agenda - st. john's · adoption of minutes – november 2, 2016 moved – garnet kindervator;...

AGENDA

Built Heritage Experts Panel

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:00 pm

Conference Room A 4th Floor, City Hall

2. Delegation

AGENDA BUILT HERITAGE EXPERTS PANEL MEETING February 1, 2017 – 12:00 p.m. – Conference Room A, 4th Floor, City Hall

1. Call to Order & Approval of the Agenda

3. Adoption of the Minutes

a. Minutes of December 5, 2016

3. Business Arising

4. New Business

a. Heritage Recognition Awards

b. City of St. John’s Heritage Charter

i. Website Review

c. City of St. John’s Designation Criteria Review

d. Review of Robert Mellin’s List of Modern Buildings

e. Heritage By-Law

f. Decision Note dated January 9, 2017 re: Application for Signage – 76 Queen’s Road

g. Information Note dated January 11,2017 re: 8 Military Road, St. Thomas Anglican Church

h. Information Note dated January 10, 2017 re: Heritage Financial Incentive Program Review

5. New Business

6. Date of Next Meeting

7. Adjournment

Minutes BUILT HERITAGE EXPERTS PANEL MEETING December 5, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Conference Room A

Present Glenn Barnes NLAA, MRAIC, Chair Bruce Blackwood, Contractor Michael Philpott, Heritage Foundation of NL Matthew Mills, Provincial Association of Landscape Architects Lydia Lewycky, Atlantic Planners Institute

Garnet Kindervater, Canadian Homebuilders NL Mark Whelan, Architect – Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. Margaret Donovan, Office of Strategy of Engagement Sylvester Crocker, Manager of Technical Services Ken O’Brien, Chief Municipal Planner Arthur MacDonald, Co-Lead Staff Member

Maureen Harvey – Legislative Assistant

Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted with the following changes/additions:

a. Detailed discussion on the role of the Experts Panel

b. Margaret Donovan will give an overview of the Advisory Committee Forum

c. Mr. Jeremy Smith will attend as a delegate to discuss the application for 308 Water Street.

Overview of Advisory Committee Forum – December 6, 2016

Margaret Donovan, Engagement Officer, gave an overview of the Advisory Committee Forum which is taking place on December 6, 2016. She outlined the questions to be posed at the forum and the format which is to be used. Members were encouraged to attend.

Adoption of Minutes – November 2, 2016

Moved – Garnet KIndervator; Seconded – Bruce Blackwood

That the minutes of November 2, 2016 be adopted as presented noting the correct spelling of Lydia’s surname.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Decision Note dated November 30, 2016 re: 308 Water Street, Application for Installation of Sculpture

Jeremy Smith, owner of the Freak Lunchbox Inc. attended and put forth his comments about the application. He stated a similar project was undertaken in Halifax where the side of a building was used to display a piece of art – a painted mural of sea creatures. The City received an application from Freak Lunchbox Inc. to erect signage at 308 Water Street. The subject property is located in Heritage Area 1, located in the Commercial Downtown District and is zoned Commercial Central Retail (CCR). The building is not a designated Heritage Building. Pursuant to Section 20 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law, the Panel may recommend to Council the acceptance of certain non-conforming signs whose particular design or situation merit such consideration, and Council may accept or reject the recommendation, provided that no sign approved by Council shall contravene the provisions of the St. John’s Sign By-Law. Please note, the proposed signage does not contravene the Sign By-Law. For this review, the proposed signage needs to be defined. As the signage (an octopus emerging from the building façade) is modelled off the wall and projects from the wall a minimum of 60cm to 91.5cm (2 to 3 feet) staff has defined it as a projecting sign. Projecting signs shall project no more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) from the building face and shall not project within 1 m (3 ft.) of the curb face. The sidewalk is 2.5m (8.2 ft.) wide at this location and the proposed signage is consistent with this provision. The six (6) elements of the sign form a cohesive unit and, as such, staff has taken the position that the proposed signage constitutes one projecting sign. Pursuant to Section 17, a maximum of two sign types are permitted. Therefore, if this sign is approved, only one other type of signage shall be approved for this façade. As a projecting sign, the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law requires the sign to be at 90 degrees to the building face. As this sign is a piece of sculpture attached to the wall face that flows off the wall not completely at right angles to the wall, the proposed signage is considered not to be in keeping with this provision. Pursuant to Section 15 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law painted wall signs and murals may only be permitted upon the recommendation of the Panel and at the discretion of Council. Though the proposed signage does not fall under the traditional meaning of a “painted wall sign”, staff feels there is justification that this type of signage qualifies as a discretionary sign under Section 15 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law under the pretext of being a type of “mural”, a 3D mural. Pursuant to the City’s Sign By-law, any sign over or across any public street shall be approved by Council. Therefore, Council approval is required. Section 16 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law states that signs shall not obscure architectural features on a building. Though the sign is considered unorthodox and out-of-place with the context of the streetscape, it does add an animated appearance to the building without detracting from the building’s character defining elements. In light of the above, the proposed signage, as submitted, is recommended for approval in keeping with Section 20 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law.

Discussion took place with agreement that the application is not in contravention to any by-laws. However, it was recognized that application more for a sculpture/piece of art on the exterior of the building as opposed to a sign.

Recommendation: Moved- Lydia Lewycky; Seconded – Bruce Blackwood That the application for the installation of a sculpture/piece of art on the front façade of 308 Water Street be approved as submitted, and that the City’s Inspection staff inspect the sculpture to ensure it is securely affixed.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Role of the Experts Panel

Further to the brief discussion which took place at the last meeting of the Panel, the Chair questioned whether the Panel should suggest that the City hire a consultant to undertake a study to review the means by which modern architecture is/and should be addressed in heritage areas – the example being Holloway Street.

Discussion took place with agreement that this topic is deserving of a separate meeting as it will require time to ensure full consideration. Questions posed include:

Should modern buildings be allowed in a heritage area, or should new buildings mimic historic designs.

How does the City balance the cost for development in heritage areas against difficult economic times.

How should newer buildings be designated.

The Chief Municipal Planner noted that the former Heritage Advisory Committee established a subcommittee who reviewed modern designs. This request was prompted from architects who requested that consideration be given to designating modern buildings (post-war period). A report was completed and Mr. O’Brien agreed to follow up on the findings and submit same to the Panel.

Discussion concluded with agreement that staff investigate potential outsourcing options to undertake research. Members were asked to give consideration to ideas as well.

Information Note dated November 12, 2016 Re: 4-6 McLea Place, Richmond Cottage The BHEP requested during their meeting of November 2, 2016 an up-date regarding 4-6 McLea Place, Richmond Cottage, in particularly with regards to the neighbourhood survey. The City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the owners whereby the property will be put on the real estate market until May 1, 2017. Should the sale of the property be unsuccessful by May 1, 2017 the City will approve the demolition of Richmond Cottage. The property is located in the Residential Medium Density District and zoned Residential Special (RA). Richmond Cottage is designated by Council as a Heritage Building.

The Panel discussed the results of the neighbourhood survey which was undertaken in August 2016 to which there were 17 respondents (2 chose not to finish the survey);

Discussion took place with the suggestion that the developer may be avoiding the sale of the property given the high price. It could be the developer’s wish that the building would fall into such a state of deterioration that it would have to be removed. While numerous orders have been issued to address the condition of the building, little has been done. This raises the question of liability in the event the building is vandalized.

Decision Note dated November 21, 2016 from Retaining Wall – 8 Military Road. Panel Member, Matthew Mills vacated the room due to a declared conflict of interest. The Panel reviewed the above-note decision note dealing with an application for the demolition and replacement of a retaining wall at 8 Military Road, the St. Thomas Anglican Church. The subject property is located in Heritage Area 1, located in the Institutional District and zoned Institutional (INST). The church is designated by Council as a Heritage Building. A copy of the Statement of Significance is enclosed for your review. The City’s designation is limited to the footprint of the church structure. The designation does not apply to the exterior retaining wall that serves as a support for the grade changes between the upper and lower parking areas. Pursuant to Section 5.9.4 of the St. John’s Development Regulations, the retaining wall should be in keeping with the period style of the streetscape and the railing/guard should be in keeping with the original style of the structure, the Gothic Revival Style. The applicant has advised that an architectural smooth form concrete wall would be too expensive and will be susceptible to graffiti. They have submitted two new options, a recon block wall or a key stone block wall with a wooden vehicular guard rail and a gothic style pedestrian guard rail as shown in the attachments. They would like the Panel to consider both proposals for approval. In light of the above, staff recommended that the request to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with a recon block wall or a keystone block wall with the wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted be approved. In addition, the eastern light pole (next to the Church Hall) may be removed and the church would like permission to erect pedestrian lighting on the building. It is recommended that approval for these lighting fixtures be granted subject to staff’s approval.

