AGENDA - Cambridge, Ontariocalendar.cambridge.ca/Council/Detail/2018-07-19-1900... · Please Note:...

Please Note: If you cannot attend the meeting please contact Karin Stieg-Drobig:519-621-0740 Ext. 4816 or by e-mail: [email protected]

Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee No. 07 – 18

AGENDA Thursday, July 19, 2018

Bowman Room, 50 Dickson Street 7:00 p.m.

Meeting Called to Order

Disclosure of Interest

Presentation

Delegations

Approval of June 21, 2018 Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes

THAT the Minutes of the June 21, 2018 meeting of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee be considered for errors and omissions and be adopted.

Agenda Items

1. Notice of Intention to Demolish a Listed Heritage Structure – PP 251 West River Road. File No: D08.04.10

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Councilapprove the notice of intention to demolish the listed heritage structure municipallyknown as 251 West River Road, as the property does not hold enough culturalheritage value to warrant designation for the reasons outlined in report 18-018(MHAC) and the attached Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) dated July2018;

AND THAT the MHAC recommends that Council remove the property from theHeritage Properties Register after demolition of the structures on the property;

001

8

of 2 Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee

Agenda – July 19, 2018

AND FURTHER THAT the MHAC encourages the property owners to salvage and reuse as many of the cobblestone materials, as feasible, into the design of the new dwelling structure and/or new landscaping features planned for the property.

2. Addendum to the Heritage Impact Assessment for PP 22 St. Andrews Street. File No: D08.04.10

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepts the Addendumto the May, 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment and its findings as submitted byLetourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated June 22, 2018 for the design of the newbuilding.

Correspondence

Other Business

a) Chair’s Commentsb) Council Report/Commentsc) Staff/Senior Planner - Heritage Comments

Next Meeting:

Date & Time: August 16, 2018 at 7 p.m. (Tentative) Location: Council Chambers, Historic City Hall, 46 Dickson St.

Close of Meeting

THAT the MHAC meeting does now adjourn at p.m.

Distribution:

Amy Barnes, Michael Cahill, Nelson Cecilia, Michelle Goodridge, Kimberly Livingstone, Angela Mason, John Oldfield, Scott Roberts, Councillor Pam Wolf, Nancy Woodman.

002

36

ECM\Planning Services\Committees\MHAC\MHAC Agendas and Minutes\Minutes\2018 Minutes\June\06_21_2018 MHAC Minutes

MINUTES Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee

Meeting #6 - 18 June 21, 2018

Council Chambers, Cambridge City Hall 46 Dickson Street, Cambridge, Ontario

7:00 p.m.

Committee Members in Attendance: Nelson Cecilia, Kimberly Livingstone, Angela Mason, Councillor Pam Wolf and Nancy Woodman with John Oldfield in the Chair

Regrets: Amy Barnes, Michael Cahill, Michelle Goodridge, and Scott Roberts

Staff in Attendance: Laura Waldie, Senior Planner- Heritage and Karin Stieg-Drobig, Recording Secretary

Meeting Called to Order

The regular meeting of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee was held in Council Chambers, 46 Dickson Street, Cambridge, Ontario. Chair, John Oldfield, welcomed everyone present and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

Declarations of Interest – NIL

Presentations

1. Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP, MHBC Planning, shared a powerpoint presentation on the proposed alterations to the main barn and coach house at 55 Fallbrook Lane. She provided a brief history of the buildings, explaining the historical value of the buildings which date back to the early 1830s. The John Bechtel Barn is recognized as very historic, and the proposal is to blend old and new elements. Details of the proposed changes and assurance of adaptive reuse of salvaged items was provided. John Oldfield thanked Vanessa Hicks for her presentation and detailed assessment.

2. Amy Barnes, Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. was unable to attend to give her presentation regarding the proposed demolition of 22 St. Andrews St.

Delegations

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Moved by: Councillor Wolf Seconded by: Kimberly Livingstone

003

of 5 Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee June 21, 2018


THAT the minutes of the May 17, 2018 meeting of the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee be considered for errors and omissions and be adopted.

CARRIED

Reports

1. Alteration to a Part V Designated Property:- 55 Fallbrook Lane: File No.: R01.01.01

At the request of Laura Waldie,Senior Planner – Heritage, John Oldield advised the MHAC of a friendly amendment to the recommendations of the report that the metal chimney pipe colour match the roof rather than the barn siding on both the coach house and main barn.The MHAC members agreed to the friendly amendment. Nelson Cecilia questioned the structural impact of the second floor west elevation conversion from window to door. Vanessa Hicks assured the MHAC a structural engineer was consulted and determined the change to be structurally safe.

Moved by: Nelson Cecilia Seconded by: Kimberly Livingstone

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepts the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and all its findings as prepared by MHBC Planning dated April, 2018;

AND FURTHER THAT the MHAC recommends that Council approve:

• the request to alter the property by adding a metal chimney pipe in a colour to match the roof siding on the coach house’s north elevation;

• the addition of a metal chimney clad in the same colour material as the roof to the south elevation of the main barn;

• the conversion of a window to a door on the second floor west elevation of the main barn;

• the demolition of the caretaker’s addition located on the west elevation of the main barn;

• the construction of a new one storey brick addition/garage with a rooftop terrace on the west elevation of the main barn;

• the addition of a glass enclosed vestibule entrance onto the southeast elevation of the main barn.

CARRIED AS AMENDED

004



2. Notice of Intention to Demolish a Heritage Listed Property – 22 St. Andrews Street File No. D08.04.10

Moved by: Kimberly Livingstone Seconded by: Nancy Woodman

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepts the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) and its findings as submitted by Latourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated May 2018;

AND THAT the MHAC recommends that Council approve the notice of intention to demolish the listed heritage property municipally known as 22 St Andrews Street, as the property does not hold enough cultural heritage value to warrant designation for the reasons outlined in the CHIA submitted by Latourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated May 2018;

AND THAT the MHAC recommends that Council remove 22 St. Andrews Street from the Heritage Properties Register once the property is demolished;

AND THAT the MHAC has no objection to final approval of the variance application to merge the lots at 22 and 22 ½ St. Andrews Street and to reduce the front yard setbacks of the new lot (File No: A31/18);

AND FURTHER THAT an addendum to the May 2018 CHIA will be submitted for review by the MHAC in the future for the construction of a new dwelling on the merged lot.

CARRIED

3. Request for Funding from the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program- 20 Albert Street File No.: R01.01.72


THAT the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) recommends the application for funding from the 2018 Operating Budget be approved by the Deputy City Manager of Community Development for the designated property municipally known as 20 Albert Street, to a maximum of $3,114 for the replacement of the existing gutters, downspouts and repair of the wood siding on the second floor addition;

AND THAT the approved work must be completed by November 1, 2018;

005



AND FURTHER THAT the grant be conditional upon the approval of the completed work through a site visit by the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee and/or its designated representative.

CARRIED

4. Blair Road Reconstruction Project – Compromise Solution – File No. R01.01.03

Members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (ACC) met with MHAC members, staff members Laura Waldie and Michael McGann and Blair Road residents to discuss a workable solution to satisfy both accessibility and heritage concerns raised at the Planning and Development Committee meeting June 5, 2018. Nancy Woodman thanked Staff on behalf of the Blair residents for their work in facilitating a positive solution for all parties.

Moved by: Kimberly Livingstone Seconded by: Nelson Cecilia

THAT the MHAC recommends that Council approve the compromise solution reached on June 20, 2018 for the Blair Road Reconstruction Project as outlined in Report 18-019(MHAC)

CARRIED

Correspondence

Other Business

Chair’s Comments:

John Oldfield commented that he was appreciative of comments and willingness to work together for a common goal at the Blair Road Reconstruction Project Compromise Meeting the previous day.

