluated the potential for negative impacts on cultural heritage resources and
recommended mitigation measures to lessen or avoid those impacts. A draft of the HIA was
circulated to members of Heritage Kitchener in August 2011 for review and comment. The
findings and recommendations of the HIA were considered and used in refining the project
design and construction details. The final HIA has been approved by the Director of Planning.
REPORT:
Victoria Park is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by virtue of its location
within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. The Park is considered the focal
point of the heritage district, and arguably Victoria Park Lake is one of the most savoured
elements of the Park that defines its Romantic landscape style.
The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan approved by Council in 1996,
outlines guidelines and policies for the care and management of the heritage values of the
district. Specific guidelines and policies have been outlined for the protection of the cultural
heritage attributes of the park. These attributes are comprised of elements which define the
Romantic Landscape style of the Park and include the Lake, manicured lawns, flower beds,
individual stands of trees, meandering pathways and roads, and a number of built features
including several buildings, bridges and monuments.
The Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan comprises two components,
voluntary guidelines and compulsory policies. Work on landscape related features of the Park is
subject to the District Plan guidelines, and compliance is determined by Heritage Planning staff.
Policy related work requires formal approval under the Ontario Heritage Act through the
2-2
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department
www.kitchenerca
Heritage Permit Application process. Work proposed to be undertaken to Park buildings,
structures and monuments are subject to the policies of the Plan and review by Heritage
Kitchener, as well as formal consideration by City Council. Heritage Planning Staff have
established that the scope of work proposed to be undertaken as part of the Victoria Park Lake
Improvements Project can be divided into the categories of Guideline and Policy related work as
follows:
Guideline Related Work (compliance subiect to review by Heritage Planning Staff)
Sediment Removal
In order to manage the water quality of the lake, approximately 30,000 m3 of sediment will need
to be removed as part of this project. Dredging of the accumulated sediment has previously
been undertaken every 12 to 15 years and the last time the lake was dredged was in 1995.
Under existing conditions, portions of the lake are no longer covered in water due to the depth
of sediment that has accumulated. Removing the sediment will result in an improvement in the
visible quality of the water and will restore the water surface. The removal of the pedestrian
bridges will not be required in order to undertake this work.
This work is consistent with the District Plan guideline stating that water quality should be
monitored and maintained in healthy condition. Mitigation measures will consist of planning
temporary access routes and staging areas to avoid heritage structures and monuments as well
as using protective fencing around these structures. Some grassed areas will be disturbed,
however these will be restored as per their original condition.
Creation of a Forebay
One of the major components of the preferred alternative from the Environmental Assessment
included the creation of a forebay at the upstream end of the lake near the railway tracks.
Creating a deep pooling area and combining this with a weir will allow flows to slow down and
sediment to settle out. The intent is for the majority of sediment to settle in the forebay rather
than throughout the entire Lake. This will result in more frequent sediment removal in the
forebay area but less frequent dredging of the entire lake. Since the design of the forebay
incorporates a bypass pipe which will enable water to be diverted through it during
maintenance, it is expected that maintenance of this area will result in minimal disturbance. The
design also incorporates additional plantings in this area.
This work is consistent with the District Plan guideline stating that water quality should be
monitored and maintained in healthy condition. The incorporation of additional plantings in the
area is also consistent with the guideline calling for the south wildlife habitat area to be
enhanced with a mix of low, medium and high storey plantings of native species, and that the
area should meld into the landscape of the Rails -to- Trails pathway.
2 -3
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department wwmkircheneua
Introduction of a Wetland Feature
The conceptual design from the 2009 Class EA included the construction of a new wetland
feature along the south side of Schneider Island. In order to avoid reducing the flow of water
along the south side of the island and ensure that an open lake feature is maintained, the
design has been re- evaluated and consists of smaller floating wetland features at the east and
west ends of the island. This will result in the wetland feature looking like an extension of the
island. The floating wetlands will be anchored and will enable some improvements in water
quality as a result of nutrient uptake, provision of shade, etc. As a result of the plant roots
floating in the water, vegetation will be less likely to be disturbed by carp and geese.
This work is consistent with the District Plan guideline stating that water quality should be
monitored and maintained in healthy condition. Furthermore, it allows for the existing diversity of
plant species to be maintained and enhanced; will conserve the lake as an open un- interrupted
body of water; and will provide a naturalistic character in the Park. The Heritage Impact
Assessment recommended that the construction of the wetland feature be photo documented.
Shoreline Modification
Currently the lake edge is comprised primarily of gabion baskets which are deteriorated and
require replacement. The entire lake perimeter including the perimeter of the islands is
proposed to be replaced with a natural stone edge. This material is in keeping with the
Guidelines of the District Plan as it is more naturalistic in character and will provide unity in the
Park as a result of its use around the entire perimeter of the lake. Furthermore, the District Plan
Conservation guidelines note that the use of conspicuous engineered structures (such as the
gabion baskets) should be discouraged and replaced over time with designs that become
indivisible from the landscape. At several locations, riparian edge plantings are proposed and
this is also in keeping with the District Plan guidelines as it helps to encourage the creation of a
natural looking lake edge.
The Heritage Impact Assessment noted that there are a number of ramps made of gabions
which are located along the lake. These were utilized for operating and maintaining the skating
previously associated with the lake. The ramps have not been used in a number of years and
skating on the lake is not envisioned in the future. As such, they are proposed to be removed. It
was recommended that these features be photo documented prior to their removal.
Increased Water Depth
In addition to removing 30,000 m3 of sediment from the lake, it is proposed that the lake be
deepened in several locations to a depth of 3m instead of the original 2m depth. This will
improve the water circulation within the lake as well as result in additional water quality benefits
and improve the aquatic habitat. As this work is below the water surface, it will not have a visual
impact on the Park. This work is consistent with the District Plan guideline stating that water
quality should be monitored and maintained in healthy condition.
2 -4
Staff Rep ort
I TCH I�TE Community Services Department www.kitchenercu
Aquatic Habitat
The proposed work will include the addition of new aquatic habitat features which will consist of
the introduction of boulder clusters at the bottom of the lake in key areas. These will provide
habitat in order to diversify the fish communities with the lake and discourage the prevalence of
carp. As this work is below the water surface, it will not result in negatively impacting the
heritage attributes of the park.
Policy Related Work (compliance subject to the Heritage Permit Application Process)
Repair of Roos Island Bridge Piers /Abutments
The 1896 Roos Island bridge is located off of Jubilee Drive. A structural assessment of the
heritage bridge piers and abutments was undertaken earlier this year. The bridge piers and
abutments were identified as needing repair in order to maintain their structural integrity. Based
on the investigation which corroborates previous structural inspection reports, the original
substructures were built with stone. At some point, the stone abutments and piers were encased
with a concrete facing. The structural assessment identified that little or no reinforcement was
detected in the facing, and that the facing has debonded from the stone in many locations. It is
proposed that the existing concrete encasement be removed and refaced with new concrete.
This work will not result in altering the size or bulk of the existing piers and abutments, and
therefore is not expected to have a negative impact on the District. Further, the work is
proposed to be undertaken in stages such that temporary support of the bridge will not be
required.
The work associated with the bridge railings, which was approved under a separate Heritage
Permit Application, will be undertaken after the piers and abutment work is completed.
Introduction of a New Pedestrian Bridge
The 2003 Victoria Park Strategic Plan identified an Upper Lake bridge as a priority in order to
improve connectivity within the Park. The construction of the new bridge, which is identified as a
provisional item in the Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project and therefore subject to
budgetary considerations, would be constructed between Schneider Island and the railway
tracks at the west end of the Lake. The bridge would be a clear span arched metal bridge from
Eagle Bridge, similar in design to the existing Roland Street pedestrian bridge.
This work is in keeping with the Heritage District Plan which recommends that bridges over
water should be of a gently arched design, painted to blend into the landscape and that
conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls, concrete
containers and metal gabion baskets should be discouraged and replaced over time with
designs that become indivisible from the landscape.
2 -5
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department www.kirchenerce
Replacement of Boathouse Dock /Patio
The current boathouse dock/patio consists of a small wooden structure separated from the
boathouse by a paving stone walkway. The structure is surrounded by heavy timber fence posts
and benches, all painted brown. This structure is in ill- repair as a result of being founded on
failing gabion baskets. The existing dock will have to be removed in order to replace the
shoreline treatment in this area.
The policies of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan recommend that the
boathouse be redesigned to better fit into the Romantic Landscape style of the Park.
Specifically, the District Plan recommends the following:
• Replacement of timber retaining walls and paving with more natural landscaping;
• A waterfront terrace; and
Grass with low- storey plantings around the boathouse.
The boathouse dock /patio structure is proposed to be replaced with a 4 metre wide patio made
of interlocking patio stone similar in design to the stone installed around the existing Park
pavilion. A 4 metre wide boardwalk featuring a deck board floor is proposed to be constructed
adjacent to the water's edge. The two areas will be separated by a raised planter bed made with
natural stone. The planter bed will also serve as a seating /rest area. The existing heavy timber
guard is proposed to be replaced with a powder coated decorative black metal rail, more
consistent with the design of railings on the existing bridges in the Park. Improvements to the
Boathouse setting are identified as a provisional item in the Victoria Park Lake Improvements
Project and therefore subject to budgetary considerations.
The proposed design of the boathouse dock/patio is in keeping with the Buildings and
Monument policies of the District Plan which recommend designs which build on the tradition of
hand craftsmanship, using natural materials and visually blending with the landscape.
Decommissioning of Pump Station and Associated Weir
The pump station is located immediately east of the Fountain bridge and consists of a concrete
structure with metal grates covered by wooden flaps. A concrete weir extends across the Lake
directly in front of the pump station. This was previously used to divert water away from the
lower part of the Lake in order to improve skating activities. Since skating activity is no longer
being proposed on the lake and the pump station was previously partially decommissioned, it is
proposed that the entire structure, including the weir, be removed. The existing pump station
and weir is not a heritage attribute and does not contribute to the Romantic Landscape style of
the Park. It is proposed that the pump station be replaced with a natural stone edge, consistent
with how the entire perimeter of the lake is to be treated.
Outlet Reconfiguration
The outlet is located in the southeast corner of the Lake along David Street. The portion of the
outlet visible above the water line is composed of concrete with metal grates. At street level, a
2 -6
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department
www.kitchenerca
heavy timber wooden fence runs along the outlet for public safety, and shrubbery has been
planted in order to minimize the visual impact and naturalise views of the outlet. The outlet is a
necessary feature for the improvement of water quality downstream, but the current design
poses safety risks to staff particularly during maintenance and debris removal. Little can be
done to reconfigure the outlet due to the fact that the Lake outlets into a large concrete box
structure located beneath David Street. Currently, the metal grates are vertical and it is
proposed that these grates be replaced with horizontal grates to enable floating debris to pass
through the structure and flow downstream more easily. Though the visual attributes of the
outlet will be little changed, the heavy timber fence at street level is proposed to be replaced
with a powder coated decorative black metal rail, matching the new rail to be installed across
the Lake at the boathouse dock /patio. The introduction of a decorative black metal rail above
the outlet at street level, is identified as a provisional item in the Victoria Park Lake
Improvements Project and therefore subject to budgetary considerations.
Removal of Flagpole
In the early 20th century, a pole was placed near the centre of the Lake in winter from which to
string lights and flags for skaters. In 1953 a permanent flagpole was raised in a similar location.
The extant flagpole, which replaced the 1953 flagpole in 1994, is located between Roos Island
and David Street and includes a no longer operational sound system. In keeping with the
Victoria Park Strategic Plan directives, the project design proposes to remove the flagpole.
Applicable policies and guidelines from the Heritage Conservation District Plan include:
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabions baskets, should be discouraged and replaced
over time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape; and,
• Built structures in the lake, such as lights standards and loud speakers, should be
discouraged as being disruptive to the visual serenity of the Lake.
Though the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Plan does not specifically identify the
existing flagpole as a cultural heritage attribute, the flagpole does have some heritage value. Its
significance has to do with its associative value rather than its physical form. In addition to the
patriotic symbolism of the flagpole, it is associated with the former recreational uses of the lake
(skating and boating). However, as an engineered structure located in the middle of the Lake, it
is visually and physically conspicuous and might be considered disruptive to the aesthetic
serenity of the Lake. Further, the flagpole presents considerable maintenance and operational
challenges.
