advisory planning commission - new westminster · that the report dated april 19, 2016 be received...

ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm Committee Rm #2

AGENDA

.0 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA

2.0 ADOPTION OF MINUTES

2.1 Adoption of the minutes of April 19, 2016 3 3.0 INFORMATION PRESENTATIONS 3.1 None

4.0 REZONING 4.1 1031 Sixth Ave HER00563 15

An application has been received for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) for 1031 Sixth Avenue in order to construct a new house on the front of the parcel and relocate the 1891 heritage house to the rear of the parcel. There would be no subdivision. The Floor Space Ratio would be a total of 0.80 (allowed 0.50). The above grade for the two houses would be 0.695 (allowed 0.40). The total site coverage would be 36.6% (allowed 35%). In return the applicants would agree to retain and restore the exterior of the 1891 McLaughlin house and to place long-term legal protection on it through a Heritage Designation Bylaw.

5.0 NEW BUSINESS 6.0 REPORTS AND INFORMATION 7.0 CORRESPONDENCE 7.1 Correspondence received from Jacquie Park, dated May 05, 2016. 47 8.0 NEXT MEETING

June 21, 2016 (in Committee Room #2) 9.0 ADJOURNMENT

Doc#863120 Page 1 1

ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Committee Rm #2

MINUTES

VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Sweezey - Acting Chair, Community Member Richard Carswell - Community Member Andrew Hull - Community Member Margaret Fairweather - Community Member Peter Goodwin - Community Member Christa MacArthur - Community Member REGRETS: Brian Shigetomi - Chair, Community Member Laura Cornish - Community Member Peter Hall - Community Member GUESTS: James Burton - Birmingham & Wood STAFF: David Guiney - Senior Planning Analyst Rupinder Basi - Senior Planner Barry Waitt - Senior Planner John Stark - Senior Social Planner Mike Watson - Planning Technician Julie Schueck - Heritage Planner Debbie Johnstone - Committee Clerk The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.

1.0 ADDITIONS TO AGENDA

There were no additions.

Doc#860148 Advisory Planning Commission - DRAFT Page 1 April 19, 2016 3

2.0 ADOPTION OF MINUTES

2.1 Adoption of the minutes of March 15, 2016 MOVED and SECONDED THAT the minutes of the March 15, 2016 Advisory Planning Commission meeting be adopted.

CARRIED. All members of the Commission present voted in favour of the motion. 3.0 INFORMATION PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Zoning Bylaw Update

Barry Waitt, Senior Planner, and Mike Watson, Planning Technician, summarized the report dated April 19, 2016, regarding the draft version of the new Zoning Bylaw for the City of New Westminster. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Waitt and Mr. Watson provided the following information:

• Zoning Bylaws throughout the Lower Mainland and North America were reviewed in order to revise the document;

• The updated Zoning Bylaw would likely be adopted prior to the Official Community Plan (OCP);

• Adjustments could be made to the new Zoning Bylaw as required once the OCP has been finalized;

• When reviewing the previous Zoning Bylaw each area was reviewed to ensure that it fit in the appropriate building envelope for the bylaw; and,

• Heritage Revitalization Agreements would not be included in this new Zoning Bylaw, and would continue to be approved on a case by case basis.

Discussion ensued, and the Commission provided the following comments:

• Creating a new version of the Zoning Bylaw is a large project, and overall the document was well liked;

• The language in the bylaw is more modern than the previous bylaw, however improvements could still be made;

• Consideration regarding the consistency of language and definitions in the document could require additional attention; and,

Doc#860148 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 19, 2016 4

• The document could be reviewed for appropriate use of the passive and active voice.

MOVED and SECONDED THAT the report dated April 19, 2016 be received for information.

CARRIED. All members of the Commission present voted in favour of the motion.

4.0 REZONING 4.1 1209 Hamilton St

Mike Watson, Planning Technician, summarized the report dated April 19, 2016 regarding an application that has been received to rezone 1209 Hamilton Street from Neighbourhood Residential Duplex Dwelling Districts (RT-1A) to Comprehensive Development District (1209 Hamilton Street) (CD-66) to allow up to 20 child care spaces. Mr. Watson advised that notification regarding the project was sent to the following: -the surrounding neighbourhood within 100 metres (336 notices); -All Residents’ Associations; -the Board of School Trustees; -Superintendent of Schools; and -the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society John Stark, Senior Social Planner, provided the following additional information:

• The City has completed an assessment indicating that additional childcare space for infant-toddler ages is required in New Westminster;

• The applicant currently operates a daycare on 20th Street and is looking for a larger location to meet the needs for infant-toddler spaces;

• The applicant would not be making any additions or changes to the exterior of the building;

• Six off street parking spaces would be implemented for the facility; • The daycare would offer full day care, which could limit additional traffic

coming into and out of the facility to peak times only; • Limited outdoor play times could alleviate neighbours’ concerns regarding

noise levels. It was further noted that the daycare would not be operational on evenings, weekends and holidays; and,


• Concerns had been expressed by residents in the area regarding the upkeep of the current site, which the applicant would work towards resolving.

Judith Copland, Resident, expressed concerns regarding additional traffic to the narrow laneway behind the facility. Mr. Stark advised that the volume of cars attending the site would be limited to pick up and drop off times, and not during weekends, when the back laneway can host additional traffic due to events and organizational meetings at Heritage Hall (located at 726 Twelfth Street). Discussion ensued, and the Commission expressed support for the project, noting that there is a need to support the advancement of available childcare in the City.

MOVED and SECONDED THAT the application for the rezoning of 1209 Hamilton Street to allow up to 20 child care spaces be supported.