Council Report/ Comments:

Councillor Wolf advised the Heritage Designated Preston Springs Hotel at 102 Fountain St. S., is not a feasibile site for affordable housing units as previously hoped due to the extensive work required. The City has been working with the owner to find a viable solution for the currently vacant building.

The Old Post Office Project is experiencing last minute construction delays due to subcontractors. While the scheduled grand opening for July 6th will go ahead, the main elevator will not be functional until the following week. Library staff is also experiencing

006



delays with furniture delivery and larger items requiring the elevator. It is hoped other areas of concern will be completed for opening day.

Staff/Senior Planner- Heritage comments:

Laura Waldie advised she was made aware this week of a request to demolish the Heritage Listed building at 251 West River Road.The cobblestone construction of this house built in 1925 is quite rare in this area. A site visit has been arranged for Tuesday June 26th at 4pm for any available MHAC members to view the site. Laura has explained the process to the homeowners and requirements under regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The filing of the new EA on Riverside Dam will be heard at General Committee on June 26, 2018 if any MHAC members would like to attend.

Volunteers are being sought for the Doors Open event on September 15, 2018 to provide guided tours across the Pedestrian Bridge. . The theme for this year is “Infrastructure and Industrial Heritage”. Committee members were asked if they would like to help out with tours of the Pedestrian Bridge, they are to contact Shane Taylor, City of Cambridge Landscape Architect..

Next Meeting

Date & Time: July 19, 2018, 7:00 p.m. Location: Bowman Room, City Hall, 50 Dickson St.

Close of Meeting


THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee meeting does now adjourn at 8:07 p.m.

CARRIED

Chairperson John Oldfield

Recording Secretary Karin Stieg-Drobig

007

Meeting Date: 07/19/2018 Report #: 18-018(MHAC)

To: Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee

Report Date: 07/03/2018

Report Author: Laura Waldie, MA, CAHP, Senior Planner - Heritage

Department: Community Development

Division: Planning Services

Report Title: Notice of Intention to Demolish – 251 West River Road

File No: D08.04.10

Ward No: 6

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Council approve the notice of intention to demolish the listed heritage structure municipally known as 251 West River Road, as the property does not hold enough cultural heritage value to warrant designation for the reasons outlined in report 18-018(MHAC) and the attached Cultural Heritage Assessment (CHA) dated July 2018;

AND THAT the MHAC recommends that Council remove the property from the Heritage Properties Register after demolition of the structures on the property;

AND FURTHER THAT the MHAC encourages the property owners to salvage and reuse as many of the cobblestone materials, where feasible, into the design of the new dwelling structure and/or new landscaping features planned for the property.

SUMMARY

• The subject property is listed on the City’s Heritage Properties Register. It is not designated.

008

• The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling structure and attached garage and to construct a new dwelling with attached garage.

• The notice of intention to demolish is the result of a building permit application having been submitted to the City on June 11, 2018. The request to demolish is not the result of a development application. Therefore, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is not required.

• The 60 day waiting period for demolition expires on August 11, 2018.

BACKGROUND

Aerial Image of 251 West River Road

The subject property was added to the Heritage Properties Register in the 1990s because it had been featured in the Cambridge Times Landmark Series. The Landmark Series was a recurring column in the Cambridge Times which profiled a different property believed to hold some cultural heritage value. Many of the properties featured

009

in the Landmark Series were added to the Register as listed properties of interest. The subject property is not designated.

The subject property was constructed in 1925 by Water Cross, a Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) employee at a cost of $4,200. The exterior of the ground floor is faced with cobblestones placed in a random pattern. It is believed that the cobblestones used in the construction were found on the property. It is believed that Walter Cross constructed a total of four cobblestone houses along West River Road, two of which still exist at 197 West River Road and 259 West River Road. Another cobblestone house believed to have been built by Walter Cross was demolished in 2011 due to structural issues uncovered during renovation.

Front, or West, Façade of 251 West River Road

On June 11, 2018, the agent for the property owner submitted a building permit application for the demolition of 251 West River Road. The property owners’ plans are to demolish the existing house and to build a new 3,000 square foot home. The 60 day waiting period for demolition under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act expires on

010

August 11, 2018. As the demolition permit application is not part of a development application, the City was not able to request the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to be reviewed by the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC).

The Senior Planner – Heritage arranged a site visit for members of the MHAC on June 26, 2018 to meet with the property owners and the Project Manager/Designer to discuss the project and to conduct an analysis of the structure’s cultural heritage value. The property owners indicated that when they purchased the property in 2017, their intent was to keep the original house and to construct a couple of additions and dig the foundations deeper to provide more useable space in the basement. In the end, it was determined that to restore the house, make improvements to the basement and to build additions, would have cost them $600,000 more than if they were to demolish and build a new structure.

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PLACE: To take care of, celebrate and share the great features in Cambridge that we love and mean the most to us.

Goal #3 - Arts, Culture, Heritage and Architecture

Objective 3.2 Conserve and make positive contributions to our heritage districts and buildings throughout the community.

Existing Policy/By-Law: Ontario Heritage Act

Section 27 (3) Prescribes the 60 day waiting period for the demolition of a non-designated property on a Municipal Heritage Register.

Regulation 9/06 is the section of the Ontario Heritage Act that is used to evaluate the cultural heritage value of a property to determine if it merits designation to protect against demolition.

City of Cambridge Official Plan

Section 4.2.2 c) Describes the salvage and re-use of building materials if a cultural heritage resource is to be lost to prevent materials from ending up in the landfill.

Section 4.3.1 Indicates that the City will encourage the conservation of cultural heritage resources by maintaining a Heritage Register of properties both listed and designated.

011

Section 4.4 Outlines the criteria used to determine the cultural heritage significance of properties being considered for inclusion on the Heritage Properties Register as listed properties of interest.

Financial Impact: The costs of demolition and rebuild are the responsibility of the property owners.

Public Input: The Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) meetings are open to the public

Internal/External Consultation: The Senior Planner – Heritage liaised with the property owners and project manager on the legislated process for reviewing a demolition application of a listed heritage building.

Staff and members of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) conducted a site visit to the property on June 26, 2018 to ascertain the building’s cultural heritage value.

Comments/Analysis: The property was researched for any historical associations with the property and the structure was analyzed against Regulation 9/06 (Attachment 1). A detailed Cultural Heritage Assessment of the property is found in Attachment 2. Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act has three main criteria, each with three sub-criteria for a total of nine. The property at 251 West River Road only qualifies for one criterion under Regulation 9/06. That criterion is that is demonstrates a rare form of building materials. The house is faced with mortared cobblestones, which is a rare building material in Cambridge. A property only needs to demonstrate one criterion under Regulation 9/06 to be considered worthy of designation. However, the more criteria a property can meet, the stronger the argument for designation will be should a notice of intention to designate be appealed. The property owners of 251 West River Road have indicated that they are not in favour of designation and would appeal any notice of intention to designate to the Conservation Review Board (CRB) for a hearing.

The property was also assessed against Section 4.4 of the Cambridge Official Plan which is the criteria used in determining the cultural heritage significance of a property to warrant its inclusion on the Heritage Properties Register as a listed property of interest (Attachment 1). The analysis determined that the property met only one of the 12 criteria listed. In order for a property to be included on the Heritage Properties Register as a listed property of interest, a property must meet two of the 12 Official Plan criteria.