Given the existing flagpole is no longer being used for lighting and sound; that the recreational
uses it was associated with are no longer applicable; that it is not of significant age or design; is
conspicuous in setting; and presents maintenance and operational challenges, Heritage
Planning Staff are not opposed to its removal. Its removal will not have a negative impact on the
Romantic Landscape style of the Park.
The Heritage Impact Assessment noted that the existing flagpole should be recorded and
include photographs of its current location in the Lake, a description of its design, construction
and age; and of the activities it was associated with.
2 -%
Staff Rep ort
I TCx i�T Community Services Department
www.kitchenercn
The erection of a new flagpole in another location in the Park (on land), may be investigated by
the City at a later date.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The review and consideration of Heritage Permit Applications supports the Quality of Life
Community Priority of the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan. The process to consider alterations
to designated property helps to ensure that the heritage attributes of a property, and therefore
its heritage value, are conserved. Cultural heritage resources are valuable assets that contribute
to the quality of life of a community in a variety of ways. They represent and strengthen the
identity and distinctiveness of a community; play a significant role in economic development;
stimulate revitalization and attract tourism.
Victoria Park is recognized as being the jewel in the City's crown, and a haven of tranquility and
beauty for residents and visitors alike. The designation in 1997 of the Victoria Park Area as a
Heritage Conservation District served in part to publicly recognize and promote awareness of
the heritage value of Victoria Park. Much of the significance of the Park lies in the aesthetic
values of its Romantic Landscape design. The Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project
proposes to reconfigure the Lake to improve its function. In processing this Heritage Permit
Application, the City is upholding its responsibility to ensure the aesthetic and heritage values of
Victoria Park and the Heritage District are conserved.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The total project cost for the Victoria Park Lake Improvements including upstream related work
is estimated at 15.6 million. This work will be primarily funded through the City's stormwater
use -fee program. A large portion of this cost is associated with the sediment removal and
disposal. Victoria Park Strategic Plan related work will be paid for out of the Victoria Park
Strategic Plan budget and are subject to budgetary considerations. The completion of some
provisional items may be delayed until funding can be confirmed.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
The Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project has involved extensive opportunity for community
engagement through public information centres, the establishment of a Public Advisory
Committee Board, as well as through media such as a dedicated webpage and e- newsletter.
Cultural heritage issues have been represented throughout the public engagement process.
Project details and the proposed scope of work were presented and discussed at Heritage
Kitchener in May 2011 and September 2011. Members of the Community will be informed of the
subject Heritage Permit Application and Staff recommendation via circulation of this report to
Heritage Kitchener Committee and via formal consideration by City Council.
2 -8
Ki
Staff Report
Community Services Department
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO
Community Services Department
Appendix `A': Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011 -V -018
www1itchener ca
Appendix `B': FINAL REPORT Heritage Impact Assessment, Victoria Park Lake Improvements,
dated September 9, 2011 and prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd.
2 -9
Agent (if applicable)
Name: Mr. Steve Brown
Address: 49 F redenck Street, Kitchener, ON
Telephone (Home) J_ Telephone (Work):
F=ax: 519- 579 -8664 E -Mail:
Written Description
519 °585 -7446
Steve. Brown @stantec.cam
Please provide a written description of the project proposal including any conservation methods you
plan to use. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative
details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages
as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
for further guidance.
The project proposes improvements to Victoria Park Lake and the implementation of
various components of the Victoria Park Strategic Plan. Project details are included in the
Heritage Impact Assessment Report and the detailed design drawings_
2 -10
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION F ORM
Application No.
City of Kitchener
Community Services Department
1- 1PAik'aV 7 d '
_
Planning Division
T1 V-1 JENER
2030 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G'7
(519) 741- -242.6
Nature of Application
Exterior
EI interior _.[ Signage
Lj
Demolition
[, J New Construction j Alteration
Relocation cJ
Subject Property
Municipal Address:
65 Courtland Ave W(80 -83 Schneider Ave
Legal Description (if known):
Victoria i'ark
Building /Structure Type: Residential [A Commercial E industrial
[_] Institutional ]
Heritage Designation:
Part IV Part V (HCD) Victoria
Park Area Conservation
Fieritae District Plan
Is the Subject Property
subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement?
Yes [. ,j No �
Property Owner
Name:
City of Kitchener c/o Ms. Melissa Ryan)
Address:
Telephone (Home):
_ - -- Telephone (Work):
519741 -3400 x13173
F=ax:
519 -741 -2747 E -Mail:
Melissa. Ryankitchener.ca
Agent (if applicable)
Name: Mr. Steve Brown
Address: 49 F redenck Street, Kitchener, ON
Telephone (Home) J_ Telephone (Work):
F=ax: 519- 579 -8664 E -Mail:
Written Description
519 °585 -7446
Steve. Brown @stantec.cam
Please provide a written description of the project proposal including any conservation methods you
plan to use. Provide such detail as materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative
details, whether any original building fabric is to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages
as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
for further guidance.
The project proposes improvements to Victoria Park Lake and the implementation of
various components of the Victoria Park Strategic Plan. Project details are included in the
Heritage Impact Assessment Report and the detailed design drawings_
2 -10
PP7ROvviiew of City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines
Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work,
Improving Victoria Park Lake will address the water quality concerns that park visitors and
area residents have had for a number of years. Furthermore, as a result of being an
impoundment on a crook, sediment accumulates,, throughout the Lake, requiring clean out
every 10 to 20 years. City of Kitchener project to improve conditions in Victoria Park Lake.
The proposed works stem from an Environmental Assessment that was completed in
2009. A number of Victoria Park Strategic. Plan elements were also added to the proposed
project as these can be more readily undertaken when the lake is dredged and dewatered.
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V
Heritage Conservation District Plan.
J-he project is intended to improve. both Victoria Park Lake and the Park itself by
implementing recommendations from the previously approved Environmental Assessment
and the Victoria Park Strategic Plan. Additional details are provided within the Heritage,
Impact Assessment (attached).
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
The project will conserve the heritage value of a historic place. It is also proposed that the
heritage bridge pier and abutments will be repaired rather than replace these character-,
defining elements. For the shoreline modification, due to the condition of the gabion and
the fact that this material is not in consistent with the guidelines of the Heritage District
Plan, natural stone is proposed which will enhance the heritage value of this landscaping
feature. Similarly, the boathouse dock/patio were also not consistent with the romantic
landscape and are being replaced with a patio and boardwalk which are.
Expected Start Date: 01/Nov/2011 Expected Completion Date: 01/Jun/2012
(Day/Montli/Year) (Day/MonthRea�r
Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? MYes No
If yes, who? Leon Bensason
Have you discussed this work with the Building Division? Yes
No
If yes, who? Rob SchiDDer
Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes M No
Other Related Applications (Building/Planning): Application No.
A.h.uilding permit is not required
Acknowledgement
The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support
of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that
receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a
`complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that Council of the City of Kitchener shall
determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the
application will be undertaken and the owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional
information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the
application is deemed to be fully complete, the application will be processed and, if necessary,
scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener Committee and Council meeting. Submission
2-11
of this apy|iooUVo oon*Uiuhw8 consent for authorized municipal staf to enter upon the subject
property for the purpose of conducting site, visits, including photographs, which arc, necessary for
the ava1uoU0D of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where on agent has be-en
identified, the [nVnioipaUh/ is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the
and this person is authorized to ant on behalf of the nvVDer for all matters respecting the
3pp|iCaU0O The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this
application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act
shall hot be o waiver of any of the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation
including but 0u1 limited t0 the requirements of the 8Vi|d|nO Code and the Zoning By'|GVv. Tho
undersigned acknowledges that in the event this application is approved, any departure from the
conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitchener or from the, plans or specifications
approved by the COVUoi| of the City ofKitchener in prohibited and could reoV|i in a fine being
imposed or imprisonment i d for under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Signature of Ownor/AgeTl_
Signature of Owner/Agent:
Authorization
Date:
If this application k; being made bvaD agent/solicitor on behalf oythe property ovvner, the following
authorization must be completed:
|/ We,
_______�
hereby authorize
Signature OfOwner:
owner of the land that k; subject of this application,
__ to act on my / our behalf in this regard.
Date:
Signature of (]vvnac D@ke:
The personal infJnDab0O on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33/2i
Section 42(2)'and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the
purposes of administering the heritage permit application and ensuring appropriate service of
notice ofreceipt under Section 33C3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Ant. //you have
any questions about this o0UecboV of personal information, p6y8oe contact the Manager of
Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769).
^ INfE'RNALUSE ONLY:
A pp. ice ion Number:
Application. Received-
App5qati,on Complete,:::
Notice. of Decision:
QO
m�
/-I-W !'A° - �-
we
The Heritage Impact Assessment, which was submitted in support of Heritage Permit
Application HPA 2011-V-018 (Victoria Park Lake Improvements Project), confirms that the
cultural heritage attributes of Victoria Park will be conserved in accordance with the guidelines
and policies of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan.
To assist in interpreting the information contained in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), a
map identifying the location of buildings, structures, monuments and other attributes in Victoria
Park is enclosed with this memo and should be attached to the HIA.
Attachment
FINAL REPORT Heritage Impact Assessment, Victoria Park Lake Improvements,
Kitchener, Ontario, dated September 9, 2011 and prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd.
2-13
VICT*RIA PARK
'. Eltl,
_
1. Victoria Park Lake
2. Roos Island
3. Swan Island
4. Schneider Island
5. Clock Tower
6. The Commons
7. Peace Garden &
Park Garage
8. Queen Victoria Statue
9. Pagoda Drinking
Fountain
10. Boathouse and
Restaurant
11. Roos Island Bridge
12. Bandstand
13. Gazebo
14. Fountain
15. Fountain Bridge
16. Picnic Shelter
17. Food. Building
18. Service Building
19. Wading Pool
lZ
20. Pavilion
21. Comfort Station
22. Roland Street Bridge
23. Floodgates (04tet)
24. Entrance Gates
25. Tuhbenahneeyuay
Monument
26. Injured Workers'
Monument
27. Childrens' Playground
Victoria Park Area Heritage Cooservanon District Play
2-14
�
FINAL REPORT
Heritage Impact x: ±> » : >± »2 > < »<
? %: *»V v = : »=
Kitchener, Ontario
,�.
AN
Civ
D - O Ǥ v
. �
�N
2-15
J FINAL REPORT
~/ Heritage Impact Assessment,
Victoria Park Lake Improvements,
Kitchener, Ontario
Stantec
Prepared for:
City of Kitchener
City Hall, P.O. Box 1118
200 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario N2G 6M7
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd
2791 Lancaster Rd., Suite 200
Ottawa, ON K1 B 1 A7
September 9, 2011
Project No.: 160321075
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Victoria Park Lake (the Lake) in the City of Kitchener (the City) has been a civic landmark and an
integral part of the City's recreational system since its construction in 1895.
Stormwater from the upstream creeks slows as it enters the Lake, which causes sedimentation and
the associated degradation of water quality. Despite recent efforts which have included: the
addition of an outlet flood control structure; reinforcement of the Lake edge using stone and gabion
baskets; and dredging the Lake every 12 to 15 years, sediment accumulation and poor water
quality have continued to lead to outbreaks of avian botulism, odour problems, reduced aesthetic
appeal, and restricted recreational use of the Lake and the park.
Based on the findings of the Class Environmental Assessment undertaken in 2008 and 2009 and
recommendations from the 2003 Foundations Plan and the Victoria Park Strategic Plan a number of
improvements have been proposed for the Lake which may include:
• Sediment removal;
• Outlet configuration;
• Forebay improvements;
• Shoreline modifications;
• The addition of a wetland feature along the south shore of Schneider Island;
• An increase in water depth;
• New aquatic habitat features;
• Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers;
• The addition of a new pedestrian bridge west of Schneider Island;
• Reconstruction of the dock /patio (boathouse);
• Removal of flagpole and light;
• The potential installation of a fountain; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
Victoria Park is an important cultural heritage landscape in the City of Kitchener and is located
within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District which was designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) in 1997 (By -law 96 -91). The Heritage Conservation District Plan
approved by Kitchener City Council in June, 1996 outlines policies and guidelines for the
management of the heritage values of the district. Specific policies and guidelines have been
outlined for the protection of the cultural heritage values of Victoria Park.