4.2 1935 Eighth Ave

David Guiney, Senior Planning Analyst, summarized a report dated April 19, 2016 regarding an application that has been received for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) for 1935 Eighth Avenue in order to subdivide the property and construct a new house on the new parcel. Mr. Guiney advised that notification regarding the project was sent to the following: -the surrounding neighbourhood within 100 metres (99 notices); -All Residents’ Associations; -the Board of School Trustees; -Superintendent of Schools; and -the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society. James Burton, Birmingham & Wood, provided a brief overview regarding the architectural plans for the site. Following questions from the Commission, the following information was provided:

• Initial designs for the project had parking for the home off Twentieth Street; however, the City had requested that parking be accessed off Eighth Avenue instead;


• The driveway would be shared for both homes on the lot; • The heritage home would remain in its existing location on the property; • The infill house would follow the same guidelines as other infill houses in

the area and would be a modest addition to the streetscape; • In order to accommodate neighbour concerns, the infill house has been

reoriented from the initial plan; • The width of the side yard would be 8 feet, which meets the City’s zoning

requirement; • Changes to the heritage home would be limited to ensuring that the house is

authentic to the appropriate era; • City approval would be required if the easement on the property was to be

removed or amended; and, • Screen planning could be utilized to assist with possible parking issues.

Julie Schueck, Heritage Planner, reported that the HRA policy is inclusive to all heritage homes, regardless of their condition. Discussion ensued, and the Commission expressed concerns regarding the heavy amounts of traffic on the corner of Twentieth Street and Eighth Avenue, and the removal of usable greenspace on the lot. The Commission suggested that if this infill home would prevent the demolition of the heritage home, however, it would be a worthwhile compromise.

MOVED and SECONDED THAT the application for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) for 1935 Eighth Avenue be supported.


4.3 Zoning District C-CD-3 (Brewery District)

Rupinder Basi, Senior Planner, summarized a report dated April 19, 2016, regarding an application that has been received to amend the Village At Historic Sapperton Comprehensive Development Districts (C-CD-3) to provide 84,000 sq.ft. of secured market rental residential in exchange for adding 42,000 sq.ft. of strata residential, increase the maximum building heights, and reduce the maximum floor plate sizes for the future buildings. This text amendment proposes to allow for a micro-brewery as a permitted use and will amend the school definition in the zone to allow for a broader range of educational uses (academic and professional focused). Mr. Basi advised that notification was sent to the following:


-the surrounding neighbourhood within 100 metres (426 notices); -All Residents’ Associations; -the Board of School Trustees; -Superintendent of Schools; and -the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society. Evan Allegretto, Wesgroup Properties, provided an overview of the proposal, and reported the following additional information:

• The proposed building would work towards the City initiative to provide secure market rental housing;

• Wesgroup has worked with Royal Columbian Hospital to ensure that the development would not interfere with the flight path for emergency helicopters;

• An underground parkade would provide residential and visitor parking; • Parking could also accommodate businesses in the development; • The increase in density could add 60-85 units, depending on their size; • The additional rental housing could accommodate healthcare workers with

the upcoming hospital expansion; • Traffic studies in the area have been conducted in 2007, and 2015; and, • In an effort to alleviate some of the traffic off Columbia Street, an entrance

is being considered off of Keary Street for future buildings 7 and 8. Kathy McLennan, Director of Head of Operations for HSA, expressed concerns regarding the affect that the additions could create for other buildings in the Brewery District. Mr. Allegretto explained that the legal entitlements for buildings in the area would not be affected by this zoning amendment, only Wesgroup buildings 5, 6, 7, and 8. Kim Templeton, Employee at HSA, expressed concerns regarding traffic, parking issues and a misuse of the loading bays in the area. In response to these issues, Mr. Allegretto explained that there would be no additional street (surface) parking stalls due to the densification of the Wesgroup buildings. Mr. Allegretto further agreed to contact the construction team to ensure that surface parking and loading zones are utilized appropriately. Discussion ensued, and the Commission provided the following comments:

• Providing additional rental housing is a valuable initiative for the City; • It was suggested that the additional height of the buildings could affect

other residents’ views in the area; Doc#860148 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 19, 2016 8

• Enquiries were made on whether the added density is worth the changed floor plate plan;

• Ensuring that the development has adequate parking could be an important consideration for the project;

• The development is in close proximity to the SkyTrain station, which should encourage residents to utilize public transit; and,

• Traffic in the area continues to be an issue, which could have a large impact on the community.

Steven Blore, Engineering Technologist, reported that the City is researching how future plans and projects in the Sapperton area could affect traffic and how this issue could be alleviated in the future.

Mr. Allegretto suggested that having buildings with smaller floorplates would minimize the impacts on the existing view corridors for many residents. It was further noted that the Royal Columbian Hospital expansion project would also be increasing the height of buildings at the hospital.

MOVED and SECONDED THAT the application for the rezoning to amend the Village At Historic Sapperton Comprehensive Development District project be supported.

CARRIED. Andrew Hull and Christa MacArthur voted in opposition of this motion 4.4 100 Braid Street

Rupinder Basi, Senior Planner, summarized a report dated April 18, 2016, regarding an OCP Amendment and Rezoning application received for 100 Braid Street for the purposes of facilitating the development of a 60,000 square feet (5,570 square metres) school, 202,900 square feet (18,850 square metres) of residential density, and 4,300 square feet of artist gallery/studio space. Mr. Basi advised that notification had been sent to the following: -the surrounding neighbourhood within 100 metres (91 notices); -All Residents’ Associations; -the Board of School Trustees; -Superintendent of Schools; and -the New Westminster Heritage Preservation Society


Evan Allegretto, Wesgroup Properties, and Cheryle Beaumont, Urban Academy, provided an overview of the proposal, and reported the following additional information:

• A previous application to expand the Urban Academy school located in Queen’s Park was unsuccessful;

• The school worked to incorporate the previous comments provided by Council and the Advisory Planning Committee to find a location that could better facilitate the development;

• A traffic expert had been hired and comprehensive studies regarding traffic analysis in the area have been conducted;

• Development permits for Urban Academy and the Wesgroup building would be obtained separately; and,

• The proposed art gallery would be owned by Wesgroup Properties, and would be leased to artists or an arts organization at an affordable rate.