Recommendation Moved by Mark Whelan; seconded by Michael Philpott It is recommended that the request to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with a keystone block wall with the wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted, be approved.

In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff’s approval.

2 2016-12-05

2

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Mills returned to the meeting. Decision Note dated October 21, 2016 re: Heritage Designation On April 26, 2016 Council approved Directive R2016-0426/29 and directed staff to contact property owners of homes/buildings that merit designation as municipal Heritage Buildings. The initial mail out of 92 letters (total of 97 properties) in September resulted in eight (8) property owners agreeing to proceed with the designation of their homes as Heritage Buildings. The City has also received an application to designate 40 Rennie’s Mill Road as a Municipal Heritage Building. Though not on the City List of Buildings that Merit Heritage Designation, it is worthy of Designation for its aesthetic and historic value as outlined in its Statement of Significance. The Statements of Significance for all nine (9) properties are attached for your review. The following structures are considered for designation: 1. 34 Queen’s Road 2. 42 Power’s Court 3. 36 Monkstown Road 4. 16 Leslie Street 5. 23 Leslie Street 6. 56 Circular Road 7. 108 New Cove Road 8. 8 Riverview Avenue 9. 40 Rennie’s Mill Road Staff is in the process of preparing follow-up letters to those who have yet to respond.

Recommendation: Moved by Garnet Kindervater; Seconded by Bruce Blackwood The Panel recommends to proceed with the required steps to designate the following buildings as Municipal Heritage Buildings by directing Legal to proceed with the drafting of a Designation By-law as well as notifications to the subject property owners in keeping with Section 355 of the City of St. John's Act.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2 2016-12-05

3

Decision Note dated November 18, 2016 re: Review of Submissions Received for the Heritage Financial Incentives Program

Council approved the City’s Heritage Financial Incentives Program on July 25, 2016 and offers 2 types of grants:

1. Heritage Maintenance Grant; and 2. Heritage Conservation Grant

Since then, the City has received 14 applications, these are summarized in Appendix “A” - Review of Grant Applications. 13 applications are recommended for approval and one (1) is recommended for rejection due to the use of vinyl siding.

The BHEP recommends that Council does not provide heritage grants to support the use of vinyl siding even though the Development Regulations enable the use of vinyl siding in Heritage Areas 2 and 3. This would have to be ultimately decided by Council. Staff recommends:

� that Council agree with the BHEP and not provide heritage grants for projects that use vinyl siding; and � that the grant program be amended for next year applications so that it clear that the City will not support grant applications that install vinyl siding.

Recommendation Moved by Lydia Lewycky; Seconded by Garnet Kindervater To approve 13 grant applications as summarized in Appendix “A” – Review of Grant Applications and rejection of one (1) application due to the use of Vinyl Siding, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Heritage Financial Incentives Program and the following:

˜ grant approval to 108 New Cove Road will be subject to the

property being designated as a Municipal Heritage Building; ˜ that Council agree with the BHEP and not provide heritage

grants for projects that use vinyl siding; and ˜ that the grant program be amended for next year’s

applications so that it clear that the City will not support grant applications that install vinyl siding.

Appendix “A”

Heritage Financial Incentives Program Submission Review Summary

Item: Location: Project: Decision:

1. 1A Colonial Street Heritage Area 2

Clapboard and fascia board c/w painting

$1,322.50 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building.

2 2016-12-05

4

2. 57 Gilbert Street Heritage Area 3

Clapboard vinyl c/w trim. Not approved due to the use of vinyl siding. Low Priority due to use of vinyl clapboard, 5 1/2” PVC colonial corner trim and front windows and door with PVC trim. Not designated Heritage Building.

3. 94 Freshwater Road Heritage Area 3

Replace clapboard, details, railings etc. and Painting.

$5,000.00 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to restoration work.

4. 101 Freshwater Road

Five vinyl window inserts replacements.

$865.66 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to maintenance work.

5. 73 Monkstown Road

Wooden clapboard, fiberglass windows and repairs to front masonry fence.

$5,000.00 + Permit Waiver High Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to restoration work.

6. 17 Monkstown Road

Storm window, front door painting and caulking.

$1,000.00 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to maintenance work.

7. 108 New Cove Road

Window sill replacement $1,437.50 + Permit Waiver High Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building but has agreed to become a designated Heritage Building and is on the City’s List of Buildings that Merit Designation. Deserving of a grant due to restoration work.

8. 26 Leslie Street Replace vinyl siding with

Cape Cod clapboard, removed and replace front porch, new 6” corner boards repair windows, new 5” window trims complete with crown headers, new front door and roof shingles as required

$5,000.00 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority – Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to conservation work.

9. 9-11 Angel Place Replace existing siding with wooded clapboard siding in keeping with heritage and moulding window trims complete with new front door on front façade facing street.

$1,638.75 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to restoration work.

2 2016-12-05

5

10. 40 Rennie’s Mill Road

Repair and replace all exterior trim and refurbish the front façade, replace front concrete step and painting. Windows are in good shape and will not be replaced. Woodworking requires customized and handmade wood workings.

$5,000.00 + Permit Waiver High Priority as a designated Provincially registered Heritage Structure and has agreed to municipal registration.

11. 42 Rennie’s Mill Road

New front wooden Cape Cod siding with 4” exposure to match original, corner boards, fascia and skirt board, water table, window trims and sills, flashing, door trims and threshold as well as cornice work, gable end brackets details on front of house including 3 dormers, customized woodworking details and blow-in insulation. Work completed Sept. 12, 2016.

$5,000.00 + Permit Waiver High Priority as a designated municipal Heritage Building.

12. 7 Long Street Four new vinyl single hung windows and new front door on front façade.

$2,242.50 + Permit Waiver (Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to conservation work.)

13. 8 Riverview Avenue New straight traditional wooded clapboard (4” exposure) on front and side facades facing street.

$3,018.75 + Permit Waiver High Priority as has agreed to become a designated municipal Heritage Building.

14. 34 Cochrane Street Replacement of mansard roof shingles, rotten eaves and dormer window repairs on façade facing street. Includes replacement of one dormer window.

$4,729.38 + Permit Waiver Medium Priority - Not a designated Heritage Building. However deserving of a grant due to conservation work.

Total: $41,255.04 + Permit Waiver

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2 2016-12-05

6

Other Business Notice of Motion – Council Representation on the Built Heritage Experts Panel Upon question as to the status of Councillor O’Leary’s notice of motion for Council representation on the Panel, it was reported the matter has been deferred until the results of the Advisory Committee Forum are finalized. Date of Next Meeting The following meeting dates were set: Special Meeting of the Panel – January 23 with the Regular Meeting of the Panel on February 1, 2017. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Glenn Barnes, NLAA, MRAIC Chairperson

City of St. John’s PO Box 908 St. John’s, NL Canada A1C 5M2 www.stjohns.ca

Title: Heritage Recognition Awards

Date Prepared: January 11, 2017

Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel

Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Decision/Direction Required: To seek approval for granting the City’s Heritage Recognition Awards to the four nominations, as submitted, on Heritage Day, February 20th, 2017. Discussion – Background and Current Status: The City of St. John’s advertised for nominations for the City’s Heritage Recognition Awards in the following categories:

preserving or restoring the original character of a Heritage Building or any building in a Heritage Area;

rehabilitating an old building, including successfully integrating modern elements; respecting the character of a modern building in a Heritage Area; infill developments that blends into a neighbourhood in a Heritage Area; and stewardship and long-term preservation of a Heritage Building or any building in a Heritage

Area.

The City received the following nominations:

1) 8 Blackhead Village Road; 2) 38 Hayward Avenue; 3) 55 Duckworth Street; and 4) 47 Cochrane Street.

Upon review, all four are worthy of consideration and a draft of their Certificates are attached for your review.

Key Considerations/Implications:

1. Budget/Financial Implications: The costs associate with the reception and the certificates are within the current budget.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: The City will be celebrating National Heritage Day with organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the rest of Canada on February 20th, 2017.

DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE

Decision/Direction Note Page 2 Heritage Recognition Awards

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: A Culture of Cooperation: Create effective City-community collaborations. A City for all Seasons: Support year-round tourism and industrial activity.

4. Legal or Policy Implications: Not Applicable.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: Communications will be sending out a press release regarding the winners of the City’s Heritage Recognition Awards.

6. Human Resource Implications: Not Applicable.

7. Procurement Implications: Not Applicable.

8. Information Technology Implications: Not Applicable.

9. Other Implications: Not Applicable. Recommendation: To approve the granting of the City’s Heritage Recognition Award Certificates to:

1) 8 Blackhead Village Road; 2) 38 Hayward Avenue; 3) 55 Duckworth Street; and 4) 47 Cochrane Street.

Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: Copies of the Heritage Recognition Awards Certificates Copy of the Heritage Day Proclamation Copy of the Mayor’s Notes

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Heritage Recognition Awards 2017 Jan 11 2017 .docx

The City of St. John’s Build Heritage Experts Panel Is Pleased to Recognize

Blackhead One Room School and Church Museum

8 Blackhead Village Road

For Stewardship and Long-Term Preservation of a Heritage Building

Presented on Heritage Day

February 20, 2017

___________________________ Dennis O’Keefe Mayor

__________________________ Ron Ellsworth Deputy Mayor


Robert Mellin and Heidi Kravitz

38 Hayward Avenue

For Preserving the Original Character of a Historic Building in Heritage Area 3


February 20, 2017




Gary Wadden

For the MQO Building - 55 Duckworth Street

For Rehabilitating an Old Building, Including Successfully Integrating Modern Elements in Heritage Area 3

Presented on Heritage Day February 20, 2017




Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

For Cochrane House – 47 Cochrane Street

For Preserving and Restoring the Original Character of a Building in Heritage Area 1


February 20, 2017



Heritage Day Proclamation 2017

WHEREAS, the third Monday in February is recognized provincially as Heritage Day; and WHEREAS, Heritage Day is a time to reflect on the achievements of past generations and to accept responsibility for protecting our heritage; and WHEREAS, our citizens should be encouraged to celebrate Newfoundland and Labrador’s uniqueness and to rejoice in their heritage and environment; and WHEREAS, in 2017 the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador will celebrate their rich and diverse heritage. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Dennis O’Keefe, on behalf of the City of St. John’s do hereby proclaim today, February 20, 2017 as Heritage Day, and call upon all citizens to celebrate the richness of our past and the promise of our future.

_______________________________________ Mayor

Speaking Notes for the Mayor on the Presentation of 2017 Certificates of Recognition Heritage Awards

Heritage Day - February 20, 2017 1) Blackhead One Room School and Church Museum – 8 Blackhead Village Road: Located at 8 Blackhead Village Road, the Blackhead One Room School and Church Museum, formerly St. Joseph’s Church, was constructed in 1879. It was originally constructed as a one room school for the community of Blackhead by the Roman Catholic Church. The school closed in 1965 and from that period until 1990, the building operated as St. Joseph’s Church. The last church services were held in the building in 1990. A group of concerned Blackhead residents formed the Chapel Restoration Committee in 1996 for the purpose of preserving and restoring St. Joseph’s Church and converting the building into a local museum. The building operates as a community museum and has been open each summer over the last 16 years. The contractors for this work were Garnet Kindervater Ltd. and Aiden Duff Contracting. The building is designated as a Provincial Registered Heritage Structure by the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador and as a Municipal Heritage Building by the City of St. John’s. Today, I am pleased to present a Certificate of Recognition to Bonnie Ryan, Chair, Chapel Restoration Committee – Blackhead, Cape Spear Inc. for “stewardship and long-term preservation of a Heritage Building”. 2) 38 Hayward Avenue: This old two-storey wood-framed house in the centre of Georgestown is located next to a small public park at the intersection of Hayward Avenue and William Street. The house dates from at least 1880 and was spared from the Great Fire of 1892. The house is unique in Georgestown as the long axis is parallel to the street, unlike the two-thirds Georgian plans typical of most of the older houses in St. John’s. The basic concept for the restoration was to respect the low, congenial scale of the houses along Hayward Avenue. The adjacent houses on Hayward towards the harbour feature varied architectural details and roof lines, and together with 38 Hayward Avenue, they create a pleasant, historic streetscape. The low-pitch biscuit box roof of the house was retained, and a new bedroom was constructed above the garage connected to the house by means of a second level hallway bridge. Between the garage and the house is a wood deck, and from the front of the house you can see under the bridge to the back yard. This is similar to the archways that once existed in many residential and commercial areas in old St. John’s. The restoration was undertaken by owner Architect Robert Mellin with General Contractor Sable Building & Design Ltd.

Today, I am pleased to present a Certificate of Recognition to the owners, Robert Mellin and Heidi Kravitz, for “Preserving the Original Character of a Historic Building in Heritage Area 3”.

3) 55 Duckworth Street: Located in Heritage Area 3, at 55 Duckworth Street, is the new headquarters for MQO. The owner, Saltwater Vision Inc., Gary Wadden, and Architect, Fougere Menchenton Architecture with contractor, Magna Contracting and Management Inc., successfully integrated modern elements in a sensitive and compatible fashion without adversely affecting the adjacent and nearby Heritage Buildings. Today, I am pleased to present a Certificate of Recognition to Gary Wadden, on behalf of Saltwater Vision Inc., for “Rehabilitating an old building, including successfully integrating modern elements”. 4) Cochrane House: Located in Heritage Area 1, at 47 Cochrane Street, is Cochrane House. The owner, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, renovated the building’s exterior including new doors, windows, patio decks and siding. Today, I am pleased to present a Certificate of Recognition to Ashley Murphy, on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, for “For preserving and restoring the original character of a building in Heritage Area 1”.


Title: City of St. John’s Heritage Charter Date Prepared: December 21, 2016 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Issue: To discuss the possibility of creating a Heritage Charter to help facilitate the Built Heritage Experts Panel’s decision making process. Discussion – Background and Current Status: During the Built Heritage Experts Panel’s meeting of December 5th, 2016, the topic of how we review modern building applications in the City’s Heritage Area was discussed. To help facilitate discussions, staff has developed a Heritage Charter that may facilitate discussions and recommendations on pending applications. It is intended that the Charter will work in unison with the City’s future Heritage By-law and not as a substitute.

In 2012, the Heritage Advisory Committee created a sub-committee to look at the issue of modern building applications in the City’s Heritage Areas. Minutes of the May 10, 2012 meeting are attached for your review. The 4 documents outlined by the subcommittee can be viewed at the following links:

New Design in Historic Settings: Historic Scotland (a publication by the Scottish Government) http://www.creatingplacesscotland.org/culture-heritage/project/new-design-historic-settings

Building in Context: New development in historic areas (a publication by English Heritage CABE) http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/building-in-context-new-development-in-historic-areas.pdf

Guidance on Tall Buildings (a publication by English Heritage CABE) http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/guidance-on-tall-buildings_0.pdf

Design in Context: Guidelines for Infill Development in the Historic Environment (a publication by New South Wales Heritage Office – The Royal Australian Institute of Architects) http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/DesignInContext.pdf


1. Budget/Financial Implications: May require outside consultants to develop detailed design regulations. The Charter speaks of development’s compatibility with the neighbourhood/streetscape. Neighbourhoods and streetscapes need

INFORMATION NOTE

http://www.creatingplacesscotland.org/culture-heritage/project/new-design-historic-settings

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/building-in-context-new-development-in-historic-areas.pdf

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/building-in-context-new-development-in-historic-areas.pdf

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/guidance-on-tall-buildings_0.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/DesignInContext.pdf

Information Note Page 2 Heritage Charter

to be analyzed in order to create detailed design parameters for “compatibility” in each neighbourhood/streetscape.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: The City, developers, applicants and community groups.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: A City for all Seasons: Support year-round tourism and industrial activity.

4. Legal or Policy Implications: Would require Legal review if formulated under a by-law pursuant to Section 355 of the City of St. John’s Act.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: Public engagement may be recommended or otherwise required in keeping with City legislation.

6. Human Resource Implications: May require outside consultants to develop more detailed design regulations.

7. Procurement Implications: May be required to hire of outside consultants to develop detailed design regulations.

8. Information Technology Implications: Not applicable.

9. Other Implications: Not applicable

Conclusion/Next Steps: For the BHEP’s consideration and direction. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: Proposed St. John’s Heritage Charter Minutes of HAC’s Subcommittee – May 10, 2012.

