Development Services - New Westminster€¦ · The following options are available for Council’s...

R E P O R T Development Services

To: Mayor Coté and Members of Council Date: 11/7/2016

From: Jackie Teed

Acting Director of Development

Services

File: HER00577

HER00581

HER00594

Item #: 365/2016

Subject:

215 Manitoba Street (Queen's Park): Heritage Alteration Permit

HER00577 to Permit Demolition - Council Consideration

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council issue Heritage Alteration Permit HER00577 to permit demolition of

the building at 215 Manitoba Street.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 16, 2016 Council adopted a Heritage Control Period Bylaw for the Queen’s Park

neighbourhood, in effect until June 16, 2017. Per that bylaw, all single detached dwellings

within the Queen’s Park neighbourhood that were constructed on or before December 31 ,

1966 must receive a Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) in order to demolish the building.

215 Manitoba is one of three HAP applications for demolition that have been received, and it

has completed the more robust review process endorsed by Council September 19, 2016,

including providing a Heritage Assessment, and review by a Technical Review Panel and the

Community Heritage Commission.

The HAP demolition application process provides a structure within which Council may

consider the proposed demolition against the goal of the Control Period, while also ensuring

an applicant has the opportunity to make a case for their needs. However, the Control Period Bylaw authorizes Council to reject demolition applications, should Council believe the

demolition would not be consistent with the purpose of the Control Period.

City of New Westminster November 7, 2016 2

Agenda Item 365/2016

The application has been reviewed by the Technical Review Panel and the Community

Heritage Commission, both who support the HAP demolition application. Given this, staff

recommends Council issue the HAP to permit demolition of the building at 215 Manitoba

Street.

PURPOSE

This application would permit the City to issue the demolition permit for the existing house

at 215 Manitoba Street. The applicant’s letter of intent is attached as Appendix 1. The

purpose of this report is to request Council issue the Heritage Alteration Permit for

demolition.

BACKGROUND

Previous Direction on HAP Demolition Applications

On June 15, 2016 Council adopted the Queen’s Park Heritage Control Period Bylaw. Per that bylaw, all single detached dwellings within the Queen’s Park neighbourhood that were constructed on or before December 31, 1966 must receive a Heritage Alteration Permit

(HAP) in order to demolish the building.

On September 19, 2016 Council endorsed a more robust review process, including a

requirement that HAP demolition applications provide a Heritage Assessment by a registered

heritage professional as part of the application. Council also directed staff to evaluate the in-

stream HAP demolition applications under this process. Three HAP applications for

demolition were covered by this direction, which were received after the adoption of the

Control Period, and prior to Council endorsing the review process: 215 Manitoba Street, 105

College Court, and 222 Fifth Avenue.

On October 3, 2016 and October 17, 2016 Council directed staff to report back on the next

steps for the first two of these applications.

Status of In-stream HAP Demolition Applications Review

The three applications have completed the steps of the application process, as follows:

Subject Site Application

Date

Heritage

Assessment

Received

Technical

Panel

Review

CHC Review

215 Manitoba Street June 27, 2016

105 College Court July 7, 2016

555 Fifth Avenue Sept 8, 2016 Nov 17, 2016



The application for 555 Fifth Avenue will likely complete the review process November 17,

2016, after which it will be brought forward for Council consideration.

The applications for 215 Manitoba Street and 105 College Court have completed the review

process and are the subject of this report, and another report elsewhere on this agenda.

Goal of the Control Period

Heritage Control Periods are considered a method to achieve temporary protection under

Section 608 (1) of the Local Government Act. The goal of the Control Period is to control

the loss or alteration of dwellings and street character in the neighbourhood while exploring

the implementation of a Heritage Conservation Area.

Council Authority Under the Control Period

The Control Period is not a moratorium on demolitions. Instead, it provides a structure

wherein Council considers HAP demolition applications against the goal of the Control

Period, while also ensuring an applicant has the opportunity to make a case for their needs.

However, the Control Period Bylaw authorizes Council to reject demolition applications

should Council believe the demolition would not be consistent with the purpose of the Control Period, where otherwise the City would be required to review and issue them.

HAP Demolition Application Review Process

Role of Technical Review Panel

As per the endorsed review process, HAP demolition applications are reviewed by a

Technical Review Panel established by the City. The Technical Review Panel’s comments are forwarded to Council for their use in consideration of the application. The Review Panel

evaluates HAP applications on technical, practical, and design aspects, and against the

City’s interim evaluation criteria.