Following questions from the commission, Mr. Basi and Bev Grieve, Director of Developmental Services, provided the following information:

• A letter of intent from Urban Academy has been provided regarding their proposal to provide accessible community space to the public; however, it is not anticipated that a formal agreement would be put in place for enforcing this proposal. This would be considered by Council;

• A large focus has been placed on traffic in the area and a major transportation study for the Sapperton area is currently underway; and,

• Traffic patterns from Urban Academy may only be affected twice a day, with pick up and drop off times.

Susan Greig, owner of 100 Braid Street Studios and Gallery, expressed concerns regarding the future of her art studio in light of this development, noting that she currently sublets 16 suites to working artists in the community. While Ms. Greig appreciates that Wesgroup has made attempts to accommodate the arts with their future development, their efforts may not be adequate enough to maintain a viable business. Ms. Greig also expressed concerns with regard to the historical value of the site, suggesting that the City could make additional efforts to maintain the heritage buildings located on the site. Lastly, Ms. Greig expressed concerns regarding traffic and parking in the area, which she feels is already a key issue for the area. Mr. Allegretto, Wesgroup Properties, advised that attempts had been made to accommodate Ms. Greig and her studio; however, issues regarding the available size for the studio and adequate parking for studio related events are unresolved. With regard to the heritage elements of the property, Mr. Allegreto expressed that


research suggested that the heritage value was in the land, and not in the building. A plaque or art piece could be implemented to pay homage to the history of the site. Jerry Mandoli, Resident, expressed concerns regarding the heavy traffic in the area and how that could affect student safety. Mr. Mandoli suggested that Urban Academy could investigate additional locations that could better accommodate the school. In response to Mr. Mandoli’s concerns, Mr. Allegretto stated that safety would be a top priority for the school. Amiur Fais, Resident, expressed concerns regarding traffic and safety issues, as well as the additional noise a school could bring to the area. Deborah Mackenzie, Chair of Board at Urban Academy and Resident, provided a brief overview of the issues that Urban Academy had experienced while trying to expand their school in the Queen’s Park location. Following this, the school had investigated other location options; however, they feel that 100 Braid Street is an ideal location for the school. Ms. Mackenzie suggested that the school could be a valuable addition to the Sapperton area. Jason Vanderhill, Historian, reported that he had been contacted by Ms. Greig to provide additional research regarding the historical background of the Winery Building for the BC Distillery (100 Braid Street). Mr. Vanderhill expressed that the heritage value of the building has been discounted, and that the area would benefit from retaining the historical building. In response to Mr. Vanderhill’s concerns, Mr. Allegretto advised that the historic value for the area was in the land and not in the building. Murdell Rampton, Burnaby Resident, expressed concerns regarding the loss of easily accessible and affordable artist space in New Westminster. Ms. Rampton is a working artist at the 100 Braid Street Studios, and has invested both time and resources into the New Westminster arts community. Reducing the size of the artistic space available could negatively affect Ms. Rampton and other members of the artistic community.

Shane Aitken, Resident, explained that his daughter attends Urban Academy. Mr. Aitken expressed his regrets for the artists that would be inconvenienced with the development; however, Urban Academy is an arts infused school that could continue to bring artistic value to the community.


Mr. Allegretto clarified that the Wesgroup building would not be moving ahead as quickly as the Urban Academy project; therefore, a timeline for the arts studio has not been determined. Until Wesgroup is ready to move forward with their development there would be no effect on the 100 Braid Street Studios and Gallery.

Discussion ensued, and the Commission provided the following comments:

• Regrets were expressed with regard to Susan Greig and the potential loss of art space for her studio;

• The traffic issues for the area have been well researched and the plan for the development seems to be adequate;

• Traffic from the Sapperton Green development would likely be the predominant issue for the area;

• The massing of the project with the mixed school and residential area is suitable;

• Concerns with student safety could be addressed through the buildings design and site plan; and,

• Support was expressed for Urban Academy and the contribution that it brings to New Westminster.

MOVED and SECONDED

THAT the OCP Amendment and Rezoning application for 100 Braid Street be supported.

CARRIED. All members of the Commission present voted in favour of the motio 5.0 NEW BUSINESS There were no items. 6.0 REPORTS AND INFORMATION There were no items. 7.0 CORRESPONDENCE 7.1 Hilda Bechler letter dated April 6, 2016 8.0 NEXT MEETING

May 17, 2016 (in Committee Room #2) Doc#860148 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 April 19, 2016 12

9.0 ADJOURNMENT

ON MOTION, the meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

Certified Correct, _______________________ ________________________ Alex Sweezey Debbie Johnstone Acting Chair Committee Clerk


City of New Westminster

R E P O R T

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

To: Members of the Advisory Planning Commission

Date: May 17, 2016

From: Julie Schueck, Heritage Planner

File: HER00563

Subject: 1031 Sixth Avenue: Proposed Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation Bylaws

PURPOSE The owner of 1031 Sixth Avenue has made an application to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) in order to retain and restore the 1891 McLaughlin house. In exchange, the applicant would like to move the heritage house to the rear of the property and construct a new house on the front of the property for a total of two houses on one property. The Advisory Planning Commission is being requested to provide a recommendation to Council.