A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was undertaken in preparation for the proposed
improvements. The purpose of this HIA was to evaluate the potential for negative impacts on the
cultural heritage resources and character of the Lake as a result of project activities and to
recommend mitigation to lessen or avoid those impacts. The HIA included a review of the site's
pre- contact and post- contact history through census returns, 19th century mapping and local
histories; the identification of any resources or values that may be negatively impacted by the
proposed project activities; and the identification of recommended mitigation measures. A site visit
was conducted in May, 2011 in order to record current conditions and to confirm the findings of the
archival research.
Project No.: 160321075
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Further work with regard to the management and protection of the heritage character has been
recommended for ten project activities:
• Sediment removal;
• Outlet configuration;
• Shoreline modifications;
• The addition of a wetland feature along the south shore of Schneider Island;
• Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers;
• The addition of a new pedestrian bridge west of Schneider Island;
• Reconstruction of the dock /patio (boathouse);
• Removal of flagpole and light;
• The potential installation of a fountain; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
Project No.: 160321075
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. ..............................I
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. ..............................1
1.1 Study Methodology .............................................................. ............................... 2
2 PROJECT AREA ............................................................................... ............................... 6
3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................... ..............................8
3.1 Pre - contact ............................................................................. ..............................8
3.2 Post - contact ........................................................................... ..............................9
4 HERITAGE VALUES ......................................................................... .............................19
4.1 Designated Values ............................................................... .............................19
4.2 Cultural Heritage Landscape Values ................................ ............................... 21
5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................... .............................22
5.1
Sediment removal ................................................................ .............................23
5.2
Outlet configuration ........................................................... ...............................
25
5.3
Forebay improvements ........................................................ .............................26
5.4
Shoreline modification ......................................................... .............................27
5.5
Wetland feature .................................................................. ...............................
28
5.6
Water depth ......................................................................... ...............................
30
5.7
New aquatic habitat features ............................................. ...............................
30
5.8
Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers .......................... ...............................
31
5.9
New pedestrian bridge ......................................................... .............................32
5.10
Boathouse dock / patio .......................................................... .............................32
5.11
Flagpole ................................................................................. .............................36
5.12
Fountain .............................................................................. ...............................
37
5.13
Decommissioning of the pump station ............................ ...............................
39
6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK ............................... .............................41
6.1 No further mitigation ............................................................ .............................42
6.2 Documentation ..................................................................... .............................43
6.3 Heritage Permit Application ................................................ .............................43
Project No.: 160321075
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
6.4 Construction - related mitigation .......................................... .............................43
7 CLOSURE .......................................................................................... .............................45
8 SOURCES ......................................................................................... .............................46
8.1 Literature ............................................................................... .............................46
8.2 Literature Consulted ............................................................ .............................47
8.3 Personal Communications .................................................. .............................48
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5 - 1 Summary of HIA: Sediment removal ......................................................... ...............................
23
Table 5 - 2 Summary of HIA: Outlet configuration ....................................................... ...............................
25
Table 5 - 3 Summary of HIA: Forebay improvements ................................................. ...............................
26
Table 5 - 4 Summary of HIA: Shoreline modification ................................................... ...............................
27
Table 5 - 5 Summary of HIA: Wetland feature ............................................................... .............................28
11
Table 5 - 6 Summary of HIA: Water depth ................................................................... ...............................
30
Table 5 - 7 Summary of HIA: New aquatic habitat features ......................................... ...............................
30
Table 5 - 8 Summary of HIA: Reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge piers ................. ...............................
31
Table 5 - 9 Summary of HIA: New pedestrian bridge .................................................. ...............................
32
Table 5 - 10 Summary of HIA: Boathouse dock / patio .................................................. ...............................
32
Table 5 - 11 Summary of HIA: Flagpole ....................................................................... ...............................
36
Table 5 - 12 Summary of HIA: Fountain ...................................................................... ...............................
37
Table 5 - 13 Summary of HIA: Decommissioning of the pump station ........................ ...............................
39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -1 Location of Project Area ............................................................................... ...............................
4
Figure 1 -2 Proposed Works for be Included in Victoria Park Lake Improvements ........ ..............................5
Figure 2 -1 Project Area, Current Conditions .................................................................. ...............................
7
Figure 3 -1 Approximate Location of the Project Area as Shown on 1919 Reproduction of Map
ofTreaty Lands .................................................................................. ...............................
11
Figure 3 -2 Approximate Location of Project Area as Shown on 1845 Map of Niagara, Gore
and Wellington Districts ..................................................................... ...............................
12
Figure 3 -3 Plan of Lots for Sale in the Town of Berlin, 1853 ....................................... ...............................
13
Figure 3 -4 Map of Berlin from 1853 -54 Showing Project Area .................................... ...............................
14
Figure 3 -5 Project Area as Shown on 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County ......... ...............................
15
Figure 3 -6 Project Area as Shown on 1879 C.M. Hopkins Map of the Town of Berlin ...............................
16
Figure 3 -7 Project Area as Shown on 1881 Parsell & Co. Map of Waterloo Township ..............................
17
Figure 3 -8 Original Plan for Victoria Park .................................................................... ...............................
18
Project No.: 160321075 IV
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Figure 5 -1 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan, Suggested Boathouse
Improvements.................................................................................... ............................... 35
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Photos
Project No.: 160321075
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Kitchener proposes to undertake a series of improvements to the man -made lake in
Victoria Park, Kitchener, Ontario (Figure 1 -1). Victoria Park Lake (the Lake) in the City of Kitchener
(the City) has been a civic landmark and an integral part of the City's recreational system since its
construction in 1895.
Stormwater from the upstream creeks slows as it enters the Lake, which causes sedimentation and
the associated degradation of water quality. Despite recent efforts sediment accumulation and poor
water quality have continued to lead to outbreaks of avian botulism, odour problems, reduced
aesthetic appeal, and restricted recreational use of the Lake and the park.
Based on the findings of the Class Environmental Assessment undertaken in 2008 and 2009 and
recommendations from the Victoria Park Strategic Plan (2003) a number of improvements have
been proposed for the Lake which may include:
• Sediment removal;
• Outlet configuration;
• Forebay improvements;
• Shoreline modifications;
• The addition of a wetland feature along the south shore of Schneider Island;
• An increase in water depth;
• New aquatic habitat features;
• Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers;
• The addition of a new pedestrian bridge west of Schneider Island;
• Reconstruction of the dock /patio (boathouse);
• Removal of flagpole and light;
• The potential installation of a fountain; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
Locations for each of the project activities are shown on Figure 1 -2.
Victoria Park (the Park) is an important cultural heritage landscape in the City of Kitchener and is
located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (the District) which was
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) in 1997 (By -law 96 -91). The Heritage
Conservation District Plan approved by Kitchener City Council in June, 1996 outlines policies and
guidelines for the management of the heritage values of the district. Specific policies and
guidelines have been outlined for the protection of the cultural heritage values of the Park and the
Lake.
A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was undertaken in preparation for the proposed lake
improvements. The purpose of this HIA was to evaluate the potential for negative impacts on the
cultural heritage resources and character of the Lake as a result of project activities and to
recommend mitigation to lessen or avoid those impacts. The HIA included a review of the site's
pre- contact and post- contact history through census returns, 19th century mapping and local
histories; the identification of any resources or values that may be negatively impacted by the
proposed project activities; and the identification of recommended mitigation measures. A site visit
was conducted in May, 2011 in order to record current conditions and to confirm the findings of the
archival research. The HIA was completed by Christienne Uchiyama, B.A., Archaeologist and
Project No.: 160321075 1
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Heritage Planning Consultant with Stantec. Colin Varley, M.A., R.P.A., Senior Archaeologist and
Heritage Planning Consultant acted as senior reviewer.
1.1 Study Methodology
The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is to identify if the proposed project will have
a detrimental impact on the significant heritage values of the Park, the Lake, and the District which
are all protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA).
In order to determine the potential impact of the project on the heritage character of the District it
was imperative to identify the character - defining elements and values of the Park, in particular the
Lake. In order to identify the key heritage values of the Lake, the Victoria Park Area Heritage
Conservation District Study (Hill, 1995) and the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District
Plan (Hill, 1996) were studied along with local histories, site documentation, aerial imagery and
archival records. The project area was visited on several occasions in May, 2011 to record existing
conditions. The heritage values of the Lake are discussed in detail in Section 4.
Identification of potential impacts considered activities which may be undertaken as part of the
improvement project for the Lake which include:
• Sediment removal;
• Outlet configuration;
• Forebay improvements;
• Shoreline modifications;
• The addition of a wetland feature along the south shore of Schneider Island;
• An increase in water depth;
• New aquatic habitat features;
• Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers;
• The addition of a new pedestrian bridge west of Schneider Island;
• Reconstruction of the dock /patio (boathouse);
• Removal of flagpole and light;
• Installation of a fountain; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
Assessment of potential direct or indirect project - related impacts on identified built heritage
resources in the project corridor considered Ministry of Tourism and Culture guidelines concerning
Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MTC, 2006).
The Ministry of Tourism and Culture outlines seven (7) potential negative impacts on heritage
resources, as follows:
• Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features;
• Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and
appearance;
• Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of
a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden;
• Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant
relationship;
Project No.: 160321075 2
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and
natural features;
• A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use,
allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and
• Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that
adversely affect archaeological resources.
An assessment of potential negative impacts is presented in Section 5. Land disturbances are
being assessed in a separate Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and will not be addressed in the
current assessment.
Based on the magnitude of identified negative impacts specific mitigative measures have been
recommended in order to best protect the heritage character and values of the Lake and the District
as a whole. Recommended mitigation is discussed in Section 6.
Project No.: 160321075 3
WOMW
0 sn
L
Q �
++
V a
G1 °�
a
a
O °
Iq
i U)
_O z
O °
J �
r
1
r N
L m
I.L
-
�`
�
•,
'�
�
`�y � 1. ��4�
� �
1 �
• d
q.1'Y%'Cr .�
NO
limit
ra
0
low"
z NNYIP1,10
47
�iSi•1!l�i
�11�`�':
�I
�i lfi'�
.�" <?L�-
`i
..+^��3R�
rAr
.a
.I
J
y
i
•til
�_
J�
�� �
..� � ��
�"
iii. �
�',
�
`�'���►'
(�"
WOMW
0 sn
L
Q �
++
V a
G1 °�
a
a
O °
Iq
i U)
_O z
O °
J �
r
1
r N
L m
I.L
N
C
0
^E
W
a
0
L
E
0
i
J
L
a
c�
0�
� o
� r
� U
i
� O
CL
0 vi
40 Rf
N m
i
L
0
U)
0
Q
0
L
a
N
4
L
CD
LL
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
2 PROJECT AREA
The project area is composed of Victoria Park Lake (the Lake) and its surroundings, comprising
approximately 5.7 hectares (14 acres), being part of Lots 16 and 17, German Company Tract in the
Geographic Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County (Figure 2 -1).
The project area is located within the Waterloo Moraine of the Waterloo Sand Hills physiographic
region, which occupies approximately 300 square miles of land, primarily in the Region of Waterloo
(Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The Waterloo Sand Hills region is characterized by sandy hills with
outwash sands in the intervening depressions. The project area was located in an area of poorly
drained soils until the 1895 construction of the Lake along Schneider Creek.
The major topographic feature in the project area is Schneider Creek, along which the Lake was
built, which empties into the Grand River approximately 6.75 km south of the park (Figure 1 -1).
Victoria Park was built on a Romantic Landscape design in 1895. The Park is comprised of the
Lake, manicured lawns, flower beds, individual and stands of trees, meandering pathways and
roads, and a number of built features including several buildings, bridges and monuments.
Project No.: 160321075 6
N
O
o (�
V
}/ L
W �
L �
L r
V o
� U
L ®i
Q i
CL
•o �
L y
aU)
m
rm
L
LL
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
3.1 Pre - contact
In its pre- construction configuration, the project area exhibits a number of topographic features
known to have attracted past habitation including proximity to a known pre- contact transportation
route and secondary water source. Much of the land upon which the Lake was built was formerly
poorly- drained land and wetland along Schneider Creek, which empties into the Grand River
approximately 6.75 km south of the project area. A known trail once paralleled Schneider Creek
from its mouth at the Grand River travelling through the present -day park north toward present -day
Cherry Park (Mills, 1996). It was near Cherry Park that David Boyle encountered evidence of a
large 15th century Attiwendaronk village during his survey of Schneider Creek with local historian
Jacob Stroh in the early 1890s (Good, 1995). The Attiwendaronk village was estimated by Boyle to
have supported up to 1,000 occupants in winter months when the poorly drained land would have
been largely frozen (Mills, 1996).