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Heritage Charter Jan 10 2017(amd).docx

St. John’s Heritage Charter

Principles for reviewing Development Proposals in the City’s Heritage Areas

Article 1. The City’s Heritage Areas embrace not only single architectural works but also the urban setting in which they are located. Development proposals shall be reviewed in the context of their neighbourhood and streetscape. Submissions for approval must provide details of how the proposal fits in with the area’s neighbourhood and streetscape.

Article 2 Developments must be compatible with the neighbourhood and streetscape in their design, massing and location. Article 3 Additions to existing buildings must be compatible with the neighbourhood and streetscape in their design, massing and location without adversely affecting the design elements of the existing building. Article 4 Additions to designated Heritage Buildings must be done in a sympathetic fashion where the original building’s essence is visually maintained and readily identifiable. Additions should not detract from the interesting parts of the building, its character defining elements, its traditional setting, the balance of its facade composition exposed to the street, and the physical relationship with its surroundings. Article 5 Renovations to designated Heritage Buildings must preserve the “character defining elements” as identified in the building’s Statement of Significance. Character defining elements may only be removed or altered if this is the sole means of ensuring the building’s preservation. Article 6 Designated Heritage Buildings may be renovated for new uses. Exterior alterations shall be limited to modifications demanded by the change in use/occupancy and/or for building code and fire code safety reasons. Further exterior renovations will be considered only if this is the sole means of ensuring the building’s preservation. Article 7 Any application to demolish a designated Heritage Building shall be accompanied by a Heritage Report, the Terms of Reference having first been approved by Council.

Article 8 Any submission to the Built Heritage Experts Panel shall include a written submission demonstrating how the design of the building either conforms to the area’s historic character, adapts to the area’s historic character or otherwise contrasts with the area’s historic character and why this particular design option was considered the most appropriate. In considering the historic character of the area, the following elements must be considered:

1) The underlying natural land form; 2) The street and subdivision pattern; 3) The siting, setbacks, relationship with the built environment and rhythm of the streetscape; 4) The scale, height, massing and building form; 5) The fenestration, solid to void relationships and proportions of openings; 6) The building’s façade materials and detailing; and 7) The area’s views, vistas and skylines.

MINUTES

A meeting of the Heritage Advisory Sub-Committee to review design guidelines for modern architecture in

heritage areas was held on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at noon.

In Attendance: David Hood, NL Historic Trust Taryn Sheppard, Nexter Ken O’Brien, Manager of Planning & Information Peter Mercer, Heritage Officer Karen Chafe, Recording Secretary The purpose of the meeting was to consider the establishment of design guidelines for modern architecture in heritage areas. The following documents were circulated electronically by Taryn Sheppard for the Committee’s consideration:

New Design in Historic Settings: Historic Scotland (a publication by the Scottish Government)

Building in Context: New development in historic areas (a publication by English Heritage CABE)

Guidance on Tall Buildings (a publication by English Heritage CABE)

Design in Context: Guidelines for Infill Development in the Historic Environment (a publication by NSW Heritage Office – The Royal Australian Institute of Architects)

The Committee also considered the Heritage Advisory Committee report from the September 27, 2010 meeting in response to the proposed redevelopment of the vacant lot at 49-53 Harvey Road. A number of design elements were referenced within the recommendation and they are reproduced here for the Committee’s information:

Fenestration: The proposed façade consists of a glass curtain treatment typically used in office towers rather than residential buildings. This presents Harvey Road with a fairly blank wall of glass so that the actual windows where people could see and be seen are almost invisible. Punched windows in a regular pattern with some symmetry, echoing the human form, i.e. taller rather than wider, would be more appropriate.

Entrance: the front door should be situated such that it is visible and could be highlighted with a portico, eave and/or lighting.

Materials: should be traditional to or echo the heritage area. Traditional materials for larger buildings would include brick and masonry. Curtain wall is associated with modern high-rise buildings and not considered to be a traditional element, though it has been used to good effect on the Blue Drop, Delgado and Lilly Buildings but usually restrained rather than filling the front façade.

Size and scale: should be oriented to nearby buildings. The contrast in height should be organic, not stark. The scale of the proposed development is large and will overpower the adjacent properties, particularly as it encompasses three building lots. For example, facing Harvey Road, the property to the west is three storeys and the property to the east is two. The proposed development will be five storeys. The rear façade on Long’s Hill will appear even more massive, consisting of garage doors on the lower level and balconies and glass rails on all other levels.

Streetscape: given that the proposal will be situated on three lots as one major development, there is an issue with the loss of rhythm to the streetscape, which generally consists of storefront facades. There is a need to reflect a continuous pattern of similar scale buildings.

New buildings do not have to replicate the past but they should have echoes of the past if they are to be built in a heritage area.

The following points/questions were raised for consideration:

Should regulations be prescriptive or more general?

Conflicts about design usually occur when projects are submitted without architectural accreditation. Ideally, the Heritage Advisory Committee should only consider such projects; however, it was agreed that this would not be reasonable or fair to the applicant, particularly during the preliminary stages of development when the Committee’s direction is requested before a detailed design is drafted.

The Committee agreed that it would be in order to list precedents of appropriate buildings, such as the Delgado Building, Water St.; the Blue Drop, Prescott St.; Law Library, Water St.; Stella’s Circle, Rawlin’s Cross, to name a few.

With respect to glass which is a modern architectural element, it was suggested that perhaps the use of such not be the dominant cladding.

View planes of a proposed development should be provided from different angles.

The question was raised as to whether or not more stringent restrictions be applied to areas having dominant vernacular or homogeneity vs. areas where there is a variation of styles.

Applications should not be considered without the Committee’s first receiving a comprehensive design incorporating the elements noted above.

The Committee agreed that ultimately this review process should produce a comprehensive pamphlet outlining design elements. Following discussion, it was agreed that Committee members review the documents tabled by Taryn Sheppard prior to the next meeting at which time, there will be more discussion on the fleshing out of design elements themselves. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.


Title: Heritage Designation Criteria Review Date Prepared: January 11, 2017 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Issue: To discuss the possibility of up-dating the City’s Heritage Designation Criteria to accept modern buildings. Discussion – Background and Current Status: The BHEP during their meeting of December 5th, 2016, discussed the feasibility of up-dating the City’s Heritage Designation Criteria to enable the designation of modern buildings. Enclosed is a copy of the City’s current designation criteria. The relevant criterion, “Age”, is outlined below to help facilitate discussions.

Existing:

1. Age Comparatively old in the context of its region.

E 1850-1870

VG 1871-1885

G 1886-1920

F/P 1921-present

Proposed:


E Pre 1892 (Great Fire)

VG 1892-1945

G 1945-1970

F/P 1971-present

E – Excellent VG - Very Good G – Good F/P – Fair/Poor

INFORMATION NOTE

Information Note Page 2 Designation Criteria Review


1. Budget/Financial Implications: Not applicable.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: T The City, developers, applicants and community groups.


4. Legal or Policy Implications: Not applicable

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: Not applicable.

6. Human Resource Implications: Not applicable.

7. Procurement Implications: Not applicable.


9. Other Implications: Not applicable.

Conclusion/Next Steps: For the BHEP consideration and direction. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: St. John’s Heritage Designation Criterion (Existing)

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Designation Criteria Review Jan 11 2017.docx

Schedule ‘C’

PDE Heritage – FORM 1 Department of Planning, Development and Engineering

Heritage Building Designation

PROPERTY LOCATION _____

Civic Address ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Name Phone (h) (c) Mailing Address Email

ARCHITECTURE (maximum 35) SECTION A

E VG G F/P 1. Style 20 10 5 0 2. Construction 15 8 4 0 3. Age 10 5 2 0 4. Architect 8 4 2 0 5. Design 8 4 2 0 6. Interior 4 2 1 0

Sub Total

HISTORY (maximum 35) SECTION B

7. Person 25 10 5 0 8. Event 15 8 4 0 9. Context 10 5 2 0

Sub Total

ENVIRONMENT (maximum15) SECTION C

10. Continuity 5 3 1 0 11. Setting 5 3 1 0 12. Landmark 5 3 1 0

Sub Total

INTEGRITY (maximum 15) SECTION D _____

13. Site 5 3 1 0 14. Alterations 5 3 2 0 15. Condition 5 3 2 0

Sub Total TOTAL SCORE

SIGNATURE

Reviewed by: Date (yyyy-mm-dd) ________

E - Excellent VG - Very Good G – Good F/P – Fair/Poor

St. John’s Designation Criteria Review Criteria

SECTION A - ARCHITECURE

Criterion Grade

1. Style Notable, rare, unique or early example of a particular architectural style.

E Perfect or extremely early example if many survive; excellent example if few survive.