SITE INFORMATION

Applicant / Builder: Steven Long Architect: Rob Johnson Architect Current Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Dwelling Districts (NR-1). Proposed Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Dwelling Districts (NR-1)

/Heritage Revitalization Agreement OCP Land Use Designation (RL) Residential – Low Density. Site Data: Frontage: 46.49 ft (14.17 m)

Depth: 94.36 ft (28.76 m) Area: 4,387 sq ft (408 sqm)

Site Characteristics and Context The subject site is occupied by a single family dwelling and is located mid-block along the 1000 block of Sixth Avenue. Single family dwellings are located to the west, east and

Doc # 836358

15

across the rear lane to the north. Directly across Sixth Avenue to the south are three multi-family buildings, two that are three storeys each with 42 and 41 units zoned RM-2 and one that is 9 storeys with 73 units zoned RM-4. POLICY CONTEXT Official Community Plan The OCP land use designation for the subject site is (RL) Residential – Low Density. This area is intended to contain low density residential uses including single detached houses, houses with a secondary suite, duplexes, detached townhouses, low density multifamily uses, churches and may contain small scale local commercial uses such as home based businesses and corner stores. After preliminary review, the proposal meets the OCP objectives. Zoning Bylaw The subject site is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Dwelling Districts (NR-1). The intent of this district is to allow single detached dwellings reflecting neighbourhood standards in the Kelvin, West End and Connaught Heights neighbourhoods. Heritage Policy Context Heritage Revitalization Agreement A Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) is a negotiated agreement between the City and a property owner for the purposes of heritage conservation. In exchange for long-term legal protection and exterior restoration, certain zoning relaxations, including an increase in density, are seen as incentives that offer property owners a financially viable means for conservation. An HRA does not change the zoning of the property, rather it adds a new layer which it identifies the elements of the zone that are being varied or supplemented. Provisions for the local government to negotiate a Heritage Revitalization Agreement are set out in Section 610 of the Local Government Act. Heritage Designation Bylaw A heritage property which is the subject of an HRA is also protected with a Heritage Designation Bylaw. A Heritage Designation Bylaw is a form of land use regulation that places long-term protection on the land title of a property and which is the primary form of regulation that can prohibit demolition. Any changes to a protected heritage property must first receive approval from City Council (or its delegate) through a Heritage Alteration Permit. Provisions for the local government to place Heritage Designation Bylaws on properties are set out in Sections 611-613 of the Local Government Act.

Doc # 863028 Page 2

16

Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Council adopted the “Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada” (“Standards & Guidelines”) in 2008 as a basis for assessing heritage projects within the city. HRA proposals are carefully evaluated against it by staff to confirm compliance. Heritage Policy for the Use of Heritage Revitalization Agreements The City has a Heritage Policy for the Use of Heritage Revitalization Agreements that has the following objectives:

• Ensure that the HRA policy is integrated with other important City policies. • Ensure that HRAs are used appropriately, and that they balance both public and

private benefits. • Create an application process that is clear. • Establish a follow-up procedure to ensure that heritage conservation work is

completed as promised. BACKGROUND The house located at 1031 Sixth Avenue was constructed in 1891 for the McLaughlin Family and, given its age and integrity, was placed on the City’s Heritage Register in 2009. The current owner purchased the property in 2014 with the intention of restoring the outside and renovating the inside. The owner explored a number of options that would have resulted in the expansion of the house or the construction of a new laneway house through an HRA, but none met his family’s needs or schedule for construction. Given the age and status of the house, the owner was encouraged to reconsider the HRA option. As a result of the further discussions, the applicant is moving forward with this HRA application. PROPOSAL Heritage Revitalization Agreement Approach The applicant and staff have been exploring a Heritage Revitalization Agreement proposal that would see the historic house relocated onto a new foundation at the rear of the property, and a new house constructed on the front portion of the property. The houses would be offset from each other, giving each house visibility to and from the street. The lot would not be subdivided.

Doc # 863028 Page 3

17

The historic house has a footprint of approximately 800 square feet (74.3 sq.m.) and an overall size of approximately 1,500 square feet (139.4 sq.m.). It currently has a floor space ratio of 0.356. The footprint of the new house would be 887.5 square feet (82.5 sq.m.) and has an overall size of 2,161.3 square feet 200.8 sq.m. It would have a floor space ratio of 0.493. Together, the two houses would have a floor space ratio of 0.848. They would fit snugly on the site together, with sufficient usable outdoor space for both houses, located between the two houses and at the east side of the new house. One parking pad could likely be accommodated off the rear lane. The design of the proposed new house is complimentary to the historic house. The new house would have a secondary suite. The heritage house would not. The total off-street parking required for this scenario would be three spaces. One is being proposed. The proposed site plan and architectural plans are attached as Appendix A. Project Statistics The following table shows the allowed/required as per the Zoning Bylaw followed by statistics for each house on its own and then combined. The Heritage Revitalization Agreement would identify and allow 11 variations to the Zoning Bylaw noted below (shaded).

Allowed/ Required

Heritage House - Proposed

New House -Proposed

Combined -Proposed

Use: 1 SDD with Sec. Suite

1 SDD 1 SDD with Sec. Suite

2 SDDs (1 with Secondary Suite)

Site Area 6,000 sq ft/ 557.4 sq. m.

4384.95 sq ft/ 407.4 sq. m.

Front Yard: 18.86 ft./5.75 m. 8.0 ft./2.44 m. Front Porch Eave:

14.86ft./4.53 m. 4.0 ft./1.22 m.

Rear yard: 18.86 ft./5.75 m. 4.0 ft./1.22 m. Rear porch: 14.86 ft./4.53 m. 0.50 ft./0.15 m. East side yard: 4.0 ft./1.22 m. 4.83 ft./1.47 m. 16.5 ft./5.03 m West side yard: 4.0 ft./1.22 m. 10.09 ft./3.1 m. 5.0 ft./1.52 m. Combined side yards

25% of frontage/ 11.63 ft./3.54 m.

32% of frontage/ 14.92 ft./4.55 m.

46% of frontage 21.5 ft./6.56 m.

21.8% of frtge 9.83 ft./3.0 m.