Attiwendaronk, meaning `they (who) understand the language' refers to the Huron and Neutral
Iroquoians two of several discrete groups that emerge from the Middle Iroquoian period. Of those
groups, the Huron and Neutral are most similar linguistically (Lounsbury, 1978). Neutral
settlements include large villages of several Ionghouses and a number of associated smaller
satellite villages, seasonally occupied sites with only one or two small structures and camps for
specialized extractive activities such as hunting and fishing.
The Attiwendaronk presence in the region declined over the 15th century and there is little evidence
to indicated their continued presence when Ojibway populations migrated south across Ontario and
into Michigan and into the Waterloo Region in the 18th century. A plaque in Victoria Park
commemorates use of the poorly- drained lands which formerly stretched from the present -day park
northward to Cherry Park. The plaque commemorates Tuhbenahneequay (Sarah Jones) and the
band of New Credit Mississaugas who travelled from the Grand River along the Schneider Creek
trail to winter in the vicinity in the first half of the 19th century. The plaque states:
Tuhbenahneequa (1780- 1873). A member of the Mississauga
or Anishinabe (Ojibwa) First Nation. Camped in this vicinity
with her extended family at the turn of the nineteenth century.
Her children, Kahkewaquonaby (Peter Jones) and
Maungwudaus (George Henry) wrote in English on the history
of the Ojibway in Ontario. Another son, Wahbunoo
(Francis Wilson) died of smallpox in 1847.
Accounts of early settlers in the area further support the use of Schneider Creek as a seasonal trail.
Elizabeth Betzner Sherk (1811 -1894) recalled gatherings of upper Grand River Valley Mississauga
at the mouth of Schneider Creek each autumn (Good, 1995). This seasonal ritual of celebrating the
harvest at the mouth of the creek and then travelling along the trail northward to a winter camp in
the swampland that once included Victoria Park was discontinued by the 1840s, possibly earlier,
and by 1847 the Mississauga had relocated primarily to the New Credit reserve which
encompassed a scant 4,800 acres of the Grand River Valley (Good, 1995).
Project No.: 160321075 8
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
3.2 Post - contact
Block 2 (now Waterloo County) was first delineated in 1784, when Sir Frederick Haldimand granted
lands along the Grand River to the Iroquois confederacy, many of whom were among the United
Empire Loyalists having moved north as a result of the American revolutionary war (Figure 3 -1). In
1796 Block 2 was purchased by Richard Beasley, John Baptiste Rousseau and James Wilson; a
sale that was sanctioned by the government in 1798. Sometime before 1800, Richard Beasley
bought out Rousseau and Wilson for sole ownership of the Block. Survey of Block 2 was begun in
1800 by Richard Cockrell, at which point Beasley sold 1000 acres on the east side of the Grand
River to Peter Horning (Hayes, 1997).
Jacob Bechtel began scouting Waterloo Township in 1799 with the aid of a surveyor and a Native
guide and in 1800 Beasley sold 3600 acres of land to John Bean and 3150 acres to George
Bechtel. The German Company was formed in 1804 as a result of the purchase of 60,000 acres of
land in Waterloo County. The German Company, started by Samuel Bricker, Daniel Erb and Jacob
Erb, owned the title to the German Company Tract by June 1805 (Hayes, 1997).
Waterloo Township was formed from Block 2 in 1816. At the time, the majority of settlers in the
area were Mennonites who had migrated from Pennsylvania around the turn of the century (Hayes,
1997). The hamlet of Berlin was named in 1833 (Uttley, 1975). The same year, Friedrich Gaukel
built an inn at the centre of Berlin on land purchased from Benjamin Eby and Joseph Schneider,
both of whom settled in Berlin in 1807 (Hayes, 1997). An 1845 map of Niagara, Gore and
Wellington Districts shows little detail in Waterloo Township, although the hamlets of Berlin,
Waterloo and Bridgeport are identified (Figure 3 -2). Owing to its central location within the
township, Berlin became the site of the township hall in the 1840s and in 1853 when the first council
of the County of Waterloo met; Berlin was named the capital of the County (Hayes, 1997).
The 1853 Plan of Lots for Sale in the Town of Berlin shows no detail within the project area (Figure
3 -3); however, the Grange map of the same year includes the property of Joseph E. Schneider in
the bottom left corner (Figure 3 -4). The Grange map shows some detail of the Schneider property
including a saw mill along Schneider Creek, south of the project area and a swampy area at the
north end of the present -day lake (Figure 3 -4). The map also indicates a pond on the Schneider
property which terminates along two swamps, Cedar Swamp and Black Ash Swamp (Figure 3 -4). It
is around Black Ash Swamp that evidence of an Attiwendaronk village was recorded by David Boyle
in 1894 (Good, 1995).
Tremaine's 1861 Map of Waterloo County does not include the project area within the boundaries of
the Berlin inset but is included in the overall map of the County (Figure 3 -5). Tremaine's map
shows some detail within the project area including Schneider Creek and the Preston and Berlin
line of railway tracks which diverges from the Grand Trunk line north of the project area and curves
around the Lake before travelling south (Figure 3 -5). The map does not indicate any built structures
or other significant features within the project area. Census data from 1861 indicates that the
population of Berlin was 396 at the time (LAC, 1861).
In 1872 25 acres of the Schneider property was sold to Berlin for the town's first park at the corner
of present -day Mill Street and Queen Street (Mills, 1996). This Town Park is shown on the 1879
Hopkins Map of the Town of Berlin (Figure 3 -6). The 1872 Town Park, later named Woodside Park,
is located south of the project area, west of the Preston and Berlin rail line. The Hoskins map
shows some detail within the project area and indicates that ownership of the subject property had
Project No.: 160321075 9
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
transferred to Samuel B. Schneider following the death of Joseph Schneider. Schneider Creek is
included on the map, as well as the Schneider farmstead. The earlier saw mill is no longer shown
along the creek (Figure 3 -6). It is likely that the mill was no longer extant, given that the locations of
several agricultural outbuildings are included south of the project area. The Hopkins map indicates
that the north end of the project area was at the time swamp (Figure 3 -6).
The 1881 Parsell & Co. Illustrated atlas of Waterloo County shows the Town Park south of the
project area, Schneider Creek and the Preston and Berlin rail line, but no other detail within the
project area (Figure 3 -7).
Little development of the 1872 town park took place and when Waterloo established Westside Park
in 1893 picnic groups were drawn to Waterloo. Dissatisfaction over the location of the town park
and its lack of facilities and the timely enactment of the provincial Public Parks Act led to the
September, 1894 creation of a Board of Park Management in Berlin (Mills, 1996). The board
included six men: August Lang, William Roos, L.J. Breithaupt, J.S. Hoffman, C.F. Brown and
Thomas Bridger. Daniel Hibner, then mayor, had ex- officio status on the board (Mills, 1996).
The new town park was designed by Berlin's Town Engineer, H.J. Bowman with detail being added
by William Harmuth, a local architect (Mills, 1996). The original plan was similar to the present -day
configuration and included a large lake and three islands. The lake in Bowman's plan incorporated
a ring road and spanned the distance between David Street and the Preston and Berlin rail line
(Figure 3 -8). Land for the park was purchased from Samuel B. Schneider and the Athletic
Association in 1894 and in autumn of that year the decision was made to dredge the swampy
portion of the property to form an artificial lake (Unknown, 1986).
Dredging of the swamp lake was undertaken by William B. Hewitt of Breslau between May and
September of 1895. Photos show teams of horses and ploughs being used to remove the poorly
drained soils along Schneider Creek to form the lake and three islands (Photos 1 and 2, Appendix
A). Roos Island, the largest of the three, and Swan Island, the smaller island across from Roos
Island, were named in December, 1895; and Schneider Island, the small island at the west end of
the lake, was named in 1910.
Project No.: 160321075 10
A ^ C
� i w a
F1
r
D
E a 11
of 1
d Tr• �
<aaa 1 _ �� ax
1 R' �rresR y
4
rs� ray
^
4L
t;
66rk f-
Project Location;
,iC Rrfx ..� ✓r f
Itwl D /MANU j +. aKI. A+�.
�' xAwlx..ww,. TiwRnc rwexaas
M. j �,,Zoo
",omla- -
_
Y 1 yR.
prsMa - 4 OR as �c^ass , - ^ "� • �'' ---r --------------
- - --` +r
R,s a WLAZ .rah: °x _ __ -r •� %r _ / •. �� .�
VC
dR y
Figure 3 -1 Approximate Location of Project Area, as Shown on
1919 Reproduction of Map of Treaty Lands,-
(Map Source: Hayes, 1997)
Stantec
K
0
C
Q}
V
Q
Q
L Q
Q
V �
L
a
4
Q
C
G L
+� Q
vd
Q
J L
Q Q
L Q
Q
CL M
Q2
N LO
M 00
0
L
Ln
f
f
Ln
„1
�
l l
iya
R
t c9
0
C
Q}
V
Q
Q
L Q
Q
V �
L
a
4
Q
C
G L
+� Q
vd
Q
J L
Q Q
L Q
Q
CL M
Q2
N LO
M 00
0
L
t
f
f
„1
�
l l
iya
0
C
Q}
V
Q
Q
L Q
Q
V �
L
a
4
Q
C
G L
+� Q
vd
Q
J L
Q Q
L Q
Q
CL M
Q2
N LO
M 00
0
L
E
O
O
C-4
77
je
-A
A
A
Clf)
MY L
cr)
C
ML
0
C
O
C
Cl)
L.
0
U)
40
0
0
C
m
E-L
LL
tl
9w
E
O
O
C-4
77
je
-A
A
A
Clf)
MY L
cr)
C
ML
0
C
O
C
Cl)
L.
0
U)
40
0
0
C
m
E-L
LL
cn
CIO
4, CLD
n.L
I' - = L
f
r
_ � M
M�
O
O
Y� �Y
4
IL
A.
IL
`�
, !f - ffie.
-f—, pr
A
L•
;r
it .c ry° . v - L
Aw
YoY.
y ■'
ril
ai r.Y
YO ,
�.
it NN
4 'bY
ir
two
r� O
Y.
■ �.. � YYYYL
[•:
W
00
iV
0
a 0
3L
0 (D
Cl)�
0
idi
L CM
Q G
V �
0
L
L
L
Mr
i 00
= r
cm
O
��•� � � M: �a�l l - -Rye _ -_n T a `��. ,
00
•
AD
! b
N
L
m
i
0
Q
G
C_
O
2
V
co
W
O
3
t
L
Q
v
O
Cfl
M
V/
LL
4.N
ate.
u
0
3
OR
m
-
` i 12 t �•
a N
"A co
rw LO
o
t
03 0
a�
00
oo
(n L
L �
a�
00
ti U
M�
� L
r
co
T-
_:I
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
4 HERITAGE VALUES
4.1 Designated Values
The project area is located within the Victoria Lake Heritage Conservation District, which is
designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) in 1997 (By -law 96 -91). In addition to
the Heritage Conservation District several properties designated under Part IV of the OHA are
located in the vicinity of the project area. Two of the Part IV designations, 82 Heins Avenue and 23
Roland Avenue, overlook the lake and 76 Schneider Avenue backs onto the park near the lake.
The 1996 Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District Plan (the Plan) highlights seven key
character - defining elements of the Romantic Landscape style embodied by Victoria Park to be
conserved through implementation of policies and guidelines outlined therein. The Plan identifies:
• Naturalistic character;
• Victoria Park Lake;
• Enclosing woods;
• Sweeps of grass;
• Meandering drives and paths;
• Antique buildings and monuments; and
• Vistas.
Designed and constructed between 1894 and 1895, Victoria Park is built in the Romantic
Landscape Style. The Park was designed by Berlin's Town Engineer, H.J. Bowman, with detail
being added by William Harmuth, a local architect (Mills, 1996). George Ricker, a landscape
engineer from Buffalo, was also invited to visit the site and comment on the design (Hill, 1996).