Planning staff at the Region of Waterloo were also contacted during the historical research phase. The Region has no information on the property at 251 West River

012

Road, likely because of the construction date of 1925. Regional assessments of a property’s cultural heritage value tend to consider early to mid-nineteenth century properties as having the most regional significance. West River Road has also not been identified by the Region as a scenic road or special character street. The Cambridge Heritage Master Plan has also not identified the property as a significant cultural heritage feature, nor has West River Road been identified as a scenic route or an area of cultural opportunity.

The property has undergone several alterations which have diminished its cultural heritage value over the years. All the windows have been replaced with aluminum or vinyl while two additions have been added to the rear, east façade.

Rear, or East, Façade of 251 West River Road

The basement ceiling height is also not up to Ontario Building Code standards. Under the Building Code, basement spaces are permitted to be as low as 1.98 metres (six feet five inches) high under all beams and ducts. However, at least 75% of the required floor area must be at least 2.1 metres (six feet and eleven inches) high. The basement ceiling at 251 West River Road is approximately 1.8 metres (six feet) at its highest point.

013

To bring the basement up to Code standards, the footings would have to be dug deeper, potentially causing harm to the foundation walls. It had been noted on the June 26, 2018 site visit that a jack post had been installed at some point in the northeast corner of the basement.

The City’s Official Plan also encourages property owners to salvage and re-use building materials if a cultural heritage resource cannot be conserved. The property owners are encouraged to incorporate the cobblestone materials, where feasible, into the new development on site.

Because of the reasons outlined in staff report 18-018(MHAC), the Cultural Heritage Assessment, and the analysis of Regulation 9/06 and Section 4.4 of the Official Plan, staff recommends that the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee recommends Council approve the demolition of the structure at 251 West River Road because it does not hold enough cultural heritage value to warrant designation to protect against demolition.

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Departmental Approval:

ATTACHMENTS

1. Property Analysis against Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act and Section 4.4 of the Cambridge Official Plan

2. Cultural Heritage Assessment for 251 West River Road as prepared by Laura Waldie, Senior Planner – Heritage, City of Cambridge, dated July 2018.

014

18-018(MHAC) ATTACHMENT 1 Notice of Intention to Demolish 251 West River Road July 19, 2018 O.Reg.9/06 Criteria Criteria Met Justification

1. The property has design value or physical value because it,

i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method;

Yes

The building is a rare example in Cambridge of cobblestone building materials.

ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or

No

The building does not display any high degree of craftsmanship. The building was constructed using common methods and has been heavily altered over the years.

iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

No

The building does not demonstrate a high degree of technical of scientific achievement.

2. The property has historical or associative value because it,

i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community;

No

The house was constructed in 1925 by Walter Cross. His brother Lyn owned a nearby raspberry farm. Lyn’s son John Arthur Cross operated Crosses Flower Shop. Walter was not known to have been associated in his brother’s family ventures.

ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a

No

It does not yield, or have the potential to yield, information that contributes to the understanding of a

015

18-018(MHAC) ATTACHMENT 1 Notice of Intention to Demolish 251 West River Road July 19, 2018 O.Reg.9/06 Criteria Criteria Met Justification

community or culture; or community because no significant event is associated with the property.

iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

No

The builder was Walter Cross who was not considered a significant builder in the community.

3. The property has contextual value because it,

i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

No The property is not considered important to defining the character of the area.

ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or

No The property is not physically or historically linked to its surroundings as the surroundings have changed over the last few decades.

iii. is a landmark. No The property is not known to the community to be a landmark

016

18-018(MHAC) ATTACHMENT 1 Notice of Intention to Demolish 251 West River Road July 19, 2018

1

Official Plan Criteria for Cultural Heritage Value or

Interest (CHVI)

Criteria Met Justification

i) it dates from an early period in the development of the city’s communities;

No

The building was constructed in 1925 which is not considered an early period in the development of Cambridge

ii) it is a representative example of the work of an outstanding local, national or international architect, engineer, builder, designer, landscape architect, interior designer, sculptor, or other artisan and is well preserved or may be rehabilitated;

No

The builder was Walter Cross who constructed the home for his family. Cross was not an outstanding local architect or builder.

iii) it is associated with a person who is recognized as having made an important contribution to the city’s social, cultural, political, economic, technological or physical development or as having materially influenced the course of local, regional, provincial, national or international history;

No

The structure is not associated with anyone who made a significant contribution to the community.

iv) it is directly associated with an historic event which is recognized as having local, regional, provincial, national or international importance;

No

The structure is not associated with any event of importance.

017


2


Interest (CHVI)


v) it is a representative example and illustration of the city’s social, cultural, political, economic or technological development history;

No

The structure is not an example or illustration of the city’s social, cultural, political, economic or technological development history

vi) it is a representative example of a method of construction now rarely used;

Yes

It is an example of cobblestone construction which is now rarely used.

vii) it is a representative example of its architectural style or period of building;

No

It is not a representative example of its architectural style because many of the original attributes have been altered or replaced over the decades.

viii) it is a representative example of architectural design;

No

It is not a representative example of architectural design. It is a modest 1920s vernacular structure.

ix) it terminates a view or otherwise makes an important contribution to the urban composition or streetscape of which it forms a part;

No

It does not terminate a view nor does it make an important contribution to the urban composition or streetscape.

x) it is generally recognized as an important landmark;

No

This structure is not recognized in the community as an important landmark.

018


3


Interest (CHVI)


xi) it is a representative example of outstanding interior design; or

No

The structure does not have outstanding interior design as there have been several alterations over the years.

xii) it is an example of a rare or otherwise important feature of good urban design or streetscaping.

No

It is not considered a rare or important feature of good urban design or streetscaping.

019

251 West River Road, Cambridge, Ontario 1925

Cultural Heritage Assessment

Laura Waldie, MA, CAHP, Senior Planner - Heritage Community Development Department, Planning Services Division

July, 2018

ATTACHMENT 2

020

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 1

2. Location Map ....................................................................................................... 1

3. Cultural Heritage Value ......................................................................................... 2

i) Design/Physical Value .............................................................................................. 3

ii) Historical/Associative Value ..................................................................................... 8

iii) Contextual Value ................................................................................................... 11

4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 13

021

Cultural Heritage Assessment for 251 West River Road July, 2018 18-018(MHAC) Attachment 1

1

1. Executive Summary

The property, located at 251 West River Road, does not merit designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act because it does not yield any design/physical value, historical/associative value, or contextual value. The property is comprised of a one and a half storey cobblestone-faced residential structure with gambrel roof line and aluminum siding, with an attached wood framed, single vehicle garage. The main structure was constructed in 1925. This report recommends that the property owners’ request to demolish the structure be approval by Council.

2. Location Map

The legal description of the property, known municipally as 251 West River Road, is PLAN CON 9 SUB DIV PT LOT 3 WGR PT RD ALLOW RP67R1627 PART 1 RP67R2296 PART 3 The property faces west on West River Road and has a 274 metre (900 foot) deep lot backing onto the Grand River.

Aerial Map for 251 West River Road

022


2

3. Cultural Heritage Value

In order to merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, a property must have physical/design, historical/associative and/or contextual value. Ontario Regulation 9/06 lays out nine specific criteria. A property must meets one or more of the following nine criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest to warrant designation. Highlighted in red below is the only criterion which applies to 251 West River Road:

1) The property has design value or physical value because it,

i) is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, or

ii) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

2) The property has historical value or associative value because it,

i) has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, or

ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or

iii) demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

3) The property has contextual value because it,

i) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, or

ii) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or

iii) is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

Although the subject property meets one of the nine criteria under Regulation 9/06, it is not strong enough to warrant designation of the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The only identified cultural heritage attribute of the property is the cobblestone facing on the main structure.