Site Coverage 35% 16.37% 20.24% 36.61% Floor Space 0.50 0.31 0.49 0.80

Doc # 863028 Page 4

18

Allowed/ Required

Heritage House - Proposed

New House -Proposed

Combined -Proposed

Ratio Above Grade Floor Area

0.40 0.31 0.38 0.70

Basement Floor Area

0.10 + leftover above grade

0.0 0.11 0.11

Cellar Floor Area

N/A 0.0 0.09 0.09

Off-street Parking

3 spaces (1 per dwelling unit)

1 0 1

Proximity to Transit Services Transit Service Normal Walking Distance Project Distance SkyTrain Station 800m./2,625 ft. 1400m / .86 mile Frequent Transit Network 400m./1,312 ft. 135m / 442 ft

The property is within normal walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network but not of a SkyTrain station. DISCUSSION Evaluation Heritage Revitalization Agreement Policy Normal procedure is that an HRA require that the majority of heritage restoration work take place prior to the applicant receiving the benefit of the HRA. In this case, Council is willing to consider a different timing sequence and staff is working on technical aspects of this HRA application to determine the best way to ensure that work on the historic house is completed as per the Heritage Conservation Plan, which is attached as Appendix B. Given that the two houses would remain on one lot (i.e. there would be no subdivision), there is some level of assurance that work would be completed, but staff are looking for further levels of assurance. Standards and Guidelines The HRA application has been evaluated against the “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada” and meets it in the following ways:

• The character-defining elements would be left intact and repaired;

Doc # 863028 Page 5

19

• There would be minimal intervention to the historic house in terms of design and massing;

• The house would retain its spatial integrity; and • The new house is visually compatible with and distinguishable from the historic

house. The HRA application does not meet the “Standards and Guidelines” in that the historic house would become subordinate to the new house. However, staff feels that the retention, restoration and long-term protection of the historic house warrants this situation given that it is a pre-1900 house. Community Heritage Commission At the March 15, 2016 meeting, the Community Heritage Commission recommended support of this application to Council. Moody Park Residents’ Association On March 31, 2016, the HRA proposal was reviewed by the Moody Park Residents’ Association (MPRA). Concerns were expressed about the size (height and massing) of the historic house, its setback from the lane, the overview into the neighbours’ rear yards from the historic house, and allowing two houses on one property with its accompanying higher density. Many were concerned that this proposal would set a precedence for future laneway houses. Some expressed concern about the lack of off-street parking and others about the low visibility of the heritage house from the street if it were relocated to the rear of the lot. After a one and a half hour discussion, the MPRA held a formal vote and the majority of people opposed the application. PROCESS Schedule The following timeline has been supported by Council: Preliminary report to Regular Council March 14, 2016 Community Heritage Commission March 15, 2016 Community Consultation March/April 2016 Advisory Planning Commission May 17, 2016 Consideration of heritage bylaws for first and second readings May 30, 2016 Public Hearing and consideration of third reading June 20, 2016 Consideration of adoption of heritage bylaws July 4, 2016

Doc # 863028 Page 6

20

CONCLUSION The house located at 1031 Sixth Avenue has high heritage value as it was constructed prior to 1900 and retains the majority of its original design and material. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation bylaw would see the retention and restoration of the 1891 McLaughlin house.

Doc # 863028 Page 7

21

Appendix A

Proposed Architectural Drawings

22

Appendix B

Heritage Conservation Plan

31

HERITAGE CONSERVATION PLAN

David McLaughlin House - 1891

1031 Sixth Avenue, Moody Park

New Westminster, BC

Ance Heritage Consulting ~ March 2016

32

Heritage Conservation Plan :: 1031 Sixth Avenue, New Westminster :: March 2016

CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE

The David McLaughlin House is a modest sized dwelling (1363 Sq ft) on a generous lot (4385 sq ft), that has seen minimal alterations to its original fabric and design, but is in deteriorated, uninhabitable condition. As a strategy to help save the house from demolition and to help compensate for the complex stabilization and restoration work that needs to be undertaken here, a heritage revitalization agreement will enable a new dwelling to be introduced on the property to coexist with the historic building. The David McLaughlin House will continue its single-detached residential use on its original site, but will be moved to the rear of the lot to the traditional position of a lane house, maintaining its historic orientation to Sixth Avenue.

Restoration and Preservation are the main conservation objectives for the heritage house where extant and/or missing original exterior elements require straightforward maintenance, repair or replication.

Rehabilitation is the conservation objective for the timber foundation which will be reconstructed in concrete and where a new 4’ crawl space will be introduced.

BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The David McLaughlin House is an L shaped, two-storey, wood-frame house. It features two intersecting gable roofs and projecting canted bays on the southern (facade) and western elevations. It is a working class, moderately ornamented Queen Anne style home which was a popular residential style in Vancouver and New Westminster in the 1880s and 90s. There is a minimum of contemporary alterations to the building; most original elements and features are intact.

Typical of the Queen Anne style, the building has narrow, vertical proportions and an asymmetrical plan. A small covered entry porch with ornamental brackets extends from the centre of the principle facade. The building is clad in early, horizontal vee-joint wood siding. The two sets of bay windows on the ground floor feature decorative cast-iron cresting and fish scale shingled mansard roofs. The windows on the house are all double-hung wood-sash windows of Victorian proportions (tall and narrow) and style (horned).