The naturalistic character of Victoria Park is defined as seeming "intensely natural and untouched
by man" (Hill, 1996). Victoria Park was intended, in part, to provide a reprieve from the intense
industrialization of Berlin mere streets away. Early photos of the Park show countless factory
chimney stacks in the background (Photo 3, Appendix A). The Romantic Landscape style
reintroduces natural elements in a way that is not meant to seem contrived. Interventions that
might detract from the naturalistic character of the Park include:
• Artificial plant forms (e.g., columns, squared corners, globular); and
• Conspicuous engineered structures (e.g., pressure- treated lumber retaining walls, concrete
containers and metal gabion baskets).
The water feature is a key element to the Romantic Landscape style. The Lake provides the user
of the Romantic Landscape with a visual, aromatic, auditory, and tactile experience. As such
successful management of the heritage values of the Lake, both aesthetic and associative, is
integral to the conservation of the heritage values of the Park as a central element of the District.
Given the scope of the project, all of the Conservation Guidelines included in the District Plan
should be applied to the design. These guidelines include:
Project No.: 160321075 19
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• The Lake should be conserved as an open, uninterrupted body of water;
• Lakeside plantings should be designed and maintained to achieve harmonious reflections in
the water and pleasant fragrance;
• Riparian edge plantings should be encouraged to create a natural looking lake edge;
• Built structures in the lake, such as light standards and loud speakers, should be
discouraged as being disruptive to the visual serenity of the lake;
• Bridges over water should be of a gently arched design, painted to blend into the landscape;
and
• Water quality should be monitored and maintained in healthy condition.
Woods are another key feature of the Romantic Landscape exemplified by Victoria Park. In
addition to providing shade and shelter, stands of trees are used to conceal boundaries and
distractions and to exaggerate land form. Trees are also used throughout the Park to heighten the
sense of anticipation as the user passes from one view, or `painting', into the next. Conservation
Guidelines that are applicable to the current project include:
• Woods throughout the park should be conserved and augmented with more trees, with an
emphasis on species that evoke grandeur and strength;
• The south and west boundaries of the park should be enhanced as a wildlife habitat with a
mix of low, medium and high story plantings of native species; and
• The south wildlife habitat area should meld into the landscape character of the Rails -to-
Trails pathway.
Broad, uninterrupted sweeps of grass are identified as an integral component of the Romantic
Landscape of Victoria Park. Although Conservation Guidelines are not directly applicable within the
scope of this project, project activities that require vehicles and machinery will need to consider the
significance of the lawns in planning.
Meandering drives and paths are used in Romantic Landscape designed to be visually unobtrusive
and to guide the users through the various views. Conservation Guidelines concerning paths
include:
• Paths should meander within the park in harmony with natural features; and
• Finishes for permanent paths should be gravel. Where all- season universal accessibility is
required, the finish should be poured concrete. (It should be noted that although the
Conservation Guidelines recommend gravel or poured concrete, existing paths are crushed
gravel or asphalt. It is the opinion of this study that in order to maintain the visual harmony
of the park, path finishes should be consistent with the existing rather than adhere literally to
the Conservation Guidelines in this case.)
The Park includes a number of buildings and monuments. Antique buildings and monuments in
Romantic Landscape provide visual drama and accent (Hill, 1996). At present, the Park contains a
number of buildings which include: the boathouse (1929), pavilion (1924) and comfort station
Project No.: 160321075 20
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
(1910). The Park also boasts a number of monuments that should be taken into consideration in
the design and implementation of the proposed project.
Finally the Study and Plan identify vistas as a key component of the Romantic Landscape design of
the Park. Conservation Guidelines identify two axial vistas to be conserved and enhanced:
• Across the Commons to the Clock Tower, and north to City Hall; and
• Water Street South to Roos Island Bridge.
Two intermittent vistas are also identified:
• The sequence along the Park Road in both directions, including views to the Commons and
the Lake;
• Views from David Street and Roland Street to the Commons and the Lake.
In general, the Conservation Guidelines encourage the conservation of existing vistas as well as
new intermittent vistas through "looser, less dense plantings to facilitate through views" (Hill, 1996).
4.2 Cultural Heritage Landscape Values
In addition to being viewed as a component of the District, Victoria Park can also be evaluated as a
cultural heritage landscape unto itself. The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement 2.6.1 states
"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved"
(MAH, 2005). Victoria Park satisfies the PPS definition of a cultural heritage landscape:
...a defined geographical area of heritage significance which has been modified by human
activities and is valued by a community. A landscape involves a grouping(s) of individual heritage
features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites and natural elements, which together form
a significant type of heritage form, distinctive from that of its constituent elements or parts.
Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act; and villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods,
cemeteries, trailways and industrial complexes of cultural value (MAH, 2005).
The Victoria Park landscape is composed of a series of heritage features composed around natural
elements. The Park is a designed landscape, shaped by human modification of the natural
topography.
Project No.: 160321075 21
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Based on the findings of the Class Environmental Assessment undertaken in 2008 and 2009 and
recommendations from the Victoria Park Strategic Plan (2003) a number of improvements have
been proposed for the Lake which may include:
• Sediment removal;
• Outlet configuration;
• Forebay improvements;
• Shoreline modifications;
• The addition of a wetland feature along the south shore of Schneider Island;
• An increase in water depth;
• New aquatic habitat features;
• Reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge piers;
• The addition of a new pedestrian bridge west of Schneider Island;
• Reconstruction of the dock /patio (boathouse);
• Removal of flagpole and light;
• Installation of a fountain; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
Heritage Impact Assessments have been undertaken for each of the proposed project activities.
Project No.: 160321075 22
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.1 Sediment removal
Table 5 - 1 Summary of HIA: Sediment removal
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the sediment removal.
Alteration Sediment removal activities have the
Portions of the property used for
potential to negatively impact the
laydown areas (i.e., temporary
heritage character of the Lake.
staging areas for construction
materials and machinery) and
temporary access routes could be
covered with geotextile and
gravel /plywood or another material
that will minimize or prevent
entirely damage to the existing
ground cover.
Any vegetation or hard landscaping
features (e.g., paved pathways)
damaged by project activities
should be replaced or repaired
following project completion.
Access should be limited to a
narrow corridor and no
construction traffic should be
allowed outside of designated
access and laydown areas.
Temporary access routes should
avoid structures and monuments.
Fencing or hoarding (visible in
winter months) should be used to
help delineate bufferzones around
structures and monuments in the
vicinity of access routes and
laydown areas.
Terms of reference for the removal
of sediment should include
reference to applicable
Conservation Guidelines and
recommended mitigative measures
to protect the existing ground
cover.
Although not anticipated, removal
of structures would require the
submission of a revised Heritage
Permit Application.
Project No.: 160321075 23
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Shadows The sediment removal is not expected
No mitigation recommended.
to have a negative impact on the
heritage features and values of the
t Lake in terms of shadows.
Isolation No heritage features will be isolated
No mitigation recommended.
by the sediment removal.
Direct or indirect obstruction No heritage features will be
No mitigation recommended.
obstructed by the sediment removal.
A change in land use No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the sediment removal.
In order to manage the water quality of the Lake, the lake bottom has been dredged every 12 to 15
years to remove accumulated sediment. Sediment removal was last undertaken in 1995 (CH2M
Hill, 2009). The results of the sediment removal should be visible in the quality of water in the Lake,
thus adhering to the District Plan Conservation Guideline, water quality should be monitored and
maintained in healthy condition (Hill, 1996). The resultant increased water quality will enhance the
heritage character of the lake.
Sediment removal does not require a Heritage Permit; however, potential alteration or damage to
heritage features may occur as a result of the process of sediment removal.
Temporary access routes and laydown areas for heavy machinery and construction vehicles should
be planned to avoid heritage structures and monuments and cause minimal damage to the existing
ground cover, specifically the grass. The Park's sweeps of grass are identified as a key feature of
the Romantic Landscape to be protected through the District Guidelines.
Site preparation and use of access routes and laydown areas should adhere to the following
conditions:
• The corridor for project access should be kept as narrow as possible and no vehicles should
be allowed to travel outside the corridor.
• Existing vegetation could be protected by laying a temporary access road of geotextile and
gravel /plywood or other protective material. Vegetation and hard landscaping (i.e., paved
pathways) that are damaged by the preparation and use of access routes and laydown
areas should be reinstated following project completion
• Temporary access routes should avoid all structures and monuments. Fencing should be
used to help delineate bufferzones around structures and monuments in the vicinity of
access routes and laydown areas. This fencing must be visible during winter months.
The removal of any buildings, monuments, or other heritage features is not anticipated. If
temporary relocation of any structures is deemed necessary at any point during sediment removal,
a plan for temporary relocation should be prepared outlining provisions to maintain structural
integrity. A revised Heritage Permit Application is required if temporary relocation of structures
cannot be avoided through project design.
Project No.: 160321075 24
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.2 Outlet configuration
Table 5 - 2 Summary of HIA: Outlet configuration
Potential Negative Impact
Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the reconfiguration of the
outlet.
Alteration
The reconfiguration of the outlet will not
No mitigation recommended.
alter any heritage features or values.
Shadows
The reconfiguration of the outlet is not
No mitigation recommended.
expected to have a negative impact on
the heritage features and values of the
Lake in terms of shadows.
Isolation
No heritage features will be isolated by
No mitigation recommended.
the reconfiguration of the outlet.
Direct or indirect obstruction
No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the reconfiguration of the outlet.
A change in land use
No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the reconfiguration of the
outlet.
The outlet is located in the southeast corner of the Lake along David Street (Figure 2 -1). The
portion of the outlet visible above the water line is composed of concrete with metal grates (Photo 4,
Appendix A). At street level, a wooden fence runs along the outlet for public safety and shrubbery
has been planted in order to minimize the visual impact and naturalise views of the outlet (Photo 5,
Appendix A). The outlet is a necessary feature for the improvement of water quality downstream,
but the current design poses safety risks to staff and a new design may be required (City of
Kitchener, 2003).
Applicable Conservation Guidelines from the District Plan include:
• A naturalistic character should provide the guiding unity of the park;
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabion baskets, should be discouraged and replaced over
time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape;
• Water quality should be monitored and maintained in healthy condition; and
• Landscaping shall be an essential part of new buildings and monuments to ensure their
visual integration into the Park.
The proposed alterations to the outlet involve the replacement of the existing vertical trash rack with
a horizontal trash rack. The new design will not differ from the existing design in material, colour, or
scale and as such will not negatively impact the heritage character of the Lake.
As a built feature, the alteration of the outlet requires a Heritage Permit Application.
Project No.: 160321075 25
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.3 Forebay improvements
Table 5 - 3 Summary of HIA: Forebay improvements
Potential Negative Impact
Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the forebay improvements.
Alteration
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
altered by the forebay improvements.
Shadows
The forebay improvements will not have
No mitigation recommended.
a negative impact on the heritage
features and values of the Lake in terms
of shadows.
Isolation
No heritage features will be isolated by
No mitigation recommended.
the forebay improvements.
Direct or indirect obstruction
No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the forebay improvements.
A change in land use
No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the forebay improvements
In order to decrease the rate of sediment accumulation, improvements to the west end of the Lake
have been recommended ( Stantec, 2009). These improvements would include the widening of the
Lake, near the railway tracks, to create a larger forebay. At present the west end of the Lake is
dominated by the engineered features of the shoring and the concrete culvert (Photos 6 and 7,
Appendix A). There is a noted lack of landscaping in this section of the Lake and the existing
pathways are "desire paths" having been made over time by users rather than designed in a
Romantic Landscape style.
As the work is related to landscaping, no Heritage Permit is required for the forebay improvements;
however, there is a potential for the design and materials used to negatively impact the heritage
character of the Lake.
Applicable Conservation Guidelines from the District Plan include:
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabion baskets, should be discouraged and replaced over
time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape;
• The south wildlife habitat area should be enhanced as a wildlife habitat with a mix of low,
medium and high storey plantings of native species;
• The south wildlife habitat area should meld into the landscape of the Rails -to- Trails pathway;
• Pathway should meander within the park in harmony with natural features; and
• Finishes for permanent paths should be consistent with the existing paths.
Based on the current design proposal, the materials and design chosen for the riparian edge,
retaining walls and pathways adhere to the above guidance from the District Plan and no further
mitigation is recommended.