VG Excellent or very early example if many survive; good example if few survive.

G Good example if many survive.

F/P Of no particular interest.

2. Construction Notable, rare, unique, or early example of a particular material or method of construction.

E Perfect or extremely early example if many survive; excellent example if few survive.

VG Excellent or very early example if many survive; good example if few survive.

G Good example if many survive.

F/P Of no particular interest.


E 1850-1870

VG 1871-1885

G 1886-1920

F/P 1921-present

4. Architect Designed or built by an architect or builder who has made a significant contribution to the community, Province or nation.

E Architect or builder of particular importance to the history of the community, Province or nation.

VG Architect or builder of considerable importance to the history of the community, Province or nation.

G Architect or builder identified and known, but of no particular importance.

F/P Architect or builder unidentified or unknown.

5. Design A particularly attractive or unique building because of the excellence, artistic merit, or uniqueness of its design, composition, craftsmanship or details.

E Excellent.

VG Very Good

G Good

F/P Fair/Poor

6. Interior Interior arrangement, finish, craftsmanship, and/or detail is/are particularly attractive or unique.

E Excellent.

VG Very Good

G Good

F/P Fair/Poor

SECTION B - HISTORY

Criterion Grade

7. Person Associated with the life or activities of a

person, group, organization, or institution that has made a significant contribution to the community, Province or nation.

E Person, group, etc. of primary importance intimately connected with the building.

VG Person, group, etc. of primary importance loosely connected, or person of secondary importance, intimately connected with the building.

G Person, group, etc. of secondary importance loosely connected with the building.

F/P Building has no connection with person, group, etc. of importance.

8. Event Associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to the community, Province or nation.

E Event of primary importance intimately connected with the building.

VG Event of primary importance loosely connected, or event of secondary importance intimately connected with the building.

G Event of secondary importance loosely connected with the building.

F/P Building has no connection with event of importance.

9. Context Associated with and effectively illustrative of broad patterns of cultural, social, political, military, economic or industrial history.

E Patterns of primary importance intimately connected with the building.

VG Patterns of primary importance loosely connected, or patterns of secondary importance intimately connected with the building.

G Patterns of secondary importance loosely connected with the building

F/P Building has no connection with important patterns.

SECTION C - ENVIRONMENT

Criterion Grade

10. Continuity Contributes to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood or area.

E Of particular importance in establishing the dominant character of the area.

VG Of importance in establishing or maintaining the dominant character of the area.

G Compatible with the dominant character of the area.

F/P Incompatible with the dominant character of the area.

11. Setting Setting and/or landscaping contributes to the continuity or character of the street, neighbourhood or area.

E Of particular importance in establishing the dominant character of the area.

VG Of importance in establishing or maintaining the dominant character of the area.

G Compatible with the dominant character of the area.

F/P Incompatible with the dominant character of the area.

12. Landmark A particularly important visual landmark.

E A structure which may be taken as a symbol for the city or region as a whole.

VG A conspicuous and familiar structure in the context of the city or region.

G A conspicuous and familiar structure in the context of the neighbourhood.

F/P Not particularly conspicuous or familiar.

SECTION D - INTEGRITY

Criterion Grade

13. Site Occupies its original site.

E Has not been moved.

VG Has been placed on a new foundation in its original location.

G Has been relocated or reoriented on the original property and near the original site.

F/P Hs been moved to a new site.

14. Alterations Has suffered little alteration, and retains

most of its original materials and design features.

E Unchanged

VG Changed but character retained on all façades.

G Changed but front/street façade character remains.

F/P Character destroyed.

15. Condition Building is in good structural condition.

E Excellent structural condition.

VG Satisfactory structural condition.

G Mediocre structural condition.

F/P Poor structural condition.

E – Excellent VG - Very Good G – Good F/P – Fair/Poor


Title: Review of Robert Mellin’s List of Modern Buildings Date Prepared: December 28, 2016 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Decision/Direction Required: To review Robert Mellin’s List of Modern Buildings and to seek direction as to which properties are worthy of further consideration as potential Heritage Buildings. Discussion – Background and Current Status: Staff was asked to review the potential of designating some of St. John’s modern buildings. Staff initiated the review by considering a List of Modern Buildings submitted by Robert Mellin in 2010. 32 buildings were reviewed and are attached for the Panel’s discussion and consideration. It is recommended that only those that have agreed to be designated be considered at this time. Key Considerations/Implications:

1. Budget/Financial Implications: Costs associated with mail-outs, notices, legal review and obtaining new Heritage Plaques.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders:

The City will partner with the property owners to have their buildings designated as Heritage Buildings.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans:

Values – Continue to do things better. A City for All Seasons – Support year-round tourism and industry activity

4. Legal or Policy Implications: Legal will be asked to undertake designation by-laws to designate those buildings deemed appropriate pursuant to the City of St. John’s Act.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: The property owners will be notified as to their willingness to have their buildings designated. It is recommended that only those that have agreed to designation be considered at this time.

6. Human Resource Implications: Not Applicable


Decision/Direction Note Page 2 Modern Buildings Review

7. Procurement Implications: Not Applicable

8. Information Technology Implications:

Once designated the City’s mapping service will identify the buildings as designated Heritage Buildings.

9. Other Implications: Not Applicable Recommendation: To review Robert Mellin’s List of Modern Buildings and to seek direction as to which properties are worthy of further consideration as potential Heritage Buildings. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: Minutes of the May 17, 2012, HAC Sub-Committee meeting Modern Buildings Review

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Modern Buildings Review Jan 5 2017(amd).docx

MINUTES

A meeting of the Sub-Committee of Heritage Advisory to review the heritage designation of modern architecture

was held on Thursday, May 17, 2012 in the fourth floor conference room “A”, City Hall.

In Attendance: Shane O’Dea, Chairperson George Chalker Gerard Hayes Taryn Sheppard Debbie O’Rielly Anne Hart Peter Mercer, Heritage Officer Karen Chafe, Recording Secretary Mr. Shane O’Dea agreed to chair the Committee. It was agreed that buildings be reviewed from the perspective of the following categories and that the emphasis be placed on the architectural style of the building and its contribution to the streetscape/environment more so than its historic significance. It was also agreed that the period of construction to be considered should be roughly post 1920. Following a cursory review, the Committee cited the following examples as being the best representative buildings within each category:

Category Building(s) Date Notes

Public buildings and structures

Ove Arup Bridge at Bowring Park

City Hall

Architect: Ove Arup (famous for Sydney Opera House)

Referenced Arup Journal of 2009

Interesting example of internationalism

An important landmark that has been overshadowed by overgrown vegetation.

Educational buildings

Littledale Complex 220 Waterford Bridge Road

1965-67 Architect: Bolton, Ellwood & Aimers, Montreal

Concrete material

Brutalism style of architecture “marked by raw and exposed materials” citing Heritage Foundation

Ecclesiastical buildings

St. Michael and All Angels (Lemarchant Road at St. Clare Avenue)

1956 Architect: Keith Graham

Good example of modernism with echoes of Italian futurism;

Flat roof, concrete

Highly visible with a full view from all angles going up and down the street;

Other distinct features include: o Steeple; o Plain façade; o Apse (semi-circular bump) o portico

Residential buildings

Civic No. 7 Rostellan St. 1953 Received Southcott award;

Architect: Paul Machino;

Timber frame house

Property remains in original form with minimal or no renovation

Office buildings 164 McDonald Drive NMA Building Other Examples:

NTA Building

70 Portugal Cove Road (Cummings and Campbell)

49-55 Elizabeth Avenue

Volume without mass

Landscape is important complement to building

Architect: Beaton Sheppard

Commercial/Retail Buildings

Examples cited but decision deferred. Examples:

Smith Stockley, Lemarchant Road

Carnell’s Funeral Home

Bowring’s Parking Garage

Osmond’s Furniture

Tiller Building

At the Committee’s next meeting, more consideration will be given to further research and other examples as well as the development of a criteria list for the designation of modern buildings. The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.