On site analysis revealed the following approximate original colour scheme:

Body: Edwardian Pewter VC-23Sash: Gloss black VC-35Trim, soffits and ornamental elements: Harris Cream VC-4Bay roof shingles and vertical cladding at base: Pendrell Red VC-29

______________________________________________________________________Ance Heritage Consulting :: 739 Campbell Ave, Vancouver BC V6A 3K7 tel: 604.722.3074 :: Page �2

33


CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Overall the building is generally in fair condition.

a. Structure

The exterior building lines are true to the eye, there is no visual evidence of structural distortion or obvious failures.

b. Foundations and Masonry

The timber foundation is in poor condition. There are rotting areas where it meets the soil and the building framing. A non-loadbearing, recently installed perimeter concrete block foundation is in fair condition.

c. General Wood Elements

Inspection exposed rot in most window sills, many windows sashes, about 20% of cladding and most corner and water boards. The framing timber is in good condition.

d. Roofing

Contemporary asphalt roofing shingles and gutters have recently been installed. The surviving bay window roof shingles need repair and replication where missing.

e. Windows and Doors

All original wood windows survive on the building, but the sashes are deteriorated beyond repair due to lack of maintenance and excessive exposure to moisture. Most of the window sashes exhibit areas of rot, splitting or detachment from glazing, and are dysfunctional. Window and door frames are generally in fair condition requiring repair, repainting and some in-kind replacement. Exterior front door is contemporary. Back door is missing.

RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION PROCEDURES

The following procedures are according to conservation standards for historic buildings as established by the Parks Canada, Historic Places Initiative (HPI) and listed in Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

Preservation: The action or process of protecting, maintaining and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form and integrity of an historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value.


34


Restoration: The action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic place or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value.

Rehabilitation: The action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place or of an individual component, through repair, alterations, and/or additions, while protecting its heritage value.

a. Structure - Rehabilitation:

• The dwelling’s balloon framed structure will be lifted off its timber and concrete block foundation to enable the installation of a new concrete foundation and the construction of a usable 4’ crawl space.

• Wood framing will be selectively repaired, upgraded and adapted for improved integrity, only where exposed to complete the work as defined on the Building Permit drawings. New supplemental framing to be sistered onto existing framing where required.

• New crawl space and small back porch will be constructed using 2x6 framing meeting current code requirements for insulation and rainscreen cavity.

b. Roof and Rainwater Works - Preservation & Restoration:

• Asphalt roofing shingles and metal gutters, which are stylistically in keeping with the original roofs and waterworks design of the house, have been recently installed.

• Restore & repaint original fish scale shingles on facade bay roof. Replicate and paint fish scale shingles on western elevation bay where missing.

c. Masonry and Foundation – Rehabilitation:

• Install new concrete foundation

• Install exterior wall dampproofing, under-slab membrane and perimeter drainage


35


d. Cladding and Trimwork - Restoration:

• Existing/original horizontal vee-joint siding to remain on building.

• Repair or replicate in kind (wood species, profile and finish) deteriorated or damaged lap siding, exterior trim, fascia, moulding and water boards.

• Areas requiring new framing, sheathing and cladding are to be constructed with a rainscreen cavity (crawl space and back porch).

• Clad new crawl space in vertical siding, matching to a few surviving pieces of vertical boards found at foundation level on the north side of the house (see photo below)

• Epoxy consolidants (Rot-Fix or equal) are acceptable for in situ repair of wood members.

• Do not replace more material than necessary to avoid discontinuity of appearance.


36


e. Decorative elements - Restoration and Preservation:

• Preserve cast iron decorative cresting above both bay windows using minor rust treatment and repainting.

• Restore decorative brackets. A total of four missing wood ornaments will be replicated - one in the form of a gable decorations for the gable above the street-facing bay window and three in the form of brackets for the front porch, replicating the surviving single bracket (see photo - right).The 1970s archival photo below shows evidence of wooden gable decorations and front porch brackets. A closer look at the image reveals four decorative corner brackets (painted in a dark colour here), a chamfered square column and a historic (lower) railing height.


source: New Westminster Archives - building file for 1031 Sixth Avenue

37


f. Front Porch - Restoration:

• Restore front porch column with slender, square column with chamfered/fluted corners (see illustration - right).

• Rebuild front porch and stair railing in historically correct height (30”) as per archival photo. An additional glass or metal guard will be installed to bring the railing to a height that meets code requirements.

• Rebuild front stairs to porch with traditional wood elements and design, reoriented to the southwest rather than their current southern orientation, to allow for spatial separation between the two dwellings on the property.

• Replace front door with new (or salvaged) period appropriate wooden door with 3/4 glazing to fit in original frame and opening (see illustration on the bottom right).

• Introduce period appropriate front porch ceiling light


two photos showing front porch railings in

historic height (24-30”) with modern extensions

bringing them to code height.

with glass and wood guard.

with metal guard

38


g. Windows and Doors - Restoration:

Both exterior doors and all windows are scheduled for replacement with historically appropriate replicas.

• Replace existing wood windows with new double-hung, double-glazed, wood windows, replicated to match the original double-hung, horned windows on the house and to fit in original frames and openings (see photo, right, showing the southwest facing bay with its currently deteriorated wood windows).

• Replace all existing window sills in kind with replica sills of the same wood species, profile and dimensions.

• Replace front door with new (or salvaged) period appropriate wooden door to fit in original frame and opening.

h. Finishes - Restoration:

• Test exterior paint for lead and follow WCB lead abatement procedures;

• Follow Master Painters' Institute, Repainting Manual procedures, includingremoving loose paint down to next sound layer, clean surface with mild TSP solution with gentlest means possible, and rinse with clean water; do not use powerwashing.

• Use proposed historic colour scheme based on original colours.

Proposed historic colour scheme, based on on-site paint scrapings, and matched to closest colours on the Benjamin Moore Vancouver True Colours palette on next page.


39


Proposed historic colour scheme and placement at 1031 Sixth Avenue (source: Rob Johnson Architect)

Body: Edwardian Pewter VC-23

Sash: Gloss black VC-35 (doors can be lacquered unpainted)

Trim, soffits and ornamental elements: Harris Cream VC-4

Bay roof shingles and vertical cladding at base: Pendrell Red VC-29


40


FUTURE CHANGES

Changes to the building configuration, especially additions, should be carefully considered for minimal affect on the Heritage Values as embodied in the Character-Defining Elements (CDE) listed in the Statement of Significance.