Project No.: 160321075 26
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.4 Shoreline modification
Table 5 - 4 Summary of HIA: Shoreline modification
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the shoreline modification.
Alteration Based on the current design and
Documentation of the ramps to
materials, the shoreline modification will
be compiled. Copies should be
not negatively affect the character of the
distributed to the City Archives
Lake.
and the Victoria Park Gallery.
Shadows
Isolation
Direct or indirect obstruction
A change in land use
The shoreline modification will not have
a negative impact on the heritage
features and values of the Lake in terms
of shadows.
No heritage features will be isolated by
the shoreline modification.
No heritage features will be obstructed
by the shoreline modification.
No change of land use will occur as a
result of the shoreline modification.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
Early photos of the Lake show that the shoreline included sections of both grassed riparian edge
and rock (Photos 8 and 9, Appendix A). In recent decades the majority of shoring alone the Lake
and islands has been replaced with gabion baskets which are currently in a deteriorated state and
require replacement (Photos 10 and 11, Appendix A).
As a landscape element, the shoreline modifications do not require a Heritage Permit; however,
there is a potential for the modifications to have a negative impact on the heritage character of the
Lake.
Applicable Conservation Guidelines from the District Plan include:
• A naturalistic character should provide the guiding unity of the park.
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabion baskets, should be discouraged and replaced over
time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape.
• The lake should be conserved as an open, uninterrupted body of water.
• Riparian edge plantings should be encouraged to create a natural looking lake edge.
The design and materials chosen for the shoreline modification should consider the Conservation
Guideline for Victoria Park Lake. At present, armour stone is expected to be used along the
majority of the shoreline. As a replacement for the existing gabion baskets, the armour stone is in
keeping with the Guidelines from the District Plan and will not have a negative impact on the
heritage character of the Lake.
Project No.: 160321075 27
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Several small ramps are situated around the Lake and island shorelines which were installed for
access to clear the ice in winter for ice skating (Photo 12, Appendix A). These ramps are physical
evidence of the historical recreational use of the Lake and should be conserved as such. In the
event that other project constraints do not allow the retention of the ramps, the ramps should be
documented. Documentation should include: a map showing the locations of the ramps; dimensions
of the ramps; and photographs of the ramps. Copies of the documentation should be deposited at
the City Kitchener Archives and the Victoria Park Gallery.
5.5 Wetland feature
Table 5 - 5 Summary of HIA: Wetland feature
Potential Negative Impact
Destruction
Alteration
Shadows
Isolation
Direct or indirect obstruction
A change in land use
Result of Assessment
No heritage features or values will be
destroyed by the wetland feature.
The wetland feature will not have a
negative impact on the heritage
character of the Lake.
The wetland feature will not have a
negative impact on the heritage features
and values of the Lake in terms of
shadows.
No heritage features will be isolated by
the wetland feature.
No heritage features will be obstructed
by the wetland feature.
No change of land use will occur as a
result of the wetland feature.
Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation recommended.
Based on the current design for
the wetland feature no mitigation
is required.
Existing conditions and views
should be photo- documented
prior to the construction of the
wetland feature. The photo -
documentation should include a
date and description of the
project activities being
undertaken. Copies should be
deposited with the Victoria Park
Gallery and the local archives.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
The conceptual design from the 2009 Class EA included the construction of a new wetland feature
along the south side of Schneider Island (Figure 1 -2). In order to not reduce the flow of water along
the south side of the island, the design has been re- evaluated and currently consists of smaller
wetland features at the east and west ends of the island (Photo 13, Appendix A).
The wetland feature is related to landscaping and as such does not require a Heritage Permit;
however the feature has the potential to negatively impact the heritage character of the Lake and,
as such, has been included in the current study.
Applicable Conservation Guidelines to consider in the evaluation of the impact of a wetland feature
on the heritage character of the Park include:
Project No.: 160321075 28
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• A naturalistic character should provide the guiding unity of the Park;
• The existing diversity of plant species should be maintained and enhanced;
• The lake should be conserved as an open, uninterrupted body of water; and
• Water quality should be monitored and maintained in a healthy condition.
Although a wetland feature would restrict the openness of the Lake on the south side of the island,
it will allow and enhance the flow of water along the north side of the island. A wetland feature
would increase the diversity of plant species in the Park to include a greater variety of wetland
species. The wetland is furthermore expected to contribute to improved water quality. The
conceptual design is therefore considered by this study to adhere to the Conservation Guidelines.
Based on the 2009 conceptual design no negative impacts to the heritage character of the Lake are
anticipated. The addition of a wetland feature affords an opportunity for interpretation of the history
of the Lake's construction and its natural topography. The addition of a wetland feature would also
enhance the Romantic Landscape user experience as it would present a new view or `painting' of a
feature with natural characteristics for users. The wetland feature would only be visible from limited
vantage points or through intermittent vistas thereby enhancing the Romantic element of surprise.
It is recommended that current views of the Lake and construction of the wetland feature be photo -
documented. Photo - documentation should include dates and descriptions of the activities
undertaken. Copies of this record should be deposited with the Victoria Park Gallery and the local
archives.
Project No.: 160321075 29
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.6 Water depth
Table 5 - 6 Summary of HIA: Water depth
Potential Negative Impact
Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the change in water depth.
Alteration
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
Alteration
negatively altered by the change in
No mitigation recommended.
water depth.
Shadows
The change in water depth will not have
No mitigation recommended.
Shadows
a negative impact on the heritage
No mitigation recommended.
features and values of the Lake in terms
of shadows.
Isolation
No heritage features will be isolated by
No mitigation recommended.
the change in water depth.
Direct or indirect obstruction
No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the change in water depth.
A change in land use
No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the change in water depth.
The increase in water depths is anticipated to improve aesthetics, improve water quality and aquatic
habitat, and reduce dredging frequency. This change is not expected to alter the user experience
of the Lake, or the Park, in a negative way and will not have a negative impact visually. A Heritage
Permit is not required for changes to the water depth. No mitigation is recommended.
5.7 New aquatic habitat features
Table 5 - 7 Summary of HIA: New aquatic habitat features
Potential Negative Impact
Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by new aquatic habitat
features.
Alteration
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
negatively altered by new aquatic
habitat features.
Shadows
New aquatic habitat features will not
No mitigation recommended.
have a negative impact on the heritage
features and values of the Lake in terms
of shadows.
Isolation No heritage features will be isolated by No mitigation recommended.
new aquatic habitat features.
Direct or indirect obstruction No heritage features will be obstructed No mitigation recommended.
by new aquatic habitat features.
A change in land use No change of land use will occur as a No mitigation recommended.
result of new aquatic habitat features.
New aquatic habitat features are anticipated to increase the diversity of fish species in the Lake and
discourage the prevalence of carp. This change is not expected to alter the user experience of the
Lake, or the Park, in a negative way and will not have a negative impact visually.
Project No.: 160321075 30
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
The addition of new, sub - surface, aquatic habitat features will not have a negative impact on the
heritage character of the Lake. No mitigation is recommended.
5.8 Refinishing of the Heritage Bridge piers
Table 5 - 8 Summary of HIA: Reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge piers
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment Recommended Mitigation
Destruction Reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge No mitigation recommended.
piers is not expected to destroy
character - defining features of the
bridge.
Alteration There is a potential for reconstruction of The refinishing will need to be
the Heritage Bridge piers to alter included in a Heritage Permit
character - defining features of the Application.
bridge.
Shadows Reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge No mitigation recommended.
will not have a negative impact on the
heritage features and values of the Lake
in terms of shadows.
Isolation No heritage features will be isolated by No mitigation recommended.
reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge.
Direct or indirect obstruction No heritage features will be obstructed No mitigation recommended.
by reconstruction of the Heritage Bridge.
A change in land use No change of land use will occur as a No mitigation recommended.
result of reconstruction of the Heritage
Bridge.
Evaluation of the Heritage Bridge piers indicates that the piers are in need of reconstruction in order
to maintain their structural integrity. The Heritage Bridge was constructed in May, 1896 by the
Central Bridge Engineering Company of Peterborough (Mills, 1996). The bridge has undergone
periodic maintenance over the course of its life, including a major renovation in 1974 -75. A permit
for improvements to the Heritage Bridge railings has recently been approved. Photos of the bridge
over the past 115 years indicate that the current configuration of the piers is not the original.
Alterations to the Heritage Bridge require a Heritage Permit.
Refinishing of the piers should consider the existing design and materials, previous iterations and
the future design of the bridge. It is recommended that the project team work with Heritage
Planning Staff from the City to determine the most appropriate design for the piers and to
coordinate the reconstruction of the piers with the railing alterations in order to lessen the
cumulative effects of the projects on the Heritage Bridge. Materials for the reconstructed piers
should be aesthetically and structurally compatible with any existing materials (e.g., wood and
metal) that are to remain in situ. In particular the choice of concrete should consider the relative
strength of the existing historic bridge materials (i.e., modern concrete has greater structural
strength than concrete used in 1896 or even 1974 and this modern concrete may transfer stress
from vibrations and movement to the older bridge components causing damage to the historic
fabric).
At present, project plans involve the stripping of the existing 201h century concrete which is in poor
condition and chipping. The existing concrete will be stripped to the original stone piers. The stone
Project No.: 160321075 31
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
piers will then be encased in new concrete. Rebar, which will be dowelled into the original piers, is
expected to prevent premature deteriorating of the new concrete.
5.9 New pedestrian bridge
Table 5 - 9 Summary of HIA: New pedestrian bridge
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by a new pedestrian bridge.
Alteration A new pedestrian bridge has the
A Heritage Permit will be required
potential to negatively affect the
for a new bridge.
heritage character of the Lake.
A Heritage Permit will be
Shadows The new pedestrian will not have a
No mitigation recommended.
negative impact on the heritage features
and values of the Lake in terms of
shadows.
Isolation No heritage features will be isolated by
No mitigation recommended.
the new pedestrian bridge.
Direct or indirect obstruction No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the new pedestrian bridge.
A change in land use No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the new pedestrian bridge.
The 2003 Victoria Park Strategic Plan identified an Upper Lake bridge as a priority A project as a
matter of public safety. The new bridge would be constructed between Schneider Island and the
railway tracks at the west end of the Lake (Photo 14, Appendix A).
The new bridge would be
situated in the vicinity of two large willow trees on either side of the Lake.
A Heritage Permit is required for a new bridge.
The design, materials, and massing of the bridge should adhere
to applicable District Plan
Conservation Guidelines:
• Bridges over water should be of a gently arched design, painted to blend into the
landscape; and
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabion baskets, should be discouraged and replaced
over time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape.
5.10 Boathouse dock /patio
Table 5 - 10 Summary of HIA: Boathouse dock /patio
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by a reconfigured boathouse
dock /patio.
Alteration The proposed design for the boathouse
dock /patio will not have a negative
A Heritage Permit will be
impact on the heritage character of the
required for a dock /patio.
Lake.
Project No.: 160321075 32
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Shadows A reconfigured boathouse dock /patio
No mitigation recommended.
will not have a negative impact on the
heritage features and values of the Lake
t in terms of shadows.
Isolation No heritage features will be isolated by a
No mitigation recommended.
reconfigured boathouse dock /patio.
Direct or indirect obstruction No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the decommissioning of the pump
station.
A change in land use No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of a reconfigured boathouse
dock /patio.
The existing boathouse at the southeast end of the Lake was constructed in 1929 (Mills, 1996).
The dock /patio on the lake side of the boathouse has undergone a number of iterations over the
years. A Fire in February, 1967 led to extensive renovations of the building, altering the second
storey and roofline, as well as the windows and doors on the first storey. The dock was widened
and was made accessible to the public in the 1980s (Mills, 1996). The current dock /patio is a small
wooden structure separated from the boathouse by a brick walkway (Photo 15, Appendix A). The
structure is surrounded by heavy wooden fence posts and benches, all painted brown. Repairs to
the shoreline will require the removal of the existing dock.
The boathouse is included in the list of features requiring redesign to better fit the Romantic
Landscape style of the Park (Hill, 1996). Suggested improvements to the boathouse are included in
the District Plan (Figure 5 -1). The improvements include:
• Replacement of timber retaining walls and paving with more natural landscaping;
• A waterfront terrace; and
• Grass with low- storey plantings around the boathouse.