Role of Community Heritage Commission

As per the Control Period Bylaw and the endorsed review process, HAP demolition applications are reviewed by the Community Heritage Commission (CHC) who provide a

recommendation to Council. As representatives of the community’s voice on heritage issues, the CHC evaluates HAP application against the principles of heritage conservation, and the

City’s heritage policies.



HAP Demolition Evaluation Criteria

On September 19, 2016 Council endorsed the use of Neighbourhood Heritage Value

Statement, developed by the Queen’s Park Neighbourhood Heritage Study Working Group,

as a criterion against which the Technical Review Panel would evaluate HAP demolition applications (Appendix 2).

The Review Panel also conducts a preliminary evaluation of whether the subject property

would be able to achieve the permitted floor area on the site if the application were to be

rejected by Council.

DISCUSSION

Heritage Assessment

Heritage Value

An assessment of the heritage value of the 1942 building on site was provided by Leslie

Gilbert, Heritage Consultant and is included as Appendix 3. A photograph of the house, as

seen from the street, can be found on page two of the assessment.

In summary, although the house retains much of its original form and massing, it has

relatively low heritage value due to its lack of historic architectural features, minimal

contribution to the streetscape, and limited association with historic events, figures or social

changes.

Building Condition

An assessment of the integrity and condition of the house was provided by Leslie Gilbert,

Heritage Consultant and included in the submission, attached as Appendix 3. Photographs

highlighting the deteriorating condition of the house can be found on pages 3-5 of the

assessment attached.

In summary, the house lacks historic architectural features, is in generally poor physical

condition and is deteriorating.

Technical Review Panel

The Review Panel assessed the application in three ways: 1) heritage value; 2) integrity of

building; and 3) potential for permitted density to be achieved through renovation without

loss of heritage value.



1) Heritage Value: Low

Comments –

Not a great example of the era Built during the war, which is a historical anomaly as there was not a lot of construction going on then, but there is no specific link to the wartime history

It is listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory as supporting the Clinton Place Cluster, but is fairly removed

The narrowness of the street and streetscape character are part of what contribute to the historic values for the neighbourhood

2) Integrity of Building: Low

Comments –

In extremely poor physical condition

3) Potential to Achieve Density while Retaining Heritage: Low

Comments –

Current low FSR means a lot of building would need to be added, which would negatively impact any heritage value

It would be difficult to build out to allowable FSR and retain any heritage value on the current structure

Given that the building was found to rate “low” in all three categories, the Review Panel unanimously agreed to recommend that Council support the Heritage Alteration Permit for

the demolition of 215 Manitoba Street.

As a procedural note, Mr. Pattison, a member of the Review Panel who is also the architect for this application, recused himself from this item.

Community Heritage Commission

The Heritage Alteration Permit was reviewed by the Community Heritage Commission

(CHC) on August 3, 2016. Given this HAP demolition application was received prior to

Council endorsing the more robust review process, the application was reviewed by the CHC

prior to the Technical Review Panel, so that panel’s feedback was not provided to the CHC.

The CHC passed the following resolution, with no comments, and with two members voting

in opposition:

THAT the Community Heritage Commission recommends that City Council support the

Heritage Alteration Permit for the demolition of 215 Manitoba Street .



Conclusion

Given the condition of the house, its low historic value, and that the Technical Review Panel

and the Community Heritage Commission both support the application, staff recommends

that Council issue the Heritage Alteration Permit for the demolition of 215 Manitoba Street .

NEXT STEPS

Should Council reject the HAP demolition application, the City must inform the applicant of

the requirements or conditions under which they could achieve their allowable density on

that site. Should the applicant proceed with such a major renovation, the applicant would

require a second HAP for the renovation, which would include evaluating the design and

contextual appropriateness of the major renovation.

Should Council approve the HAP demolition application, the applicant would require a

second HAP for the construction of the new house, which would include evaluating the

design and contextual appropriateness of the proposed new house.

OPTIONS

The following options are available for Council’s consideration:

1) That Council issue Heritage Alteration Permit HER00577 to permit demolition of the

building at 215 Manitoba Street.

2) That Council reject Heritage Alteration Permit HER00577 to permit demolition of the

building at 215 Manitoba Street.

3) That Council provide staff with alternative direction.

Staff recommends Option 1.

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix 1: Applicant's Letter of Intent

Appendix 2: Summary of Historic Values for the Queen's Park Neighbourhood

Appendix 3: Heritage Value Assessment



This report has been prepared by:

Britney Quail, Planning Analyst

Approved for Presentation to Council

Jackie Teed

Acting Director of Development

Services

Lisa Spitale

Chief Administrative Officer

Appendix 1

Applicant’s Letter of Intent

We are longtime Queens Park residents.