Proposed changes to the house are primarily the relocation of the house to the rear of the property, the reconstruction of foundation, crawl space, reorientation of the front stairs and the introduction of a new small porch at the back. The changes are in keeping with the design traditions of the original house. In its new location at the rear, the house peak will sit a few inches higher than its current height.

The new infill dwelling sensitively designed to integrate with the traditional house design - will improve the sustainability and liveability of this historic property.

The changes listed below and illustrated on the next page are considered reasonable interventions given generally accepted conservation standards, rehabilitation needs for proposed uses and site conditions, technical and deterioration shortcomings, and the realities of achieving heritage retention through development incentives.

Proposed Alterations:

• Relocate historic house to the rear of the property.

• Construct new foundation and crawl space below existing main floor joists.

• Construct new back porch - an element that has historically existed on the house but has been rebuilt more than once.

• Rebuild front entry stairs with orientation to the west rather than to the south.

• Construct sensitively designed, infill dwelling at the front of the property.


41


The site plan below shows both dwellings, historic and new, on the property. (source: Rob Johnson Architect)


42


MAINTENANCE PLAN

Following completion of the conservation works, the owner must maintain the building and land in good repair and in accordance with generally accepted maintenance standards. All work should follow The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2nd Edition). The local government determines an acceptable level or condition to which the heritage building is maintained through the Heritage Maintenance Bylaw. As with the Heritage Conservation Plan, such maintenance standards apply only to the building exterior.

As general upkeep is frequently overlooked and will lead to deterioration of heritage resources, maintenance standards warrant special attention. Any building should be kept in a reasonable condition so it continues to function properly without incurring major expenses to repair deterioration from neglect. To avoid compounding problems a continuity of informed supervision of assessments and repairs is essential.

A periodic Condition Survey by a Heritage Professional will enable the owner to anticipate and budget for upcoming repair or replacement work. The most frequent source of deterioration problems are from poorly maintained roofs, rainwater works and destructive pests.

Establish a maintenance plan using the information below:

Maintenance Checklist -

a. Site

• Ensure site runoff drainage directed away from buildings.

• Maintain min. 2 foot clearance between vegetation and building face and a 12 inch wide gravel strip against the foundation in planted areas.

• Do not permit vegetation (vines, etc.) to attached to the building.

• Keep tree branches pruned so they don't overhang roofs.

• Ensure roots from large trees to not stress and deform building foundation, or damage perimeter drainage piping.

b. Foundation

• Review exterior, and interior where visible, for signs of undue settlement, deformation or cracking of foundation and if encountered seek advice from Professional Engineer.


43


• Ensure perimeter drainage piping is functioning satisfactorily by flushing and/or professional inspection every 3-5 years.

• Inspect basement interior for signs of moisture migrating through foundation walls or the slab-on-grade in the form of efflorescence (a white powder on concrete) or staining of finishes. A "smell test" for musty air can indicate a moisture problem.

c. Masonry

• Review structural integrity for deformation, leaning, cracked bricks and if encountered seek advice from Professional Engineer as may be related to foundation problem.

d. Wood Elements

• In the wet coastal climate of British Columbia maintaining integrity of exterior wood elements is critical in preventing water ingress into buildings.

• Annually inspect wood elements for signs of deterioration mechanisms, identify source of problem and take corrective repair/replacement action:

o wood in contact with ground or plantings;

o excessive cupping, loose knots, cracks or splits;

o open wood-to-wood joints or loose/missing fasteners;

o attack from biological growth (moss, moulds, etc.) or infestations (carpenter ants, etc.);

o animal damage or accumulations (chewed holes, nesting, bird/rodent droppings) USE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROCEDURES;

o signs of water ingress (rot, staining, mould, infestation).

• Closely inspect highly exposed wood elements such as porches, railings and stairs for deterioration. Anticipate replacement in kind of these elements every 10-15 years.

• Inspect paint finishes every 3-5 years and expect full repainting every 7-10 years. Look for:

o bubbling, cracks, "alligatoring" or crazing, wrinkles, flaking, peeling or powdering;

o excessive fading of colours, especially dark tones;

• Note repainting shall be in historic colours approved for the HRA unless altered by Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) issued by the Local Authority.


44


• Inspect visible caulking joints for continuity and shrinkage. Expect to redo caulking every 3-5 years.

• Review metal flashings to ensure water runoff properly directed to the exterior and that flashing joints are intact.

e. Windows and Doors

• Annually check integrity of window glazing putty for drying, cracking or loss.

• Replace cracked or broken glass as it occurs.

• Check satisfactory operation of windows and doors. Poor operation can be a sign of building settlement distorting the frame, or sashes or doors may be warped.

• Check condition and operation of hardware for rust or breakage. Lubricate annually.

• Inspect weather stripping for excessive wear and integrity.

f. Roofing and Rainwater Works

• Inspect roof condition every 5 years, looking for:

o loose, split or missing shingles, especially at edges, ridges and hips;o excessive biological growth (moss) and/or accumulation of debris from adjacent trees;o flashings functioning properly to shed water down slope, especially at chimney.

• Remove roof debris and moss with gentle sweeping and low-pressure hose.

• Plan for roof replacement at 18-22 years or longer.

• Annually inspect and clean gutters, flush out downpipes. Ensure gutters positively slope to downpipes, there are no leaks or water splashing onto building.

• Ensure gutter hangers and rainwater system elements intact and secure.

• Ensure downpipes inserted into collection piping stub-outs at grade and/or directed away from building onto concrete splash pads.


45


g. General Cleaning

• Building exterior should be regularly cleaned depending on build up of atmospheric soot, biological growth and/or dirt up-splash from ground.

• Cleaning prevents buildup of deleterious materials which can lead to premature and avoidable maintenance problems.

• Windows, doors and rainwater works should be cleaned annually.