A Heritage Permit is required for a new boathouse dock /patio.
The design should adhere to the District Plan. Conservation Guidelines that apply to the design of
a new boathouse dock /patio include:
• A naturalistic character should provide the guiding unity of the park;
• The Romantic Landscape inclusion of buildings and monuments for visual delight and
contemplation shall be continued;
• New buildings and monuments shall build on the tradition of hand craftsmanship, natural
materials and a visual blend with the landscape;
• Artificial materials and treatments such as pressure- treated lumber, plastic and pre -cast
concrete shall be strongly discouraged;
• Priority in the design of buildings and monuments shall be given to longevity and graceful
aging; and
• Landscaping shall be an essential part of new buildings and monuments to ensure their
visual integration into the park.
Project No.: 160321075 33
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Although the third and fourth Conservation Guideline above are intended for new constructions, the
reconstruction of a substantial built addition along the shoreline is likely to have the same visual
impact as a brand new structure. The Conservation Guidelines should be included in the terms of
reference for the design of a new dock or patio in order that the style, massing and materials used
are compatible with or enhance the landscape of the Park.
At present, the proposed design adheres to the Conservation Guidelines and incorporates many of
the suggested improvements found in the District Plan (see Appendix B, Drawings). The design
includes a patio, vegetation, and a boardwalk feature, similar to the wooden terrace seen in Figure
5 -1.
Project No.: 160321075 34
J+i
s
1
�
•
i
•
•_
Y
•
•i
•
j
•
VIN, NINE
1�
I"ff
1.
A..
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
5.11 Flagpole
Table 5 - 11 Summary of HIA: Flagpole
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the removal of the
flagpole.
Alteration The relocation of the flagpole will not
The relocation of the flagpole
negatively affect the heritage character
should be photo- documented.
of the Lake as defined in the District
Photo - documentation should
Plan.
include dates and descriptions of
construction activities. Copies of
the photo- documentation should
be deposited with the Victoria
Park Gallery and the local
archives.
Shadows
Isolation
Direct or indirect obstruction
A change in land use
The removal of the flagpole will not have
a negative impact on the heritage
features and values of the Lake in terms
of shadows.
No heritage features will be isolated by
the removal of the flagpole.
No heritage features will be obstructed
by the removal of the flagpole.
No change of land use will occur as a
result of the decommissioning of the
pump station.
A Heritage Permit will be required
for the removal or relocation of
the flagpole.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
In the early 201h century, a pole was placed near the centre of the Lake in winter from which to string
lights and flags for skaters. In 1953 a permanent flagpole was raised in a similar location. The
extant flagpole, which replaced the 1953 flagpole in 1994, is located between Roos Island and
David Street and includes a no longer operational sound system (Photo 16, Appendix A).
Project design, at present, proposes the removal of the flagpole from its current position in the
Lake. The erection of a flagpole at a new location will be investigated by the City at a later date.
As a built feature, a Heritage Permit is required for the removal or alteration of the flagpole.
Applicable Conservation Guidelines from the District Plan include:
• Conspicuous engineered structures, such as pressure- treated lumber retaining walls,
concrete containers and metal gabion baskets, should be discouraged and replaced over
time with designs that become indivisible from the landscape; and
• Built structures in the lake, such as light standards and loud speakers, should be
discouraged as being disruptive to the visual serenity of the Lake.
Project No.: 160321075 36
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
The heritage value of the flagpole has less to do with the physical form of the flagpole or the age of
the current flagpole, than with the associative values of the flagpole. In addition to the patriotic
symbolism of the flagpole, it is also associated with the former recreational uses of the lake (i.e.,
skating and boating). The flagpole itself does not conform to the Romantic Landscape design. As
an engineered structure it is conspicuous. As a built structure in the Lake it might be considered to
be disruptive to the visual serenity of the lake, although the sound system is no longer operational.
A new flagpole should adhere to the Conservation Guidelines for "Antique" Buildings and
Monuments, which state:
• The Romantic Landscape inclusion of buildings and monuments for visual delight and
contemplation shall be continued;
• Siting of new buildings and monuments shall preserve the desired naturalness and serenity
of the park and avoid visual clutter and disharmony;
• New buildings and monuments shall build on the tradition of hand craftsmanship, natural
materials and a visual blend with the landscape;
• Artificial materials and treatments such as pressure- treated lumber, plastic and pre -cast
concrete shall be strongly discouraged; and
• Priority in the design of buildings and monuments shall be given to longevity and graceful
aging.
The removal of the flagpole will not have a negative impact on the Romantic Landscape style of the
Park; however, existing views should be documented. This documentation should include
photographs of the current condition of the flagpole and its location within the Lake, dates, and a
description of the activity. Copies of the photo- documentation should be deposited with the Victoria
Park Gallery and the local archives.
5.12 Fountain
Table 5 - 12 Summary of HIA: Fountain
Potential Negative Impact Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the new fountain.
Alteration The new fountain has the potential to
The design for a new fountain
negatively affect the character of the Lake.
should adhere to the
Conservation Guideline for
"Antique" Buildings and
Monuments.
A Heritage Permit would be
required for a fountain.
A Heritage Impact Assessment of
the design would be required for
the Heritage Permit.
Design should consider:
- the visual appearance, massing,
Project No.: 160321075 37
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Shadows
Isolation
Direct or indirect obstruction
A change in land use
The new fountain will not have a negative
impact on the heritage features and values
of the Lake in terms of shadows.
No heritage features will be isolated by the
new fountain.
No heritage features will be obstructed by
the new fountain.
No change of land use will occur as a result
of the new fountain.
craftsmanship and material of the
fountain;
-the sounds that the fountain
might contribute to the setting;
and
-the potential for
commemoration of a person,
place, event or theme.
Guidelines from the District Plan
should be included in any design
competition or tender documents
for a new fountain design.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
No mitigation recommended.
Although no longer expected to be included in the current undertaking, one of the proposed project
activities was the potential addition of a new fountain in the vicinity of the existing flagpole (Photo
16, Appendix A).
As a built feature, a Heritage Permit would be required for a new fountain.
Any design for a new fountain in the Lake should consider the Conservation Guideline for "Antique"
Buildings and Monuments. The fountain's design would need to be evaluated with regard to the
heritage character of the Lake and the design's adherence to the Conservation Guidelines.
There are no Conservation Guidelines specific to the addition of a fountain in the Lake; however
several Guidelines apply to the fountain as a monument and as a structure within the Lake.
The Conservation Guidelines for the Lake state:
• Built structures in the lake, such as light standards and loud speaker, should be discouraged
as being disruptive to the visual serenity of the lake.
The Conservation Guidelines for "Antique" Buildings and Monuments state:
• The Romantic Landscape inclusion of buildings and monuments for visual delight and
contemplation shall be continued;
• Siting of new buildings and monuments shall preserve the desired naturalness and serenity
of the park and avoid visual clutter and disharmony;
• New buildings and monuments shall build on the tradition of hand craftsmanship, natural
materials and a visual blend with the landscape;
Project No.: 160321075 38
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• Artificial materials and treatments such as pressure- treated lumber, plastic and pre -cast
concrete shall be strongly discouraged; and
• Priority in the design of buildings and monuments shall be given to longevity and graceful
aging.
Other Conservation Guidelines that apply to the design of a new fountain include:
• A naturalistic character should provide the guiding unity of the park.
In principal, a new fountain is not contrary to the Romantic Landscape style of the Park and could
certainly enhance the heritage character of the Lake; however, the design of that fountain would
need to be undertaken with the heritage values of the Lake and the objectives of the Heritage
Conservation District in mind. Consideration should be given not only to the style, massing,
material and craftsmanship of the fountain, but also to the auditory impact of the fountain. The
sounds that the fountain produces may have as much of an impact on the user's experience as the
size of the fountain. The function of the fountain should also be considered in the design process in
terms of whether it would be a utilitarian fountain responding to water quality concerns or if it would
commemorate a person, place, event or theme within the Park or City's history.
Conservation Guidelines from the 1996 District Plan should be included in any design competition
or tender documents for the design of a new fountain.
5.13 Decommissioning of the pump station
Table 5 - 13 Summary of HIA: Decommissioning of the pump station
Potential Negative Impact
Result of Assessment
Recommended Mitigation
Destruction
No heritage features or values will be
No mitigation recommended.
destroyed by the decommissioning of
the pump station.
Alteration
The removal of the pump station is not
The shoreline is expected to be
expected to negatively affect the
reinstated in a manner and form
character of the shoreline.
that is consistent with the design
and materials being used for
shoreline improvements
throughout the Lake.
Shadows
The decommissioning of the pump
No mitigation recommended.
station will not have a negative impact
on the heritage features and values of
the Lake in terms of shadows.
Isolation
No heritage features will be isolated by
No mitigation recommended.
the decommissioning of the pump
station.
Direct or indirect obstruction
No heritage features will be obstructed
No mitigation recommended.
by the decommissioning of the pump
station.
A change in land use
No change of land use will occur as a
No mitigation recommended.
result of the decommissioning of the
pump station.
Project No.: 160321075 39
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
The pump station is located immediately east of an existing pedestrian bridge across from the
Pavilion (Figure 2 -1). The visible portion of the pump station is constructed in concrete, wood and
metal and is surrounded by vegetation; a concrete weir extends across the Lake directly in front of
the pump station (Photo 17, Appendix A).
As built features, the removal of the pump station and associated weir will require a Heritage
Permit.
The decommissioning of the pump station and removal of the weir are not expected to have a
negative impact on the heritage character of the Lake. The removal of an engineered structure and
replacement with natural landscaped features will enhance the naturalistic character of the Lake. At
present, the proposed design replaces the concrete weir with a naturalized weir further upstream,
directly east of the new pedestrian bridge. The new naturalized weir will not have a negative impact
on the heritage character of the Lake. The reconstruction of the riparian edge must be compatible
with the configuration, slope, and materials of the adjacent shoreline.
Project No.: 160321075 40
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
A total of 12 project activities were assessed for their potential to negatively affect the heritage
character of the Lake, the Park and the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District in general.
Recommended mitigative measures are included in each of the sub - sections of Section 5 and are
summarized in Table 6 -1.
Table 6 - 1 Summary of Mitigation
Project Activity Recommended Mitigation
Portions of the property used for laydown areas and temporary access routes could
Sediment removal be covered geotextile and gravel /plywood or another material that will minimize or
116 prevent entirely damage to the existing ground cover.
Any vegetation or hard landscaping features (i.e., paved pathways) damaged by
project activities must be replaced or repaired following project completion.
Access should be limited to a narrow corridor and no construction traffic should be
allowed outside of designated access and laydown areas.
Temporary access routes should avoid structures and monuments. Fencing or
hoarding should be used to help delineate bufferzones around structures and
monuments in the vicinity of access routes and laydown areas. Fencing or hoarding
must be visible in winter months.
Although the temporary removal of structures is not anticipated, if it is deemed
unavoidable, plans for temporary removal of any structures or features should
include provisions for the protection of structural integrity and will require a
revised Heritage Permit Application.
Outlet configuration Will require a Heritage Permit Application.
T
Forebay
improvements
Ramps should be documented. Documentation should include: photographs of
Shoreline existing conditions; map showing the locations; and dimensions. Copies should be
modification distributed to the City Archives and the Victoria Parl< Gallery.
Wetland feature Existing conditions and views should be photo- documented prior to the
construction of the wetland feature. The photo- documentation should include a
date and description of the project activities being undertaken. Copies should be
deposited with the Victoria Parl< Gallery and the local archives.
Project No.: 160321075 41
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Water depth No recommended mitigation.
New aquatic habitat No recommended mitigation.
features
Refinishing of The refinishing will require a Heritage Permit Application.
Heritage Bridge Piers
The design for a new pedestrian bridge should adhere to the Conservation
New pedestrian Guideline for bridges.
Bridge
Applicable Conservation Guidelines from the District Plan should be included as
terms of reference for the design of a new pedestrian bridge.
Will require a Heritage Permit Application.
New boathouse Will require a Heritage Permit Application.
dock /patio
Flagpole Existing conditions and views should be photo- documented prior to the removal of
the flagpole. The photo- documentation should include a date and description of
the project activities being undertaken. Copies should be deposited with the
Victoria Park Gallery and the local archives.
Will require a Heritage Permit Application.