Modern Buildings Review

1) T.A.S. Building, Duckworth Street, St. John’s (largely intact) – 342 Duckworth Street

2) Duckworth Building, Duckworth Street, St. John’s (intact) – 247 Duckworth Street

3) West Fire Station, St. John’s (intact) – 265 LeMarchant Road

4) Churchill Park: concrete apartment building on the square (renovated) - 169-179 Elizabeth Avenue

5) Hickman Motors on Water Street (partially renovated) – 504 Water Street

6) Goldstone Residence, Rostellan St. - 7 Rostellan Street

7) Spencer Residence, - 136 Rennie’s Mill Road

8) St. Mary the Virgin church in the West End of St. John’s (outstanding: intact) - 80 Craigmillar

Avenue.

9) Queen’s College, MUN (neglected) – 214 Prince Phillip Drive

10) Littledale / St. Bride’s College (renovated / restored) - 240 Waterford Bridge Road

11) Holy Heart of Mary High School, St. John’s (intact) – 55 Bonaventure Avenue.

12) Early MUN buildings: Admin, Gym, Library, Science (intact) – 194 Prince Phillip Drive

13) Later MUN buildings: Chem/Physics, Arts/Admin. (intact) – 194 Prince Phillip Drive

14) Bowring Park footbridge (intact: important structure) – 100 Bowring Park Road

15) Bowring Park roadbridge (intact: important structure) – 100 Bowring Park Road

16) Signal Hill interpretation centre (extended, but intact) – Signal Hill Road

17) Imperial Oil Ltd. Building on Elizabeth Avenue: (intact: important!) – 55 Elizabeth Avenue.

18) Confederation Building, St. John’s (intact) – Prince Phillip Drive

19) Holland Hall, St. Bon’s (with Frank Noseworthy): intact – Bonaventure Avenue

20) MacDonald Residence: Forest Avenue (intact) – 3 Forest Avenue

21) Clouston Residence: Elizabeth Ave. at Rostellan St. (intact) -144 Elizabeth Avenue

22) Model home for the Kinsmen: Elizabeth Ave (intact: exterior cladding changed) – 170 Elizabeth Avenue

23) St. Michael’s of All Angels Church, St. John’s (intact) – 10 St. Clare Avenue

24) American Aerated Water Co. Building, LeMarchant Road, St. John’s (lantern recently removed) –

278 LeMarchant Road

25) Cornwall Theatre, LeMarchant Road, St. John’s (renovated, but largely intact) – 264 LeMarchant Road

26) Bowring’s Parking Garage and Department Store (renovated along Water Street) – 281 and 283

Water Street

27) Arts and Culture Centre: St. John’s (intact: collaboration with ARCOP) – 95 Allandale Road

28) Merit Insurance Company Building, Anderson Ave. (renovated) - 25 Anderson Avenue

29) Chimo Building, Freshwater Rd (intact) – 151 Crosbie Road

30) Crosbie Building, Crosbie Rd (intact) – 1 Crosbie Place

31) Carnell’s Funeral Home, Crosbie Rd. and Freshwater Rd. (intact) – 150 Crosbie Road

32) Cummings Residence, Elizabeth Ave. at Rennie’s River (intact) – 143 Elizabeth Avenue – Extensively Renovated Not recommended to be designated.


Title: Heritage By-law Date Prepared: October 24, 2016 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Issue: To provide information to the Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) regarding the proposed Heritage By-law. Discussion – Background and Current Status: Heritage provisions are currently implemented through the City’s Development Regulations pursuant to the Urban and Rural Planning Act. As the Urban and Rural Planning Act does not explicitly reference heritage provisions, and Section 355 of City of St. John’s Act does, the City wishes to implement a new Heritage By-law pursuant to Section 355 of the City of St. John’s Act. A PowerPoint presentation outlining the concept of a new Heritage By-law is attached for your review. Key Considerations/Implications:

1. Budget/Financial Implications: N/A

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Municipal Affairs.


4. Legal or Policy Implications: Will require Legal review to ensure compliance with the City of St. John’s Act.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations: Will require public consultation in keeping with the City of St. John’s Act.

6. Human Resource Implications: N/A

7. Procurement Implications: N/A

INFORMATION NOTE

Information Note Page 2 Heritage By-Law

8. Information Technology Implications: N/A

9. Other Implications: N/A

Conclusion/Next Steps: The Built Heritage Experts Panel will, over the next few months, review the proposed Heritage By-law and upon completion of their review, provide a recommendation to Council with regards to the implementation of a new City of St. John’s Heritage By-law. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: PowerPoint Presentation Flowcharts

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2016\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Heritage By-law Oct 24 2016.docx

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED HERITAGE BY-LAW

City of St. John’s Heritage By-lawStatute Authority: City of St. John’s Act (Section 355)

Water Street Historic District

Why is St. John’s Built Heritage Important?

It is important to preserve our heritage for future generations to enjoy. The City’s built heritage promotes civic pride and a sense of place; supports on-going traditions; strengthens our identity; and, reflects our particular way of life.

City of St. John’s Heritage By-law

Purpose

To provide for the identification, designation, preservation, conservation, protection and rehabilitation of buildings, structures, streetscapes, cultural landscapes, areas and districts of historic, architectural or cultural value, in both urban and rural areas, and to encourage their continued use.

55 Rennie’s Mill Road

City of St. John’s Heritage By-lawIntent of the New Heritage By-law?

To incorporate the City’s built heritage regulations under the City of St. John’s Act.

To provide further clarity to heritage provisions.

To streamline the permit process and enable Council to focus on policy development.

Historic Water Street

City of St. John’s Heritage By-lawHighlights

Provides a mechanism for appeals to the Local Board of Appeal on Heritage Permit applications.

Provides a clear legislative distinction between regulations respecting designated Heritage Buildings and buildings located in Heritage Areas that are not designated Heritage Buildings.

Provides a mechanism for staff to approve or refuse Heritage Permits without the need for a Council’s directive.

Provides descriptive provisions to help clarify the heritage standards.


Demolition Approval will be required for the complete and total demolition, pull down or removal of any designated Heritage Building.

Introduction of a new permit system:

Heritage Permits will be required for substantial alterations to designated Heritage Buildings and for the construction of new buildings as well as for any substantial alterations to any existing buildings in the City’s Heritage Areas. 25 Winter Avenue


Applications for Heritage Permits in compliance with the provisions of this By-law may be issued directly by the Heritage Officer.

Heritage Permit Process:

Applications for Heritage Permits non-compliant with the provisions of this By-law require the submission of a Heritage Report and the Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) review. The BHEP shall provide advice to the Heritage Officer.

Upon consideration of the BHEP advice, those applications considered reasonably consistent with the By-law may be approved by the Heritage Officer.

Upon consideration of the BHEP advice, those applications considered not reasonably consistent with the By-law may be refused by the Heritage Officer. The notification to the applicant of the refusal shall state the reason(s) for refusal.

City of St. John’s Heritage By-lawDemolition Approvals for Designated Heritage Buildings:

Any application for Demolition Approval; the complete and total demolition, pull down or removal of a designated Heritage Building, shall be subject to Council’s approval, at their sole discretion. Council shall not approve the request within two (2) years from the date of a completed application unless:

There is irreversible structural damage or deterioration to the building; and

Council has approved the Salvage Plan describing the means of salvaging, protecting or reusing the building’s materials, character defining elements, and any other significant features of the building.

Demolition Approvals for Designated Heritage Buildings:

If Council does not approve the application for Demolition Approval within two (2) years of the date of receiving a completed application, Council may, at the applicant’s written request, consider the issuance of Demolition Approval, at their sole discretion, at any time after two (2) years but not more than three (3) years after receiving the completed application provided:

1) The owner has publicly offered the property for sale for a minimum period of one (1) year and no contract for the sale has been made; and

2) Council has approved the Salvage Plan describing the means of salvaging, protecting or reusing the building’s materials, character defining elements, and any other significant features of the building.

Demolition Approvals are non-appealable to the Local Board of Appeal.

Richmond Cottage

Demolition Approvals for Heritage Area buildings not designated as Heritage Buildings:

Under the Section 355(7) of the City of St, John’s Act, Council may withhold the issuance of a Demolition Permit for a period not exceeding 90 days pending the designation, by means of a by-law, of the structure as a Heritage Building.

This provision is echoed in Section 1.29 of the Heritage By-law and applies to any structure throughout the City. If Council does not wish to designate the structure as a Heritage Building, a Demolition Permit may be issued.