We are not developers or property speculators or flippers. This home was purchased by my parents, Peter and Helen Unilowski in 1967.

Next year will mark the semicentennial of this home being in our family. I don't know if I will be around to mark 100 years but I hope one or all of my daughters will still be living here. No one has lived at this address longer than I have, 36 years. No one has more memories of this place than I do. No one is going to really miss this house. Just because a house is old is no reason to preserve it. The Community Heritage Commission, the people we trust to handle matters relating to heritage, they recommended that the application be supported by Council and that the permit for demolition be issued. I note that the other applicant in our same situation did not receive such support. This adds further credence that the CHC is qualified to render decisions in this regard. The only question raised by the CHC was in regards to a conditions assessment. We provide the following as a conditions assessment of a sort, in order that you may make a more informed decision and to help move this forward.

The garage, which was built by my Father and my Uncles, has more meaning to me than the house. My brothers, sisters, cousins and I all pitched in to help, in whatever fashion we could. Whether it was pulling nails from wood or using broken hockey sticks to work the cement deep into the bottom of the forms to ensure there were no air pockets or voids. When the men would take a break and have a cold beer, the children would enjoy a popsicle or some other frozen treat. The plan for the garage is to assess it as we move forward in the construction of the new home. It definitely needs a new roof and the aluminum siding should be replaced with a material more in keeping with the design of the house. But just like the Pattullo bridge, there comes a time when you cannot justify spending more money on something that just doesn’t work anymore. It may be that the garage is too far gone. Its thirty years newer than the house so we have hope. And of course there will be a HAP.

This whole process began in the spring or 2014 when we put our home up for sale. We advertised it as a tear down and priced it below assessed value. We had two serious offers. The first, $40k below our original ask. We accepted with their subject that the city approve their plans. They did not want the basement included in the floor space ratio so this sale collapsed. The second, $45k below our original ask. We accepted with the normal subject to financing clause. They were given two opportunities to inspect the house for a possible renovation. After the second inspection they failed to return any calls and only initiated contact after the offer had expired and they wanted their deposit returned. During this time that the house was on the market we began to make inquiries with regards to a demo and possible renovations. I phoned Julie Schueck and was told that getting a demo permit for our particular house didn't look like it would be a problem. On Fridays all demos permit applications were reviewed and we could expect our permit to be approved usually somewhere between ten days and a few weeks depending on when we submitted it. I also inquired at the Building Permits counter about doing a major renovation to the house. After telling the gentleman there about our possible plans, he said he wasn't allowed to give advice. He did not give advice but it was "suggested" that it would be cheaper just to build a new house and that all of our upgrades would require the entire house be

Unilowski Letter – QP Control Period – Oct.7, 2016

brought up to current building codes. We then began to explore the possibility of remaining where we were and building a new house.

We signed a lease and moved out of the house in January of this year and had the gas disconnected in May. We had been watching the rental market for many many months and when one came up that was within our budget, had a fenced back yard, allowed pets and didn't add too much time to our commute, we grabbed it. They don't come along very often. Eight months and three owners later we still don't have a working dishwasher, spent ten weeks without a clothes dryer and more than a month without a washing machine. Now the new owner is talking about doing renovations when our lease is up at the end of January. We are willing to pay more if he will extend our lease and delay his plans but at this stage there is too much uncertainty to even approach him with this idea.

The house drawings were finally complete in May.

We had the tree survey done in April but the Arborist told us that only hand digging would be permitted in the vicinity of my neighbours cherry tree out front. We sent the civil drawings back to the engineer to move our services to the other side of the lot. We didn't get this back until the last week of July.

When we began all of this we expected to be in our new home by now but when you are in the middle of a housing/renovation boom .... you are at the mercy of everyone else's schedule. A number of other issues arose throughout this process, some of which impacted our timeline. Our builder passed away suddenly this past spring. Our Bank informed us we'd need to seek private money for the first third of construction. We eventually found a new Builder and a more accommodating lender.

On June 27 our HAP application was made.

On August 3 our HAP was reviewed by the Community Heritage Commission. The new HCP Administrative Policy was followed.

In September the rules were changed and the previously free HAP application was now tied to an expensive report plus additional oversight by an as yet to be formed Technical Review Team and for us, a second review by the CHC. From our perspective this does not seem even remotely fair or reasonable. More delays equal more costs. Building costs continue to climb. We have lease, insurance and variety of other costs that are impacted by the delays. I believe the land survey and tree survey report may become dated before we get permission to proceed so this also represents additional costs.