023


3

i) Design/Physical Value

City of Cambridge Planning staff and members of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee conducted a site visit to the property on June 26, 2018 to determine any identifiable cultural heritage attributes. The property located at 251 West River Road, is a local vernacular expression of the Ontario cottage style of architecture. The Ontario Cottage style was found mainly in rural areas and small communities and was prevalent from 1830 to the early twentieth century.

The Ontario Cottage vernacular style grew from the merging of the Gothic Revival and Neo-Gothic architectural styles. Peaked central gables of the front façade were typical characteristics of the Gothic Revival style. The vernacular style often eliminated these peaked central gables and were replaced with dormers or truncated rooflines. The Ontario cottage style was typically a rectangular plan with a central staircase which divided the lower level into two distinct sides. Ontario cottage style roofs usually were medium to high pitched front to the back in design. However, the roofline at 251 West River Road is a gambrel shape which began to become prevalent in Ontario cottage architecture from about 1910 to the 1940s. Gambrel roofs offered more attic space for storage and/or living area than the previous pitched roofs of the Ontario Gothic Revival

style. The west and east facing roof lines also each have a shed dormer extending approximately two thirds of the length of the roofline and containing three rectangular one-over-one windows in modern materials. The east façade shed dormer facing the Grand River was heavily altered in the late twentieth century by converting it into an upper floor sunroom.

This sunroom appears to be an extension of the original shed dormer and sits flush with the porch roof above the back terrace to the house. It appears that the main supports for the sunroom addition are the cobblestone faced columns on the north and south

024


4

ends of the porch deck. It is unknown if the cobblestone faced columns are constructed of wood, concrete or another material.

Sunroom on East Façade

The rear, east facing façade also has another addition on the south side that was constructed sometime in the late twentieth century. This room has a large, rectangular segmented window to take advantage of the views of the property down to the Grand River.

025


5

East Façade

The structure sits on a heavily parged concrete foundation. Visual inspection of the basement walls did not appear to show any evidence of cracking or leaking concerns. However, a sump pump and dry well were present in the basement. The main construction material on the first floor exterior is mortared cobblestone placed in random order according to stone size. The south elevation chimney is also clad in cobblestone as well as the east façade columns supporting the sunroom addition. Cobblestone is a rare building material found in Cambridge. It is believed that the cobblestones were found on site, near the river, and used because of their close proximity.

The cobblestone construction method arrived in Canada in the 1830s by American craftsmen who emigrated from New York State. Cobblestone began to make its appearance in the American northwest region during the construction of the Erie Canal from 1817 to 1825. These small, rounded stones were harvested from fields and shorelines as inexpensive and readily available building materials. The National Park Service of America estimates that nearly 900 properties within a 75 mile radius of

026


6

Rochester, New York, are constructed of cobblestone, making it the highest concentration of cobblestone structures in North America. Paris, Ontario is considered to be the cobblestone capital of Canada because of the number of cobblestone structures that survive in the region. Here, many of the cobblestone structures follow a more formal construction method of evenly spaced ribbon pointed mortar rows filled with equal sized cobbles.

Door Detail, Plains Church, Paris Ontario (Courtesy: Flickr, 2018)

The ribbon pointed mortar method of construction found in Paris, Ontario was introduced in 1838 by master stonemason, Levi Boughton. Levi Boughton emigrated to Brant from New York State in 1835 then relocated to Paris in 1838 where he remained

027


7

until his death in 1895. The 13 surviving cobblestone structures found in Paris are attributed to Boughton. The County of Brant estimates that each cobble was, on average, the size of a small sweet potato and it took approximately 14,000 cobblestones to construct the average house. Paris has the largest concentration of ribbon pointed mortar cobblestone structures in Canada. By the time of Boughton’s death in 1895, cobblestone constructed houses were not typically found again in Brant County. The house at 251 West River Road does not follow the ribbon pointed style of construction. Cobblestone materials were readily available on site due to its proximity to the Grand River and because of that availability, were likely considered by the builder as a cost effective building material.

All of the windows at 251 West River Road have been replaced in recent years with either aluminum or vinyl. The windows on the ground floor have pre-cast sills and lintels while the upper floor windows have wood sills painted hunter green. The upper floor materials are aluminum siding which appears to be covering up another siding material. It could not be determined at the June 26, 2018 site visit if the original siding was wood or aluminum. The siding on the new additions on the east façade is white vinyl.

There are three different roofing materials found on the property. The main gambrel portion is clad in hunter green shake style metal roofing. This style would have been commonly found on late nineteenth and early twentieth

century farmhouse roofs. There is sheet metal roofing over the back terrace porch area and asphalt shingles are present on the two modern additions on the east façade. There is no cultural heritage value found in the window materials, roofing materials or the upper floor cladding material.

The basement ceiling height is also not up to Ontario Building Code standards. Under the Building Code, basement spaces are permitted to be as low as 1.98 metres (six feet and five inches) high under all beams and ducts. However, at least 75% of the required

028


8

floor area must be at least 2.1 metres (six feet eleven inches) high. The basement ceiling at 251 West River Road is approximately 1.8 metres (six feet) at its highest point. To bring the basement up to Code standards, the footings would have to be dug deeper, potentially causing harm to the foundation walls. It had been noted on the June 26, 2018 site visit that a jack post had been installed at some point in the northeast corner of the basement.

In terms of Regulation 9/06, the following design or architectural value was evaluated:

1) The property has design value or physical value because it, i) is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type,

expression, material or construction method:

Yes, cobblestone materials are rare construction materials found in Cambridge.

ii) displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit;

No. The cobblestone materials were not placed in a formal pattern such as the ribbon pointed mortar rows found in Paris, Ontario or in the northeast United States but placed randomly on the wall according to size. The windows and east façade additions have been constructed/replaced with vinyl materials.

iii) demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.

No. This is a modest house constructed with modest materials and modest methods.

ii) Historical/Associative Value

The Land Registry abstracts were consulted to determine when the house may have been constructed and by whom. A deed of land indenture dated August 29, 1922 shows that John McCarthy, a grocer from Galt, sold a parcel of land to Walter Cross, an employee with the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), for $337. The lot included a road allowance immediately to the north between Concessions nine and ten. The earliest land surveys in City records date back to the 1950s for the properties immediately north of 251 West River Road. Most of the other lot surveys date to the 1980s and 1990s. The earliest land survey for the subject property in City records dates to 1980.

The sale price in 1922 for the lot at 251 West River Road suggests the property was a vacant lot. On July 14, 1924, Walter Cross entered into a mortgage agreement with Andrew Laurie of the Township of Blenheim in the amount of $4,200. The substantial jump in price of the lot from 1922 to 1924 would suggest that the current structure was built in 1924.

029


9

1980 Land Survey for 251 West River Road

Not much is known about Walter Cross and his time at 251 West River Road. It is known that, at one time, the house and adjacent properties were surrounded by raspberry patches known in the area as the Berry Patch. In 1999 when the west side of West River Road was being redeveloped, Berry Patch Lane was named in honour of the former raspberry patches that existed there.

In August 1999, a Landmark Series article published in the Cambridge Times profiling the house at 251 West River Road mentions that Walter Cross constructed three other cobblestone houses along West River Road. It is believed that these homes may have been constructed for family members who worked in the nearby raspberry patches. Two other cobblestone properties believed to have been built by Walter Cross are at 197 and 259 West River Road. Both properties are listed on the Heritage Properties Register and are not designated. Another cobblestone property located at 263 West River Road which was believed to have been built by Walter Cross was demolished in 2011 due to structural issues. Land Registry records for West River Road do indicate that Water’s

030


10

brother Lyn owned property that had been transferred to him by Walter in the 1950s. Walter Cross lived at 251 West River Road until his death in 1975.