• When cleaning always use gentlest means possible such as soft bristle brush and low-pressure hose. Use mild cleaner if necessary such as diluted TSP or Simple Green©.

• Do not use high-pressure washing as it will lead to excessive damage to finishes, seals, caulking and wood elements, and it will drive water into wall assemblies and lead to bigger problems.


46

From: Park, JacquieTo: Julie Schueck; Jonathan Cote; Bev Grieve; Jaimie McEvoy; Bill Harper; Patrick Johnstone; Mary Trentadue;

Lorrie Williams; Jackie Teed; External-Post Master - PlnCc: Moody Park Residents Association; Lynn @ workSubject: Notice of Advisory Planning commission / HRA for 1031 Sixth Ave (HER00563)Date: Thursday, May 05, 2016 9:14:42 AMImportance: High

Good Morning All, I am writing you with regards to the current application as noted above. I live at 1027 – 6th Avenue,right next door. I realize there has been several letters written with regards to this proposed project andI am stalwartly opposed to the idea of having the David McLaughlin house moved to the back of theproperty at 1031 6th Avenue. I would like to reiterate that both my wife, Lynn Leadbetter and I, love this old home and want thishome saved and brought back to life; however by moving this home to the back of the property, thiswill impact my life in the following negative ways: 1) The height of the home will impact my backyard sunlight not to mention a giant wall with a windowoverlooking my backyard garden. 2) The proposal, if passed, will allot for two homes on one lot and assuming there would be at leastthree bedrooms in each home that would potentially allow the possibility of 12 – 15 people living onone lot. 3) The proposal is also only allowing for one parking space for two homes. Where will all these peoplepark their cars? I do not want to see my back-alley as a ‘parking lot’, nor do I want to see all theparking spaces used up in front of my home. 4) I am very concerned about the noise level, having large amounts of people living in such a smallspace. 5) This proposal is not a laneway home it’s a ‘Home on a Lane’ and what guarantee’s to I have that ifthe McLaughlin home is moved that Mr. Long will have it completed in a timely manner? I am havingthoughts that Mr. Long wants to have his other home built first and the McLaughlin home will be left torot on the back of the property, just like it’s rotting now. 6) The lot coverage of the two homes equates to almost 85% of the maximum allowable for NR1,which is 50%; again adding one parking space comes very close to 95% 7) Where will his children play – there will virtually be no back yard to play in? 8) This will no longer be a happy, content neighbourhood. I could go on and on but I understand that each and every one of you are busy and fully engaged inthis process and the accumulation of complaints that have arisen with this proposed proposal. What Idon’t understand is why Mr. Long can’t just do what he intended to do when he bought the propertyless than 2 years ago; raise the house, put an addition onto the side and back, of which this spacewould accommodate his family adequately. Mr. Long is divorced with 4 children and those children reside with their Mother, who also lives inNew Westminster – They do not live with him on permanent bases as he shares custody with his wife. The reason I know these facts is Mr. Long has come over for dinner on a few occasions, with his entirefamily, and we have had what I thought a very good neighbour relationship. When he first moved inwe were thrilled at the idea of him restoring the McLaughlin home, in fact I’m quite sure I was the first

47

mailto:[email protected]













person in the neighbourhood to greet him with open arms! I realize that Mr. Long has met and liveswith a woman who also has 3 children; however this is still not an adequate reason to have two homeson one lot. Now as time has passed he has blatantly lied to us, telling us that the City of New Westminstergranted him a demolition permit and he proceeded to demolish the back end of the house as well asremoving all of the windows and started to remove the roof. He did all this without any ear/eyeprotection and he told us there was no asbestos (which I find hard to believe in such an old home).While he was demolishing the back of the home, we were outside enjoying our back garden andpotentially breathing in asbestos in our lungs (I’m horrified at that thought!).. (I have proof in the form ofpictures that are dated and can send them to you if required). Was WorkSafe BC involved in any ofthis? I’m thinking NOT. Then he came over one evening and told us that the City of New Westminsteris making him move the McLaughlin home to the back of the lot and to construct a brand new home inthe front of the lot - again, another falsehood. As I’m sure you can tell by this note I’m very emotional about this situation so much so that if thisgoes through the City of New Westminster is forcing my hand to sell my beautiful home that I havelived in for the past 24 years. Also, just so you know, Lynn & I paid off our mortgage In January 2015and we had the idea that when we both retire, which will be in the next 2-3 years, we would enjoy amortgage free life in our beautiful home in New Westminster. This will not happen now and I’m sickabout the thought of having a mortgage after I retire, being both Lynn & I have worked at our jobs,Lynn for 33 years and me for 25 years.. I also, just last July, moved my elderly Mother, of 75 yearsold, from Abbotsford to New Westminster, where she resides in The Heritage, and she loves it here. Iwill now have to move her again, so I can take care of her ever changing needs and I would think thatanother move would greatly impact her life in so many negative ways! All I’m asking is for Mr. Long to take back this application of constructing a brand new home at thefront of the lot and go through with his original idea of restoring the McLaughlin Home for his family toenjoy for years to come. Thank-you and I will see you at the meeting on 17 May 2016 @ 6:30pm Jacqueline Anne Park

_______________________________________

Jacquie Park | Contract Admin. TechnologistInfrastructure Capital & Procurement Support P 604 528 2018E [email protected] bchydro.com Smart about power in all we do.

This email and its attachments are intended solely for the personal use of theindividual or entity named above. Any use of this communication by an unintendedrecipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, any publication,use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of its contents is strictly prohibited.Please immediately delete this message and its attachments from your computer andservers. We would also appreciate if you would contact us by a collect call or returnemail to notify us of this error. Thank you for your cooperation.-BCHydroDisclaimerID5.2.8.1541

48


http://www.bchydro.com/

advisory planning commission - new westminster · that the report dated april 19, 2016 be received...

Documents