If someone were to approach the City with a design that copied our house it would not pass the interim guidelines. Is there a market for a "plain unadorned workers house" that need hundreds of thousands invested. If there is I certainly don't see any being built and couldn't find anyone interested in ours. We are confident that our new house design is up to these guidelines and will be a benefit to the neighbourhood.


There is no moratorium, only a control period. Its been three and a half months since we submitted our HAP yet we are no closer to an answer. It is time to release control and take the next big step. We request a decision be made on our HAP.

If we are allowed to proceed with the demo we also ask that something be put in place so that we can move forward in the HAP design phase. Perhaps the CHC along with some additional people could review our plans and come to consensus on whether our design meets, at least in the interim, a minimum standard.

We feel there is much to be gained in moving forward but much could be lost through delays as we cannot control bank policies and interest rates.

We understand this is a somewhat fluid process from your perspective and appreciate that you want to get it right. We support the effort and considerations you are putting into this as well as the infill housing issue.

If you feel that still more information is required please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully,

Vince Unilowski 778 772-1305


Appendix 2

Summary of Historic Values for the

Queen’s Park Neighbourhood

Doc # 598557 Page 1

Summary of Historic Values for the Queen’s Park Neighbourhood History of the neighbourhood

Neighbourhood layout designed by the Royal Engineers City as capital city; the grand boulevards on Second and Fifth Streets Residents of the neighbourhood who became well-known in politics and business Stories from the past Physical remnants from the past (bricks in roads, granite curbs, tram tracks) Civic, religious and military institutions

Regional and local parks

Queen’s Park: its importance as a regional park, home to various sports teams including the Salmonbellies lacrosse team

English common-style park (Oliver Park) Tipperary Park, Friendship Garden and other small parks

Formal street design

Grid pattern established by the Royal Engineers Different widths of streets Boulevards on larger streets Short streets and angular nature of Park Row Walkability

Residential scale and setting

Grand homes and their setting Large open formal gardens Small homes and their setting Blend of large and small homes that work well together The neighbourhood is a complete neighbourhood and not just a collection of homes Common palette of materials which gives a sense of cohesion to the buildings Views of the Fraser River

Landscape

Mature trees Mature private gardens Public gardens, treed areas and natural areas of Queen’s Park Hanging baskets Boulevard trees

Appendix 3

Heritage Value Assessment

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT 215 MANITOBA STREET

NEW WESTMINSTER

A Heritage Alteration Permit application has been submitted to demolish the house at 215 Manitoba Street. The application requires that a heritage assessment be prepared to inform Council and Committees in their review of the Heritage Alteration Permit application. This heritage assessment provides background information on the history of the property, a description of its historic value (including character-defining elements) and neighbourhood context as well as an assessment of the building’s physical condition. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The house at 215 Manitoba Street is a modest two storey wood-frame residential building located in the Queen’s Park neighbourhood. It was constructed in 1942 at a cost of $28,000 in the “Entre Guerres Domestic” architectural style. It was one of only a few houses constructed during WWII in New Westminster due to labour shortages and was built to provide affordable family-oriented housing for returning veterans. NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT AND STREETSCAPE The 215 Manitoba Street house is located south of Queen’s Avenue near the corner of Peele Street and adjacent to Clinton Place. Clinton Place, a 0.58 acre landscaped open space, is a prominent feature of Col. Moody’s formal plan for the city of New Westminster. Manitoba Street is a quiet narrow street and is only one block long. There is no sidewalk on either side of the street. The street almost functions as a lane, with a number of houses situated close to the road as a result of the early road layout and settlement pattern. The property at 215 Manitoba Street slopes 12 feet in elevation from the rear of the property to the street, providing a partial view of the Fraser River from the house. The upwards slope of the property makes the house actually appear larger from the street than it is. A short rear lane running parallel to Manitoba Street provides access to a detached two-car garage. Properties on Manitoba Street vary greatly in terms of lot size, building size and land use. The south side of Manitoba Street includes two three-storey rental apartment buildings, two duplexes and several small houses. The north side of Manitoba Street consists primarily of single family dwellings. None of the properties on Manitoba Street are listed on the city’s Heritage Register. As there is no consistent historic character on Manitoba Street, the house at 215 Manitoba Street does not have a historic relationship with or contribute to the street character.