Lyn Cross was a farmer in the Berry Patch and his son, John Arthur Cross, also lived for a time on West River Road. John Cross was probably best known to the community as the owner of Crosses Flowers which was located on St Andrews Street until 1974, where the shop was relocated to Water Street where it eventually closed.

Planning staff at the Region of Waterloo were also contacted during the historical research phase. The Region has no information on the property at 251 West River Road likely because of the construction date of 1925. Regional records tend to consider early to mid-nineteenth century properties as having regional cultural heritage significance. Therefore, the Region does not consider the property to have regional cultural heritage significance. West River Road has also not been identified by the Region as a scenic road or special character street. The Cambridge Heritage Master Plan has also not identified the property as a significant cultural heritage feature, nor has West River Road been identified as a scenic route or an area of cultural opportunity.

In terms of Regulation 9/06, the following historical and associative value was evaluated:

1) The property has historical value or associative value because it, i) has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity,

organization or institution that is significant to a community;

No. The builder, Walter Cross, is not considered to be significant to the community. He constructed the modest home in 1925 as the principal dwelling for himself and his family.

ii) yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture

No. The home does not have the potential to yield an understanding about the community or of a particular culture.

iii) demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.

No. The property does not reflect the ideas of a builder who is significant to the community. The structure is a modestly constructed early twentieth structure that was used as a family home for the builder for 50 years. Walter Cross’s contribution to the built urban fabric of Galt is not considered significant to the community.

031


11

iii) Contextual Value The property at 251 West River Road does not have contextual value because it is not considered important in defining the character of the area. It is a very modest early twentieth century structure which has never been considered as a landmark to the community. The raspberry patches, which surrounded the area, have long been removed. Although a few stone and cobblestone houses still remain in the immediate area, the area has undergone significant development change over the last 30 years.

In 2011, the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee considered a request to demolish 263 West River Road, which was a cobblestone structure listed on the Heritage Properties Register as a property of interest. The property owners attempted to restore the cobblestone home but found several structural issues that may have been cause by improperly constructed additions onto the main structure. As a result, the cobblestone house was demolished and a new home built in its place.

Demolition of 263 West River Road, October 2011

032


12

The new home at 263 West River Road is single storey dwelling from the streetscape with a walkout basement area on the east elevation. During the research phase of this report into how the contextual value of the neighbourhood is changing, it was discovered that 263 West River Road had not been removed from the Heritage Properties Register. Staff has now removed the property from the Register.

Replacement structure at 263 West River Road, 2018

In terms of Regulation 9/06, the following contextual value was evaluated:

1) The property has contextual value because it,

i) is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area;

No. The character of the area has changed significantly since the 1980s with new development on the west side of West River Road. Infill housing along the east side of West River Road has also begun to change the character of the neighbourhood.

ii) is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings;

No. The streetscape on both the east and west side of West River Road has changed significantly over the last 30 years. The cohesive nature of the streetscape has changed with the construction of large homes in the vicinity.

iii) is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).

No. The structure is not considered to be a landmark in the community.

033


13

4. Conclusions

Based on the evaluation of the property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, which is the criteria required to determine eligibility for heritage designations in Ontario, staff recommends that the property is not worthy of designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act because it does not hold sufficient physical/design value, historical/associative value and contextual value to warrant protection against demolition. Staff believes the property only meets one of nine criteria as contained in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act:

1) The property has design value or physical value because it,

i) is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method.

This criterion was met because the method of cobblestone construction is rare in Cambridge. As the property owners are not in favour of designation of the property, it is believed that the owners would appeal a designation process to the Conservation Review Board. A recommendation to designate would be more successful during an appeal process if it were determined that the property met as many criteria as possible under Regulation 9/06. This property does not.

The property at 251 West River Road is a modest example of a working class Ontario Cottage structure faced with cobblestones and aluminum siding. The structure has a historical association with Walter Cross, who did not make a significant impact on the community of Galt. The structure also no longer has contextual value as it is not considered a landmark to the community and does not contribute to the character of an area.

034


14

References

1901, 1921 Census of Canada, http://www.ancestry.ca

Land Registry Abstracts for CON 9 SUB DIV PT LOT 3 WGR PT RD ALLOW RP67R1627 PART 1 RP67R2296 PART 3

Rippon, Stephen. Making Sense of the Historic Landscape (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Vernon Directories, 1920-1965.

Waterloo Historical Society’s Seventh Annual Report, 1919. City of Cambridge Archives

Waterloo Region Generations Website: Cross family of Galt, http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/

Photo Credits

Karin Stieg-Drobig, Clerical Assistant and Recording Secretary to the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, Community Development Department, Policy Planning Division, City of Cambridge

Laura Waldie, Senior Planner – Heritage, Community Development Department, Policy Planning Division, City of Cambridge

Google Earth Pro

City of Cambridge Building Services

Special Thanks To

Bridget Coady, Principal Planner - Cultural Heritage, Region of Waterloo

Hazel Ross, Law Clerk, City of Cambridge

Dan Schmalz, Corporate Records Analyst, City of Cambridge

035

http://www.ancestry.ca/

http://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/

Meeting Date: 07/19/2018 Report #: 18-020(MHAC)

To: Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee

Report Date: 07/05/2018

Report Author: Laura Waldie, MA, CAHP, Senior Planner-Heritage

Department: Community Development

Division: Planning Services

Report Title: 22 and 22 ½ St Andrews Street HIA Addendum

File No: D08.04.10

Ward No: 5

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepts the Addendum to the May, 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment for 22 and 22 ½ St Andrews Street and its findings as submitted by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated June 22, 2018 for the design of the new building.

SUMMARY

• The subject property is listed on the City’s Heritage Properties Register. It is not designated. The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling structure and outbuilding and to construct a new two storey duplex dwelling. On June 21, 2018, the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) recommended that Council approve the demolition. On July 10, 2018, Council approved the demolition.

• On June 21, 2018, the MHAC accepted the Heritage Impact Assessment. An addendum to the current Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. for the construction of the new dwelling.

BACKGROUND

036

Aerial Map of 22 and 22 ½ St Andrews Street

The subject property at 22 St. Andrews Street contains the main dwelling and an outbuilding. Both structures are one and a half storey in size and constructed of unreinforced mason block, which is similar to cinder block. The main dwelling also has an L shaped addition. It is listed on the Heritage Properties Register but not designated. There is a small vacant lot to the rear with the municipal address of 22 ½ St. Andrews Street. The proposal is to merge these two parcels together to create one building lot where the proposed new two storey duplex structure will be constructed. The merging of these two lots required a minor variance, which triggered the request for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the property. On June 22, 2018, the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepted the findings of the HIA and also recommended that Council approve the request to demolish the buildings. On July 10, 2018, Council approved the demolition.

037

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PLACE: To take care of, celebrate and share the great features in Cambridge that we love and mean the most to us.

Goal #3 - Arts, Culture, Heritage and Architecture

Objective 3.2 Conserve and make positive contributions to our heritage districts and buildings throughout the community.

Existing Policy/By-Law: Ontario Heritage Act

Section 27 (3) Prescribes the 60 day waiting period for the demolition of a non-designated property on a Municipal Heritage Register.

City of Cambridge Official Plan

Section 4.3.1 Indicates that the City will encourage the conservation of cultural heritage resources by maintaining a Heritage Register of properties both listed and designated.

Section 4.10.1 Requires a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for a development application on, or adjacent to, a property on the Heritage Register. A development application includes a variance application to merge lots or to reduce setbacks.

Financial Impact: The costs associated with the project are the responsibility of the property owner.

Th

Public Input: e Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) meetings are open to the public.