Demolition of a non-designated building in the City’s Heritage Area will not require Demolition Approval pursuant to the Heritage By-law.

372 Duckworth Street

Heritage By-law: Vinyl Siding StandardsCurrent Standards:

Heritage Areas: Pursuant to Section 5.9.4 of the City’s Development Regulations, vinyl siding may be installed in Heritage Areas 2 and 3. Vinyl siding is prohibited in Heritage Area 1.

Heritage Buildings: Not specifically regulated. However, any alteration requires the approval of Council.

New Heritage By-law:

Heritage Areas: Pursuant to Part 3 and Appendix C, “Heritage Design Standards Table”, vinyl siding may be installed in Heritage Areas 1, 2 and 3 provided it is the straight traditional style designed to replicate wood clapboard reasonably compatible with the cladding/siding style of the existing building.

Heritage Buildings: Pursuant to Part 2 and Appendix C, “Heritage Design Standards Table”, vinyl siding is prohibited.

Additions to Heritage Buildings and buildings located in Heritage Areas are restricted to certain materials however, they do not necessary have to match the existing building’s cladding materials provided the addition is clearly distinguishable from the historic building; enhances the visual prominence of the historic building; and, does not detract from the architectural style of the historic building. In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a change in exterior materials is required to meet Building Code, different cladding/siding materials may be used provided they are reasonably compatible with the building's architectural style and are reasonably consistent with the materials used within the streetscape in which the building is located.


Questions/Comments

Application Received

Heritage Permit process for Heritage Buildings as well as buildings in the heritage areas

Heritage Officer’s Review

14 days to consider if the application is complete or deemed incomplete.

Substantial alterations which are consistent with the Heritage By-law.

Does not require Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) Review

Substantial alterations which are inconsistent with the Heritage By-law.

Requires Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) Review.

HERITAGE REPORT REQUIRED

Heritage Officer approves application within 30 days of receiving a complete application

BHEP reviews and provides advice to Heritage Officer

Application Approved Application Approved Application Refused

Applicant notified of Heritage Officer’s decision

Applicant notified of Heritage Officer’s decision

Upon an application, or on Council’s own motion, Council initiates the process

to have a structure designated as a Heritage Building.

Council approves motion to proceed with a By-law to

designate the structure as a Heritage Building

Council does not approve a motion to proceed with a By-law to designate the structure as a Heritage Building

Designation Process for Heritage Buildings

Heritage Officer’s review.

Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) reviews and provides recommendation to Council

Council provides 30 day notice to owner. Council considers designations By-law

Designation Refused Notice sent to Applicant

Structure is registered in the City’s Registry of Heritage Buildings.

Designation Approved Notice of designation sent to owner

and Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador along

with Statement of Significance.

Application Received.

Deregistration process for a designated Heritage Building

Heritage Officer’s review.

Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) reviews and provides recommendation to Council.

Council may deregister a designated Heritage Building where:

a. the building has been destroyed or damaged by any cause, other than by neglect, abandonment or other action/inaction by the owner; or

b. the continued designation appears to Council to be no longer appropriate as a result of the loss of the building’s heritage value, as identified in the building’s Statement of Significance, unless the loss of the Heritage value was caused by neglect, abandonment or other action/inaction by the owner.

Application Approved Designation By-law Rescinded

Applicant/owner Notified Application Refused

Applicant/owner Notified

Building is removed from the City’s Registry of Heritage Buildings.

Notification is sent to the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Application received complete with Salvage Plan

Council shall not approve application within 2 years unless:

1. There is irreversible structural damage or deterioration to the building; and,

2. Council has approved the Salvage Plan.

Notwithstanding, where Council does not approve the application within the 2 year period, Council may, at

the applicant’s written request, grant Demolition Approval at any time after 2 years, but not more than 3

years from the date of the application, provided:

1. The building is offered for public sale a minimum period of one year; and,

2. Council has approved the Salvage Plan.

Demolition Approval Process for Heritage Buildings

Heritage Officer’s review

Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) reviews and forwards

recommendation to Council.

Council’s Approval Required Demolition Approval is subject to Council’s

approval, at their sole discretion. Council may take up to 2 years to consider an application. Council may request a Heritage Report.

Application Approved

Application Refused


Title: Application for Signage

76 Queen’s Road Date Prepared: January 9, 2017 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel Councillor and Role: Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: 2 Decision/Direction Required: To seek approval for the installation of a ground sign for 76 Queen’s Road, The Kirk, as submitted. Discussion – Background and Current Status: The City received an application to erect a ground sign at 76 Queen’s Road for The Kirk, the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church. The subject property is located in Heritage Area 1, located in the Institutional District and the Institutional (INST) Zone. The building is designated as a Heritage Building. A copy of the Statement of Significance is attached for your review. Pursuant to Section 20 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law, the Heritage Advisory Committee may recommend to Council the acceptance of certain non-conforming signs whose particular design or situation merit such consideration. Council may accept or reject the recommendation provided that no sign approved by Council shall contravene the provisions of the St. John’s Sign By-Law. The proposed ground sign, as submitted, meets the requirements of the Heritage Sign By-law with the exception that it exceeds the maximum size dimension of 3.6m by 1.2m (12ft. by 4ft.) (Section 12(c) of the Heritage Area Sign By-law). Each sign board individually satisfies this requirement 2.44m by 1.22m and 2.44m by 0.61m (8ft. by 4ft. and 8ft. by 2ft.). However, the combination of two (2) sign board creates a sign dimension of 2.44m by 1.83m (8ft. by 6ft.) on a single face. In light of the above, it is recommended that the ground sign as submitted be considered. Key Considerations/Implications:


2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: Applicant, citizens and downtown organizations.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: Neighbourhoods Build our City – Maintain and position downtown as a district neighbourhood.

4. Legal or Policy Implications:


Decision/Direction Note Page 2 76 Queen’s Road

Section 20 of the City’s Heritage Area Sign By-law enables the Built Heritage Experts Panel to recommend to Council the acceptance of certain non-conforming signs whose particular design or situation merit such consideration. Council may accept or reject the recommendation provided that no sign approved by Council shall contravene the provisions of the St. John’s Sign By-Law. The proposed sign complies with the Sign By-Law.





9. Other Implications: Not applicable. Recommendation: That the application for the installation of a ground sign at 76 Queen’s Road for The Kirk, the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, be approved as submitted. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachments: Location Map Applicant’s Submission Statement of Significance

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - 76 Queen's Road Jan 9 2017(amd).docx


76 Queen’s Road – Heritage Area 1; Ecclesiastical District

Statement of Significance

76 Queen’s Road - St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (The Kirk) Formal Recognition Type City of St. John's Heritage Building, Structure, Land or Area Description of Historic Place St. Andrew’s Church is a red and grey brick church built in the Gothic Revival style. Built between 1893 and 1896, St. Andrew’s church is located prominently on a hill above Queen’s Road at Long’s Hill in St. John’s. This designation is confined to the footprint of the building. Heritage Value St. Andrew’s Church is designated as a Municipal Heritage Building due to its architectural and historic values. St. Andrew’s Church is architecturally valuable as a good example of the Gothic Revival style of architecture. Built of brick and stone imported from Scotland, the exterior of the church features a number of Gothic elements. Some of these elements include, pointed arch windows and doors, spire, finials, buttresses and arcading. The church also has a cruciform layout which is typical of a Gothic Revival style church built during this period. While the design of this church is generally very traditional there are some features that make the church unique. For instance, St. Andrew’s has an apsidial front on its south end, which provides an architecturally interesting entrance to the church. Furthermore, the red and black Newfoundland slate used for the roof shingling provides an interesting striping to the building. The size and scale of this church are also important as they stand as a testament to the determination of the Presbyterian community in St. John’s. In 1892, a year before the construction of this church, the Presbyterian community made up only 3% of the total population of St. John’s.