Fountain Design should adhere to the Conservation Guidelines for bridges and structures in
the Lake and the Conservation Guidelines for "Antique" Buildings and Monuments.
Guidelines from the District Plan should be included in any terms of reference for
the design of a new fountain.
Design should consider:
- the visual appearance, massing, craftsmanship and material of the fountain;
-the sounds that the fountain might contribute to the setting; and
-the potential for commemoration of a person, place, event or theme.
A Heritage Permit Application would be required for a fountain.
Decommissioning Will require a Heritage Permit Application.
pump station
6.1 No further mitigation
Two project activities will not have a negative impact on the heritage character of the Lake:
Project No.: 160321075 42
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• The increase in water depth; and
• The addition of new aquatic habitat features.
No Heritage Permit is required for either activity and no further mitigation has been recommended.
6.2 Documentation
Three project activities have been identified that will not have a negative impact on the heritage
character of the Lake but are considered by this study to warrant photo- documentation of the
existing conditions prior to their undertaking. These activities include:
• Shoreline modification;
• Construction of the new wetland feature; and
• The removal of the flagpole.
Photo - documentation should include a date and description of the undertaking. Copies of the
photographic record should be deposited with the Victoria Park Gallery and the local archives.
6.3 Heritage Permit Application
Although project activities related to landscaping are subject to delegated authority, several of the
project activities involve built features and must adhere to the Policies outlined in the District Plan.
Policy items, for which a Heritage Permit Application are required include:
• Outlet configuration;
• Shoreline modification;
• Refinishing of Heritage Bridge piers;
• The new pedestrian bridge;
• The new boathouse dock /patio;
• A new fountain;
• Removal of the flagpole; and
• Decommissioning of the pump station.
It is recommended that a record of how Project design adheres to mitigative measures (Table 6 -1
and Section 5) for each Project activity be prepared and included in the Heritage Application Permit.
6.4 Construction - related mitigation
The process of sediment removal has been identified as having the potential for negative impacts
on the heritage character of the Park. The following measures are recommended to minimise the
potential impact of site preparation and construction activities:
Project No.: 160321075 43
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
• Portions of the property used for laydown areas and temporary access routes should be
covered geotextile and gravel /plywood or another material that will minimize or prevent
damage to the existing ground cover.
• Access should be limited to a narrow corridor and no construction traffic should be allowed
outside of designated access and laydown areas.
• Terms of reference for the removal of sediment should include reference to applicable
Conservation Guidelines and recommended mitigative measures to protect the existing
ground cover.
• Any vegetation or hard landscaping features (i.e., paved pathways) damaged by project
activities must be replaced or repaired following project completion.
• Site access routes and laydown areas should avoid structures and monuments. Any
structures and monuments in the vicinity of access routes or laydown areas should be
delineated and protected by hoarding or fencing that will be visible in winter months.
• Although it is not anticipated at present, if it is deemed necessary at any point during the
project, a project plan for temporary removal of any structures or features should include
provisions for the protection of structural integrity. A revised Heritage Permit Application
would be required should temporary removal of structures be unavoidable.
Project No.: 160321075 44
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
7 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the City of Kitchener (the City), and may not be
used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec Consulting Ltd. and the City.
Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party.
We trust this report meets your current requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should
you require further information or have additional questions about any facet of this project.
Yours truly,
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Signed copy on file
Signed copy on file
Christienne Uchiyama, B.A.
Colin Varley, M.A., R.P.A.
Heritage Planning Consultant
Senior Archaeologist and Heritage Planning
Tel: 613 738 -0708 ext. 3278
Consultant
Fax: 613 738 -0721
Tel: 613 738 -6087
Christienne.Uchiyama(a)Stantec.com
Fax: 613 738 -0721
Colin.Varley ()Stantec.com
V: \01225\ active \othe r _pc \160321075_city_of_kitchener \repo its\ heritage_ impact _assessment \rpt_160321075_h is_20110909.doc
Project No.: 160321075 45
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
8 SOURCES
8.1 Literature
Chapman, L.J., and D.F. Putnam, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario (3rd Edition).
Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
CH2M Hill, , 2009. Class Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for Victoria Park
Lake Improvements. Report prepared for the City of Kitchener.
City of Kitchener, 1985. Evaluations of buildings on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory, held on record
at the City of Kitchener.
- - -, 2003. Victoria Park Strategic Plan and Foundations Plan. Report to Community
Services Committee, June 23, 2003.
Good, Reginald, 1995. Mississauga — Mennonite Relations in the Upper Grand River Valley.
Ontario History, vol 87, no. 2, June 1995
Hayes, Geoffrey, 1997. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Kitchener: Waterloo Historical
Society.
Hill, Nicholas, 1995. Victoria Park Area Kitchener: heritage conservation district study. Report
prepared for the Department of Planning and Development Design, Heritage and Environment,
Kitchener, Ontario.
- - -, 1996. Victoria Park Area Kitchener: Heritage Conservation District Plan. Report
prepared for the City of Kitchener. Accessed online April, 2011 at
http:// www. kitchener .ca /en /livinginkitchener /resources /Heritage plan victoria park.Pdf.
Hopkins, G.M., 1879. Map of the Town of Berlin Waterloo Co. Ontario. from actual surveys
and records by G.M. Hopkins, C.E. 1879. NMC 12085
LAC (Library and Archives Canada)
1861 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,
1861, Microfilm C -1077
Mills, Rych and the Victoria Park 100th Birthday Historical Committee, 1996. Victoria Park: 100
Years of a Park and its People. Kitchener: Twin City Dwyer Co. Ltd.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC), 2005. Ontario Heritage Properties Database. Accessed
May, 2011 at http: / /www.hpd.mcl.gov.on.ca/ scripts /hpdsearch /engIish /defauIt.asp.
Parsell, H., 1881. Waterloo County: Illustrated atlas of the Dominion of Canada. Toronto: H.
Parsell & Co..
Rankin, C., 1845. Map of the Niagara, Gore and Wellington districts Canada. Compiled from
the township plans in the Surveyor General's Office by C. Rankin, D.S., Toronto, 18th June
1845. Toronto: Lith. Of Hall & Mooney. NMC 11225.
Project No.: 160321075 46
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Schofield, M.C., 1854. Map of part of the town of Berlin, capital of the County of Waterloo C.E.
Surveyed for George John Grange, Esq. by M.C. Schofield, P.L.S. 1853 -4. Buffalo: Compton &
Gibson. NMC 17787.
Scobie, H., 1853. Plan of lots for sale in the Town of Berlin. Toronto: H.Scobie Lith.
Tremaine, George, 1861. Tremaine's Map of the County of Waterloo Canada West. Compiled
and Drawn from Actual and Original Surveys by the Publishers. George C Tremaine
Publishers. 1861. NMC 14014.
Unknown, 1986. Victoria Park: 90th Celebration: 1896 Berlin — 1986 Kitchener. Kitchener: s.n..
Uttley, William Vellores, 1975. A History of Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press.
8.2 Literature Consulted
Barlow Rogers, Elizabeth, 2007. "What is the Romantic Landscape ? ", German Historical Institute
Bulletin Supplement 4. Accessed online May 2011 at http: / /www.ghi-
dc.org /publications /ghipubs /bu supp /supp004 /011.pdf.
Barlow Rogers, Elizabeth, 2010. Romantic Gardens: Nature, Art, and Landscape Design.
Boston: David R. Godine.
City of Kitchener, 1982. Victoria Park neighbourhood secondary plan goals: final. Kitchener:
Department of Planning and Development.
- - -, 1971. Master plan for Victoria Park Kitchener: technical report. Kitchener:
Department of Planning.
- - -, 1987a. Victoria Park secondary plan: February 18, 1987. Kitchener: Department of
Planning and Development.
- - -, 1987b. Victoria Park secondary plan: June 30, 1987. Kitchener: Department of
Planning and Development.
- - -, 1987c. Victoria Park secondary plan: November 5, 1987. Kitchener: Department of
Planning and Development.
- - -, 1987d. Revised Victoria Park secondary plan: staff report. Kitchener: Department of
Planning and Development.
- - -, 2003. Victoria Park Strategic Plan. Report No. CSD -03 -094 to the City of Kitchener.
Project No.: 160321075 47
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
Eby, Ezra E., 1896. A Biographical history of Waterloo Township and other townships of the
county, Volume 2. Berlin: Unknown.
Frisse, Ulrich, c2003. Berlin, Ontario, 1800 -1916. Canada: Trans - Atlantic Publishing.
Heritage Kitchener, 2009. Inventory of Heritage Buildings.
Heritage Resource Centre and The Region of Waterloo, 2004. Cultural Heritage Landscape
Resource Document. Report for the Region of Waterloo.
Kitchener LACAC, 1988. An inventory of historic buildings in the Victoria Park secondary
plan, City of Kitchener. Records on file at Kitchener Public Library.
LAC (Library and Archives Canada)
1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1851,
Microfilm C -11754
1861 Nominal Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,
1861, Microfilm C -1077
1861 Agricultural Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, 1861, Microfilm C -1080
1871 Federal Census of 1871 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C -9944 — C -9945
1881 Federal Census of 1881 (Ontario Index). Microfilm C -13265
1891 Federal Census of 1891 (Ontario Index). Microfilm T -6374
1901 Federal Census of 1901 (Ontario Index). Microfilm T -6502
Scheinman, Andre, 2009. Cultural Heritage Landscapes in Waterloo Region: A Framework for
Inventory, Assessment and Policy Development. Background document prepared for Region of
Waterloo, on file with the Region of Waterloo.
Victoria Park Historical Committee, 2003. Kitchener — the heart of Western Ontario. Kitchener:
Victoria Park Historical Committee.
Wilfrid Laurier University, 2001. Virtual Tour of Schneider Creek. Accessed May, 2011 at
http://info.wlu.ca/-wwwqeog/thesis/tour2.html
8.3 Personal Communications
Bensason, Leon, Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning Community Services Department, City of
Kitchener, May, 2011.
Project No.: 160321075 48
Stantec
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, VICTORIA PARK LAKE IMPROVEMENTS, KITCHENER, ONTARIO
/_1»��II]/:I_1
Photos
Project No.: 160321075 49
ti
O
N
j CO
� O
It
Y O
%r
r"
Photo 1 - Dredging of Victoria Park Lake, September 13, 1895.
Note trees on Roos Island (right) and Swan Island (centre).
Evelyn and Arthur Hewitt Collection. Copy on file Victoria Park Gallery.
r+
Photo 2 - Construction of Victoria Park Lake, May, 1895. Schneider Creek is visible
in the bottom right corner. Note: two large elm trees are on what is now Roos Island.
Photo taken from David Street.
Evelyn and Arthur Hewitt Collection. Copy on file Victoria Park Gallery.
Stan
ti
C)
C14
co
0
. v
4
Photo 3 - Early view of skating in Victoria Park Lake.
Note industrial smokestacks in background.
Copy on file Victoria Park Gallery. Original donated by Miriam Sokvitne.
R
O
LO
O
Photo 4 - View outlet, facing south from the boathouse.
Photo 9- View of Victoria Park Lake, 1896.
Roos Island with original bandstand on right.
Photo by A.S. Green. Copy on file Victoria Park Gallery.
'
v-
O
LO
O
Photo 10 - View of Roos Island. Note gabion baskets along shoreline. L -
r
5tantec
Photo 13 - Location of proposed wetland feature, current view.
Photo 14 - Southwest end of project area, facing east.
N
L6
O
V-
N
h
O
ti
C)
N
CO
0
U
43
O
LL
V
C
VJ
0
stantec
s
t
M11 b` th6 ��
S S
AAML
AM
o°
Approximate location
*
of proposed
�~
wetland feature
Photo 13 - Location of proposed wetland feature, current view.
Photo 14 - Southwest end of project area, facing east.
N
L6
O
V-
N
h
O
ti
C)
N
CO
0
U
43
O
LL
V
C
VJ
0
stantec
LO
+
_o
N
O
QD
r
U
-
U
r-
CU
—
cn
0
-
h
0
Photo 15 - Boathouse dock, existing conditions, facing David Street.
ail. 7
t;
_t' w
N
LO
O
Photo 16 - East end of Victoria Park Lake, from Boathouse.
Note location of flagpole, approximate location of proposed new fountain.
W/A`r
stantec