Internal/External Consultation: N/A

Comments/Analysis: On June 21, 2018, the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accepted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the demolition and redevelopment of 22 and 22 ½ St Andrews Street. The HIA was requested because of a development application seeking to reduce the front yard setback to construct a new, two storey townhouse at 22 St. Andrews Street. The subject property is listed on the Heritage Properties Register as a property of interest. The subject property is also adjacent to a listed property of interest at 16 and 18 St. Andrews Street. As defined by Section 4.10.1 of the Official

038

Plan, a HIA is submitted for development on, or adjacent to, a property on the Heritage Properties Register. The HIA must analyze how the development may potential affect the cultural heritage value of adjacent the heritage property. At the time of submitting the original HIA to the City for review, the heritage consultant was still working with the property owner of 22 St Andrews Street in coming up with an appropriate design that would not have an adverse effect on the adjacent heritage property. Therefore, the original HIA did not include an analysis of the proposed new design and has been submitted as an addendum.

The proposed new building was analyzed against the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Conservation Guideline for Heritage Properties: Infill, New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods. Based on these Guidelines, the original design was modified to make it more sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area. The proposed new design was also assessed against the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Info Sheet #5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans seven criteria for assessing the potential impacts on a proposed new development in heritage areas. It has been determined that there are no negative impacts of the proposed new building design on the adjacent listed property at 16 and 18 St. Andrews Street.

The preferred option is Option 2. This design fits into the streetscape more sympathetically by combining appropriate cladding materials, roof pitches, chimney placement and window sizes. The proposed new building does not try to mimic or replicate surrounding features but, instead, incorporates modern features and designs in a more subtle manner.

Staff is in agreement with the preferred option and recommends that the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee accept the addendum to the May, 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment as prepared by Amy Barnes of Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated June 22, 2018.

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

Departmental Approval:

039

ATTACHMENTS

1. Addendum to the Cultural Heritage Assessment for 22 and 22 ½ St Andrews Street as prepared by Amy Barnes of Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated June 22, 2018.

040

Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. Project # LHC0115 Addendum – June 22, 2018

June 22, 2018 Laura Waldie MA, CAHP Senior Planner - Heritage Community Development Department City of Cambridge 50 Dickson St., 3rd Floor P.O. Box 669 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W8 Re: Addendum to Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA), 22 & 22 ½ St. Andrews Street, Cambridge, Ontario Our Project # LHC0115

Dear Laura, Please find attached an Addendum for the CHIA prepared by our firm for 22 & 22 ½ St. Andrews Street, Cambridge. If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly,

041


1

1 Addendum 1.1 Introduction In May 2018, Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc. (LHC) prepared a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for the properties located at 22 & 22 ½ St. Andrews Street. The findings of the CHIA titled Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 22 & 22 ½ St. Andrews Street, Cambridge, Ontario (Project # LHC0115) demonstrated that the property does not have cultural heritage value or interest. The Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee reviewed this CHIA on June 21, 2018. The MHAC recommendations are as follows:

“THAT the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC) accept the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) and its findings submitted by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated May 2018; AND THAT the MHAC recommend that Council approve the notice of intent to demolish the listed heritage property municipally known as 22 St. Andrews Street, as the property does not hold enough cultural heritage value to warrant designation for the reasons outlined in the CHIA submitted by Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., dated May 2018; AND THAT MHAC recommend that Council remove 22 St. Andrews Street from the Heritage Properties Register once the property has been demolished; AND THAT the MHAC has no objections to final approval of the variance application to merge the lots at 22 and 22 ½ St. Andrews Street and to reduce the front yard setback of the new lot (File No. A31/18); AND FURTHER that an addendum to the May 2018 CHIA will be submitted for review by the MHAC in the future for the construction of a new dwelling on the merged lot”.

MHAC forwarded these recommendations to Cambridge City Council for their review. In keeping with the recommendations, this addendum to the CHIA was prepared specifically to include a review of the proposed design, as well as an evaluation and impact on the adjacent property known municipally as 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street. The adjacent property is a listed property on the Cambridge Heritage Property Register. The designs as discussed within this addendum were refined by the owner and architect based upon the professional opinion and feedback of LHC staff. In particular, the designs have been refined to be more sympathetic to the character of the streetscape. Three design options were considered as part of this addendum.

1.2 Proposed Site Alteration The initial CHIA addressed a proposed minor variance to merge the existing two lots (known as 22 ½ and 22 St. Andrews Street) into one lot; resulting in one rectangular lot. As outlined within the CHIA, the existing building and outbuilding will be demolished. This Addendum addresses new construction on the merged property. Specifically, it addresses a new two-storey duplex building proposed for the property. The footprint of this new building is outline in Figure 1. Three options were considered as part of this Addendum. These include: a Modern Design; a refined design with shingle window finishes; and, a refined design with metal window finishes.

042


2

Figure 1: Footprint and location of the proposed new building

2 Alternatives

2.1 Option 1- Modern Design The original proposed design is provided in Figure 2. The original proposed design was a two-storey duplex building with an asymmetrical and generally flat roofline with a wide chimney style peak. The façade materials included: horizontal siding, brick, ACM panels or metal trim, and vertical siding. Additionally, two rectangle windows that project out from the façade (known as boxed out windows) were proposed for the west side of the façade. The building included a recessed main entrance on the east portion of the façade. The inspiration of the original design took architectural cues from the appearance of the Dunfield Theatre, which is located directly across the street. Since the property is zoned to allow for commercial and residential mix, the design wanted to possess ‘modern’ aesthetic appeal for possible mixed use in the future. The authors of this report determined that the original design was not in keeping with the character of the streetscape found along the north side of St. Andrews Street, nor with the overall character of the Dickson Hill Heritage Conservation District. Suggestions and proposed changes were discussed which included alteration to the roofline, reducing the variety of materials on the façade by using more brick, as well as selecting a style and colour of brick

043


3

which was sympathetic to the area. LHC provided the owner and architect with the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Conservation Guideline for Heritage Properties for Infill and New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods. The full set of architectural drawings are found in Appendix A of this Addendum.

Figure 2: Original design showing the front and rear elevations, dated April 2018 (Rogan Home Design, April 2018).

2.2 Option 2- Refined Design with Shingle Window Finish The original design was altered, and consideration was given to the general character of the area. Alterations focused on the roofline, the façade material and colour of brick. The revised design has a medium pitched front gable roofline with wood shingles in the gable peak (Figure 3). The brick material used on the main level will now be carried through to the second level and into the wide chimney. The brick selected is a clay brick produced by Ferrell Brick in Waterloo, known as Brampton Brick. An example of this style and colour of brick is illustrated in Figure 5. The two rectangle windows project out from the façade (known as boxed out windows). Both windows will be surrounded by vertical wood boards. Due to the style of the boxed-out windows on the façade, shingles have been carried down the side elevations in certain areas (See Figure 4). This feature is required to ensure a waterproof finish, protect against snow accumulation, and prevent long-term rot.

044


4

Figure 3: The refined designs showing the front and rear elevation.

Figure 4: Side elevations showing the shingles surrounding the windows on the west elevation (left) and right elevation (right).

045


5

Figure 5: (Left) View of 1856 Coronation Street, Cambridge, showing the general idea of the shingled side elevations. Note: This building has a much larger boxed out window than the proposed design. (Right) Example of look of Brampton Brick (Google, 2018, Ferrell Building, 2018).