St. Andrew’s Church is also architecturally valuable for its association with architect James Wills. Wills was commissioned to come to St. John’s to repair the Anglican Cathedral after the Great Fire of 1892. While he was here, the congregation of St. Andrew’s Church commissioned him to design their new church. He is also known for designing the Masonic Temple on Cathedral Street. The Kirk boasts one of the world's best collections of Ballentine stained-glass windows from the renowned firm A. Ballentine & Sons of Scotland. Between 1902 and 1926 James Ballentine installed a series of twelve windows depicting various episodes in the life of Jesus Christ. Other windows were added in 1922, 1963, and 1989. St. Andrew’s Church is historically valuable as a symbol of the longevity and determination of the Presbyterian community in St. John’s. The Presbyterian congregation in St.John’s has had a lengthy and colourful history. St. Andrew’s Church, built between 1893 and 1896 is the fourth Presbyterian Church in St. John’s. The first church was built on this site in 1843 and remained on this site until 1876 when in burned. In 1843, the Established Church in Scotland divided, with many in the congregation following the new Free Church. In 1849, St. Andrew’s Church in St. John’s divided and there was a Free Church built on Duckworth Street. These separate congregations continued for about 30 years, until the Free Church burned in 1876. The third Presbyterian Church in St. John’s marked the reunion of the two congregations of the Presbyterian faith. This church was constructed in 1878 on Duckworth Street. This church burned in the Great Fire of 1892. Built after this fire, the current church stands as a testament to a period of great rebuilding in St. John’s. It is built on the site of the first church and incorporates the cornerstone of the third church as well as a medallion featuring a burning bush. This church is likely built on the foundation walls of the original church. In general, St. Andrew’s Church survives as a monument to the 19th Century Scottish influence in the development of St. John’s. Source: City of St. John's, meeting held 1989/07/21 Character Defining Elements All those exterior elements that are representative of the Gothic Revival style of architecture as executed in brick, including:

spire, pointed arch windows, finials, arcading; imported stone and brick construction; cruciform layout; apsidal south front; cornerstone; burning bush medallion; red and black slate roofing; tower with spire; dentils; eaves brackets; rose window and other stained glass windows; and building height, massing, size and dimensions.

Notes of Interest St. Andrew's Church is commonly known as The Kirk. Location and History

Community St. John's

Municipality City of St. John's

Civic Address 076 Queen's Road

Construction 1893 - 1896

Architect James Wills

Builder S.M. Brookfield

Style Gothic Revival

Building Plan Cruciform with Apse

Website Link http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/presbyterian.html


Title: 8 Military Road, St. Thomas Anglican Church Date Prepared: January 11, 2017 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: 2 Issue: To provide an up-date to the Built Heritage Experts Panel (BHEP) regarding 8 Military Road, St. Thomas Anglican Church. Discussion – Background and Current Status: The BHEP during their meeting of December 5, 2016 approved the following motion:

“It is recommended that the request to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with a keystone block wall with the wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted, be approved. In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff’s approval.”

The Planning and Development Committee during their meeting of December 13, 2016 approved the following motion:

“That the Committee recommend Council’s approval to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with either a keystone block wall or a recon wall as well as a wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted. In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff’s approval.”

As noted in the Planning and Development Committee’s motion, both options, the recon block wall option as well as the keystone block wall option, were approved. Council approved the Committee’s recommendation during their meeting of January 9, 2017. The change in motion was a result of an email submitted by Fred Martin of the St. Thomas Anglican Church requesting the Committee to reconsider the Panel’s motion and approve both options. A copy of the email is attached for your review.

INFORMATION NOTE

Information Note Page 2 8 Military Road



2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: Owner, area citizens, concerned citizens and heritage organizations.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: Not applicable.

4. Legal or Policy Implications: Not applicable.






Conclusion/Next Steps: For information only – no further action required. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm Attachment: Email from St. Thomas Anglican Church

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - 8 Military Road - Jan 11 2017.docx

Email from St. Thomas Anglican Church: Hi Arthur: Following receipt of your email I canvassed the senior members of our congregation seeking direction. Responses from the Parish Rector, 2 Church wardens, our treasurer and other members of our Finance/Property Committee were unanimous. We are respectfully requesting that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council that our proposal as provided to the Built Heritage Experts Panel be approved without change. There are potential significant savings to the Parish with the gravity Recon block alternative. We will only know the magnitude of these savings by requesting proposals from contractors for our 2 alternatives,.i.e. the gravity Recon block and the Keystone block. During our deliberations leading up to this point we have agreed with several requests made by the City including the provision of a pedestrian guardrail with Gothic features to complement the Gothic design of our Church’s stained glass windows. Similarly, we have also agreed to the provision of a vehicular guardrail to be built from heavy timbers to enhance the heritage nature of our property. We feel that either of the alternatives as presented will greatly improve the overall appearance of the historic neighborhood in which we reside. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Kind Regards, Fred

From: Arthur MacDonald Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 3:52 PM To: Fred Martin Subject: 8 Military Road - Retaining Wall Hi Fred, Please be advised that the Built Heritage Experts Panel passed a motion pertaining to your submission. Note the Panel recommended the Keystone Block wall and not the Recon Block wall. A copy of their motion is enclosed below for your review. The Panel's recommendation will be proceeding to the next meeting of the Planning and Development Committee scheduled for December 13, 2016. It is anticipated that the recommendation will then be forwarded to Council for their consideration on January 3, 2017.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

I will keep you informed as we go through the process. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Recommendation The Panel recommends that the request to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with a keystone block wall with the wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted, be approved. In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff’s approval. Best Regards, Arthur MacDonald MCIP Planner III - Urban Design and Heritage City of St. John's Department of Planning, Engineering and Regulatory Services John Murphy Building (City Hall Annex), 4th Floor P.O. Box 908, St. John's, NL A1C 5M2 Tel: (709) 570-2041 e-mail: [email protected]


Title: Heritage Financial Incentives Program Review Date Prepared: January 10, 2017 Report To: Chair and Members, Built Heritage Experts Panel Councillor & Role: Councillor Art Puddister, Chair, Planning and Development Committee Ward: All Issue: To update the BHEP on amendments made by Council to the Heritage Financial Incentives Program, as follows:

to clarify the time limits for developments that are eligible for funding; to clarify that vinyl siding is eligible for a grant provided the use of vinyl siding is permissible;

and to change the grant submission timeline to reflect the construction season.

Discussion – Background and Current Status: Council approved the City’s Heritage Financial Incentives Program on July 25, 2016, offering two (2) types of grants

1. Heritage Maintenance Grant; and 2. Heritage Conservation Grant

The City decided to allow those projects that have been completed prior to grant approval to remain eligible for funding assistance. However, no time limit was established as to how far back a development can remain eligible. Council decided to put a time limit in place. During staff discussions, it was mentioned that vinyl siding, where permissible under the City’s regulations, should be identified as being eligible for funding. As well, during staff discussions, it was mentioned that the timeline for funding applications should be moved to the spring rather than the fall to line up with the construction season. Therefore, it is recommended that the submission timelines be between March 1 and May 1 of each year, beginning in 2017.

INFORMATION NOTE

Information Note Page 2 Financial Incentives Review

The following amendments to the Heritage Financial Incentives Program are thus being made:

1) A time limit be placed on developments that are eligible for funding, with the following amendment:

Repeal Section 3.2 and replace with the following:

“3.2 Any work undertaken prior to grant approval shall be identified and may be

considered for funding at Council's discretion provided the City receives the grant application within the time frame as specified in Section 7.1 and within one (1) year of the date the Building Permit was issued.”

2) The use of vinyl siding where permissible under the City’s regulations, be clarified as being

eligible for funding, with the following amendment:

Insert a new section as outlined below:

“3.3 For clarity, the use of vinyl siding where permissible pursuant to City’s regulations shall be eligible for funding.”

3) The timeline for funding applications should be moved to the spring rather than the fall to

line up with the construction season, with the following amendment be considered:

Repeal Section 7.1 and replace it with the following:

“7.1 An application for a Heritage Grant shall be made in writing to the City between March 1st and May 1st.”


1. Budget/Financial Implications: There will be no additional costs associated with the proposed amendments to the Program.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders: The City will partner with the property owners through the Heritage Financial Incentive Program.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans: Fiscally Responsible - Explore complementary public/private partnerships; deliver effective grant programs and services. Values – Continue to do things better.

Information Note Page 3 Financial Incentives Review

4. Legal or Policy Implications: Not applicable.






Conclusion/Next Steps: For information only – no further action required. Prepared by/Signature: Arthur MacDonald, MCIP – Planner III, Urban Design and Heritage Signature: Approved by/Date/Signature: Ken O’Brien, MCIP – Chief Municipal Planner Signature: AMD/dlm

G:\Planning and Development\Planning\2017\Built Heritage Experts Panel\BHEP - Financial Incentives Review Jan 10 2017(amd).docx

agenda - st. john's · adoption of minutes – november 2, 2016 moved – garnet kindervator;...

Documents