215 Manitoba Street

HERITAGE VALUE Ownership History The 1941 BC Directory only lists four properties on Manitoba Street; two on the north side at 213 and 223 and two on the south side at 218 and 220. The property at 215 Manitoba Street may at one time have been a side yard of the property directly east at 213 Manitoba Street. A building permit was taken out to construct a single detached dwelling at 215 Manitoba Street in 1942 by Joseph Fitzgerald (b. 1899 in Quebec), however construction of the house was not completed until 1944. Joseph Fitzgerald was employed as a millwright with BC Crossarm Company, a local manufacturer of wooden utility poles. BC Directories lists Mr. Fitzgerald as the first owner of 215 Manitoba Street, residing there with his wife Mary (b. 1908, nee O’Shaughnessy) until the late 1950’s. In 1967, 215 Manitoba Street was purchased by Peter Unilowski (b. 1930), a millworker, who resided there with his wife Helen and seven children until his death in 1995. One of the children, Vince, is the present owner of the property; he has resided in the house for most of his life and raised his family there. He now wishes to demolish the house and rebuild a larger dwelling in a heritage style, reconfigured to meet the current needs of his family. Building Description 215 Manitoba Street is a functional and, compared to today’s standards, small house with virtually no ornamentation; essentially a worker’s cabin. The house consists of a total floor area of 1,865 sq. ft. (173 sq. m) on two floors and a basement, with master bedroom on the main floor, two bedrooms upstairs and one bathroom. A small studio suite was later added in the basement.

Character Defining Elements While the house at 215 Manitoba Street is considered to have limited heritage value, it has the following character defining elements: • brushed cedar shingle cladding typical of the era • an asymmetrical front façade with respect to the placement of windows and front door • a front verandah with projecting flat roof • side entry stairs leading to the front verandah • gable roof with small peaked roof dormer at the rear

There are a number of interior fixtures that could be repurposed for inclusion in a new house including brass door knobs, rectangular heating grates and a wooden front door. In addition, the owner has identified some perennial plants and groundcovers to be retained in the landscape plan for the property. A separate two car garage built in 1971 is located in the back yard of the property off the rear lane. Due to age of the garage, it is not included in the Heritage Control Period and will not be included in this heritage assessment. The house at 215 Manitoba Street is not listed in the New Westminster Heritage Register but is identified in the Heritage Resource Inventory as a supporting residence to the Clinton Place cluster. CONDITION ASSESSMENT The house at 215 Manitoba Street has been vacant for several years and has not benefitted from regular maintenance in anticipation of demolition. No permits have been taken out since the house was constructed in 1942, meaning that while the house has retained its original form and massing, it has not had any major improvements. The house is in generally poor physical condition and has deteriorated largely as a result of moisture infiltration, nesting animals and ivy penetration. Roof: asphalt shingles are moss covered and lifting primarily due to water penetration; as a result, the interior upstairs ceilings are stained due to water leaking in from holes in the roof.

Verandahs: several stair treads leading to the front verandah are rotting. In addition, the wooden verandah floor is spongy and slippery from pooling water. The deteriorated projecting roof cover is askew and pulling away from the main house.

Several treads are missing from the steps leading to a porch at the rear of the house.

Gutters and downspouts: do not function to drain water away from the house, are being pulled down by overgrown ivy or completely missing. Raccoons and mice are nesting in the eaves of the house.

Exterior cladding: Some of the cedar shingles are deteriorating, particularly at the base of the house due to moisture penetration. There is also evidence of exterior paint chipping and flaking on all elevations of the house.

Windows: Ivy has entered the interior of the house through several windows, damaging the window frames as well as the interior walls. The windows are all original and wood framed, but inefficient as they are single paned. Putty holding the glass in place is cracked or missing in places, the sashes inoperable and sills deteriorated.

Foundation: a large crack in the cement wall is evident on the east side foundation, severely compromising the structural integrity of the house. Efflorescence is apparent on the interior basement cement walls, and the cement floors are mouldy especially near doors and windows where water has been able to enter. The basement floor is constructed with concrete block covered with plywood, which is damp and spongy to walk on. It is worth noting that interior floor tiles and wall board may contain asbestos.

In summary, although the house at 215 Manitoba Street retains its original form and massing and has not been subject to alteration over the years, it has limited heritage value due to its lack of historic architectural features, poor physical condition and minimal contribution to streetscape. Prepared by Leslie Gilbert, Heritage Consultant October 31, 2016

Development Services - New Westminster€¦ · The following options are available for Council’s...

Documents

Transcript of Development Services - New Westminster€¦ · The following options are available for Council’s...