2.3 Option 3- Refined Design with Metal Finishes Similar to Option 2, the design would have a medium pitched front gable roofline with wood shingles in the gable peak (Figure 6). The brick material used on the main level will be carried to the second level and into the chimney. The brick selected is a clay brick produced by Ferrell Brick in Waterloo, known as Brampton Brick. An example of this style of brick is illustrated in Figure 5. The two rectangle windows project out from the façade (known as boxed out windows); both window will be surrounded by vertical wood boards. Due to the style of the boxed-out windows on the façade, a metal material will be added and carried down the side elevations in specific areas (See Figure 7). The metal covering feature is required to ensure a waterproof finish, protect against snow accumulation, and prevent long-term rot.

Figure 6: The refined design showing the front and rear elevations.

046


6

Figure 7: Side elevations showing the metal (red) surrounding the windows on the west elevation (left) and right elevation (right).

2.4 Preferred Option Option 2, Refined design with shingle window finishes, is the preferred option. The building represented in this design does not try to replicate a historic building type or style, but has been refined to bring in some characteristics that soften the modern look. This is particularly evident in the gable roofline and the carry through of brick materials from the first floor to second floors. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places (2010) (S&G) are a guiding document to help with the conservation, preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of historic places. Guideline 4 and Guideline 11 from General Standards for Preservation, Rehabilitation and Restoration read as follows:

Standards Guidelines 4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. Standards Guidelines 11. Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place; and

This option has the potential to add a new sympathetic structure to the streetscape that will help create a more cohesive streetscape. In particular, the proposed two-storey building will work to provide a cohesive and sympathetic height transition between the three-storey building to the west and the one and half storey building to the east. This option has the potential to use the building for mixed used (such as a live work environment) with the main level being available for commercial purposes and the upper level for residential.

047


7

Additionally, new multi-unit and mixed-use development aligns with various municipal policies and objectives. For example, the Cambridge Strategic Plan focuses on the three pillars: People, Places, and Prosperity; the objective for People is “to actively engage, inform and create opportunities for people in community building - making Cambridge a better place to live, work and play and learn for all”1. The proposed design also supports a variety of Urban Design Guidelines outlined in Chapter 5 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan. This includes:

• create an attractive, accessible, safe and healthy built environment;

• achieve high quality design for the public and private realm;

• ensure compatibility in scale, form, massing and height transition between new development and existing buildings and adjacent neighbourhoods while being sensitive to the context;

• promote a high standard of urban design as a key factor in establishing attractive and well integrated development throughout the community;

• integrate urban design into the development approval and decision-making processes of the City;

• ensure that development is sensitive to and reflective, respectful of the physical and functional identity and the heritage attributes of Cambridge;

• allow for creativity in design expression while ensuring compatibility and quality of development; and

• design our community at the pedestrian scale in support of fostering social interaction, active streetscapes and walkable neighbourhoods.

3 Evaluation The preferred design was evaluated against the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Conservation Guideline for Heritage Properties for Infill and New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods. This evaluation took into consideration the design elements and best practice in relation to the surrounding streetscape and against the proposed design.

Design Element and Best Practice Surrounding Streetscape Proposed Design

Setback: An infill project should respect a building’s setback from the street and the existing set back of the surrounding building. The streetscape should not be dominated by new construction. Respecting the alignment of rear façades is not as necessary as they can rarely be viewed from a public street.

The north side of St. Andrews Street has a varying degree of setback that responds to the change in elevation and curving nature of St. Andrews Street.

In general, the houses along this street have a narrow setback.

The proposed design will maintain the existing narrow setback of the original building. See Figure 1.

Orientation: The orientation of a building is the direction that it faces. Most historic buildings squarely front the street, with their façade and main entrance in full view. In some cases, historic buildings are oriented to a side yard. A new building

The buildings on the north side of St. Andrews Street face south, towards St. Andrews Street.

The proposed design will face south towards St. Andrews Street.

The proposed design has a modest recessed entrance found on the east side of the façade.

1 Cambridge Strategic Plan 2016-2019. Cambridge Connected, Our Voice, Our Vision. P. 2.

048


8


should respect the primary orientation of its neighbours. The porch is often an important feature of the home as seen from the street. When possible avoid hiding entrances behind an oversized garage and create an inviting design to encourage public use of the street.

Entrances are prominent, and most buildings do not have a porch. In the few cases where a porch is visible, it is very modest in style and design.

The entranceway is not hidden. This design is consistent with the buildings to the west that have entrances of similar design.

Scale: Scale is relative size of the building in relation to neighbouring structures or a common object, such as cars. It is also the relative size of building elements to one another and the overall building, such as windows, doors, cornices, and other features. Most residential buildings are designed to the human scale, rather than a monumental scale, as is the case with many churches and government buildings. The building scale of a new structure should be kept consistent with the general scale of its neighbours. If you had hoped to build a taller structure, opt to place the highest portion of the building away from the street, so they are less noticeable to pedestrians and do not cast unnecessary shadows.

The scale of buildings on the north side of St. Andrews Street range from one-and-a-half storeys to a large two-and-a-half storeys.

To the west of the property is a large two-and-a-half storey building and the east is a modest one-and-a-half storey building.

The scale of the proposed design is two storeys. This is in keeping with the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed two-storey height will help transition this portion of the street as the property to the west has a much larger scale than the modest one-and-a half storey property to the east.

The scale of the windows on the proposed design is much larger than buildings in the surrounding area.

Proportion: Proportion is the relationship of the dimensions of building elements, like windows and doors, to each other and the elevations. Proportions are often expressed in mathematical ratios. For example, many heritage buildings designed in the 1880s and early 1900s used mathematical proportions to determine the size and position of building elements. The design of a new building should respect, but not necessarily duplicate, the existing proportions of neighbourhood buildings.

The surrounding area generally consists of older buildings that have rhythmic openings and/or symmetrical façades.

Most of the window and openings found on the buildings along the streetscape are large and rectangular in style.

The proposed design has square boxed-out windows on façade that are larger, and of a unique style, than most windows found along the streetscape.

The façade windows of the proposed design do align vertically and make use of the same style of window. This provides a visual consistency for the street.

Rhythm: The spacing of repetitive façade elements, like projecting bays, windows, doors and brackets gives an elevation its rhythm. The space between the houses, the height of the roof, cornices, towers and other roof projections establishes the rhythm of a street. A new building should

The buildings found in the surrounding area were examined to determine their design rhythm.

The proposed building respects the rhythm of streets in terms of placement, height, setback, and orientation.

The size and style of the windows in the proposed building does

049


9


respect the rhythm of its neighbours and the streetscape.

follow the rhythm of surrounding building designs.

Massing: Massing is the general shape and size of a building. A building’s massing significantly contributes to the character of a street, especially in areas with row houses and adjoining commercial buildings. As a result, new construction should respect the massing of existing neighbouring buildings. The apparent mass of a structure may be altered through the appearance of dormers, towers and other roof projections, as well as façade projections such as bays, porches and steps.

The surrounding streetscape has a variety of shapes and sizes of buildings. There are mostly modest Ontario cottages present, along with a few larger and more elaborate designs.

The proposed design is a modest L shape and is rectangular in nature (short façade and long side elevations). This style of massing is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Height: The height of walls, cornices, roofs, bays, chimneys and towers all contribute to the character of the building and neighbourhood. New buildings should be designed to respect existing building heights, although they do not necessarily need to be exactly the same height. Generally, if a new building is more than a half-to-one storey higher or lower than existing buildings that are all the same height, it will appear out of place. However, a new building added to a street with structures of varied heights may be more than one storey higher or lower than its neighbours and still be compatible. Upper storey setbacks can be helpful in reducing the apparent height of a new building.

The existing heights of walls, cornices, roofs, bays, chimneys, etc. of the surrounding are typical of older structures. The exception is the adjacent property to the west, which is newer. The large height of this property is visually apparent.

The proposed two-storey height respects the surrounding area and is compatible with the adjacent properties.

Materials: Materials typical of a historic neighbourhood, such as brick, stone or wood should be used in design of new construction. If a number of materials are used in the area, there will be more leeway to integrate a wider variety of materials. The size, texture, surface finish and other defining characteristics of exterior materials are as important to the type of materials itself. For example, a new building constructed of glazed brick in a street of heritage buildings clad in buff brick would not be compatible.

The buildings found in the surrounding area use a variety of materials. Red and yellow brick, large stone, wood siding and stone covered with parging.

The proposed design will use wood, metal, and brick. The brick, which is the dominant material on the façade, will be a flat finish clay brick in a brown colour. The brick is known as Brampton brick. The intention is to have the materials kept simple and clean.

050


10


Colour: The construction materials used on a building often determines its colour scheme. For example, brick, stone, terra cotta, slate, wood, stucco, asphalt shingle, cooper, lead and other materials that are usually left unpainted give colour to a building. The colour scheme of a new building should complement the surrounding building. As a general rule, no more than three different colours should be used on a new building.

There is a range of colours found on the building materials in the surrounding streetscape. To the west there is a yellow brick building and immediately adjacent is a red brick (with additional colour bricks mixed throughout) building. Immediately east is a stone building, which present with multiple different hues of stone.

The brick will be a dark brown colour and the wood and siding will also be in a brown hue. The metal and shingles will be of a darker shade. The colour palettes have been chosen to work with each other and not be visually distracting.

Roof Shape: The roof shape of a new building should respect those of its neighbours. For example, on a street composed of homes with front gable roofs, it is advised that a new building have similarly designed roof. Introducing a different roof style, such as a flat roof, would alter the established character of the street. For more information on roofs, please see the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Guide to Roofs.

Most rooflines in the surrounding area follow a front gable roofs style or have gable ends with central gable peak.

The proposed design is a front gable roof with chimney. This is in keeping with the general neighbourhood.

Detail and Ornamentation: Some heritage buildings in the Region of Waterloo contain elaborate detail and ornamentation while other have relatively simple designs. A new building should take into account the amount, location and elaborateness of architectural ornamentation on neighbouring buildings. Existing details and ornamentation can be used as the basis for those on a new building, but they should not be copied exactly. A contemporary interpretation of historic details and ornamentation should be used to differentiate between a heritage building and sympathetic new construction.

In general, the buildings along the streetscape have a simple and clean design with one or two ornate features. In most cases the ornate features are represented in the windows or roofline.

The proposed building will have a clean and simple finish with the dominant feature being the boxed out windows.

Landscaping Features: Plants, trees, fences, retaining walls, sidewalks, driveway and other landscape features are important character defining elements in historic neighbourhoods (see Practical Guide: Landscaping for more information). If possible, mature trees and shrubs and existing landscaping should be retained

The adjacent properties do not have any landscaping features between the building and St. Andrews Street. Further east there are mature trees present.

The property will remain in the general footprint of the current building. There will be no major landscaping features added to the property that is in keeping with the surrounding area.

051


11


when a new structure is built on a lot. If this is not possible, landscaping that complements the new building and the neighbouring structures and landscaping should be designed. New construction may alter site drainage patterns and affect trees both on and near the site. Protection of major trees with extensive root systems may require the oversight of a specialist during construction. Significant existing landscape features, such as retaining walls and iron fences, should also be retained. Again, if this is not possible, new compatible features should be constructed along with the new building.

There is no fencing, decorative retaining walls or shrubs of note along this streetscape.

Secondary Buildings: Secondary buildings such as garages and sheds, are important character defining elements in some historic neighbourhoods. They add scale and visual interest to primary buildings. New structures designed for inclusion in neighbourhoods with existing secondary buildings should consider the contributions they make to the character of the site and the street, while respecting their location, size and materials.

The properties located in the surrounding area do not appear to have significant outbuildings that are visible from the street.

There are no proposed outbuildings for this property.

Parking: New infill developments should not worsen the neighbourhood parking situation, especially if there is already a shortage of parking spaces for residents and visitors. Parking spaces should be screened from private and communal outdoor living areas and should be secure and visible from the house.

Parking in the surrounding area is generally accessed by a side driveway and located at the rear. There are a few instances where it is located at the front, such as the adjacent property to the east.

The proposed design plans to have parking at the rear of the property and will not be visible from the street. It will be accessed using the existing lane on the west side of the property.

This is consistent with the surrounding area.

3.1 Analysis of Evaluation The preferred option was evaluated against the fourteen design elements and suggested best practices outlined in the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Conservation Guideline for Heritage Properties for Infill and New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods. In general, the proposed design was found to be in keeping, sympathetic, or respectful of, the character of the streetscape found along the north side of this section of St. Andrews Street. This includes: setback, orientation, massing, height, materials, colours, roof shape, detail and ornamentation, landscape features, secondary buildings, and parking.

052


12

In respect to scale, proportion and rhythm, design elements; these were areas which were found to be less compatible with best practices. The incompatibility related to the size and style of the façade windows.

4 Impact Assessment The MTCS Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans outline seven potential negative impacts to be considered with any proposed development or site alteration. The impacts include:

➢ Destruction of any part of any significant heritage attribute or features;

➢ Alteration that is not sympathetic or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance;

➢ Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature

or planting, such as a garden;

➢ Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship;

➢ Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or built and natural features;

➢ A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new

development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; and

➢ Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an

archaeological resource.

The impacts have been evaluation against the adjacent property, known as 16 / 18 St. Andrews Street. The property

is listed on the Cambridge Heritage Property Register. The description on the Heritage Property Register notes that

16 / 18 St. Andrews Street as cottage style, semi detached stone buildings. They are one-and-a-half storeys with

central peak gable roof. They have a large setback from the street.

Table 1: Potential Impact of proposed design on 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

Potential Impact Discussion

Destruction No impact. There is no proposed destruction of any significant heritage attribute or features associated with 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

Alteration No impact. There are no proposed alterations to the property of 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

Shadows No impact. There is no significant shadow anticipated by the proposed development on 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street. The western side of the property associated with 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street is made up of a parking space and rear yard.

Isolation No Impact. The proposed design does not isolate any heritage attribute associated with 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street from its surrounding environment, context, or its potential relationship with another building.

Direct or Indirect Obstruction No Impact. The proposed design does not appear to impact any significant views or vistas.

A change in land use No Impact. There is no proposed change in land use for 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

Land disturbance No Impact. There is no proposed change in grade that alters soils, drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource associated with 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

053


13

4.1 Analysis There are no significant impacts of the proposed design on the adjacent property known as 16 & 18 St. Andrews Street.

5 Conclusions In general, the preferred design is in keeping with surrounding streetscape and general character of the area. The preferred design is in keeping with most of best practices as outlined in the Region of Waterloo’s Practical Conservation Guideline for Heritage Properties for Infill and New Construction in Heritage Neighbourhoods. The box-ed out windows do present a contemporary aesthetic, but do not significantly detract for the surrounding character of the area. It is the professional opinion of the authors that the preferred design is sympathetic to the surrounding character of the area.

6 Signature

Amy Barnes, M.A. CAHP Project Manager I Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc.

054


14

APPENDIX A: DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR OPTION 1-MODERN DESIGN.

055


15

056


16

057


17

058


18

APPENDIX B: OPTION 2- DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS

059


19

060


20

061


21

062

AGENDA - Cambridge, Ontariocalendar.cambridge.ca/Council/Detail/2018-07-19-1900... · Please Note:...

Documents

Transcript of AGENDA - Cambridge, Ontariocalendar.cambridge.ca/Council/Detail/2018-07-19-1900... · Please Note:...