The agenda was adopted as presented on a motion by Lydia Lewycky and seconded by Bruce Blackwood. Moved Matthew Mills; Seconded Garnet Kindervater

Transcription

1 Minutes BUILT HERITAGE EXPERTS PANEL MEETING February 1, :00 p.m. Conference Room A Present Regrets: Glenn Barnes NLAA, MRAIC, Chair Bruce Blackwood, Contractor Michael Philpott, Heritage Foundation of NL Matthew Mills, Provincial Association of Landscape Architects Lydia Lewycky, Atlantic Planners Institute Garnet Kindervater, Canadian Homebuilders NL Sylvester Crocker, Manager of Technical Services Ken O Brien, Chief Municipal Planner Arthur MacDonald, Co-Lead Staff Member Maureen Harvey Legislative Assistant Mark Whelan, Architect Fougere Menchenton Architecture Inc. Adoption of Agenda The agenda was adopted as presented on a motion by Lydia Lewycky and seconded by Bruce Blackwood. Adoption of Minutes December 5, 2016 Moved Matthew Mills; Seconded Garnet Kindervater That the minutes of December 5, 2016 be adopted as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Decision Note dated January 11, 2017 re: Heritage Recognition Awards The Decision note is to seek approval for granting the City s Heritage Recognition Awards on February 20, 2017 to the four nominations as follows: 1. 8 Blackhead Village Road Hayward Avenue Duckworth Street Cochrane Street Discussion took place noting that in the interest of time, an was sent to Panel members recommending the property with the following recommendation:

2 Moved Bruce Blackwood; Seconded Matthew Mills That the Panel ratify the recommendation that the Heritage Recognition Awards be awarded to the owners of the following properties: 1. 8 Blackhead Village Road Hayward Avenue Duckworth Street Cochrane Street CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Discussion continued with agreement of the following: Cut off period for next year s awards will be mid-november with a presentation to the Panel for their review in December Presentation of awards will take place on the third Monday of February Heritage Day. Panel will have a more active role in reviewing the applications. Applicants for development in Heritage areas should be advised that they may be eligible for an award. Improved promotion of the awards program would be beneficial with the grants process being just one of the mediums by which it can be promoted. All members of the Panel were invited to attend the presentation of awards at the February 20 th regular Meeting of Council. Parks Canada s Jeremy Roop will also be in attendance to present the Water Street Historical District and the St. John s Ecclesiastical District Plaque. Information Note dated December 21, 2016 re: City of St. John s Heritage Charter During the Built Heritage Experts Panel s meeting of December 5th, 2016, the topic of how we review modern building applications in the City s Heritage Area was discussed. To help facilitate discussions, staff has developed a Heritage Charter that may facilitate discussions and recommendations on pending applications. It is intended that the Charter will work in unison with the City s future Heritage By-law and not as a substitute. The draft document was reviewed with positive feedback from the Panel. The following points were noteworthy: Could be a useful tool for panel to use when it receives submissions for development in the heritage areas. Such a document would be helpful to designers and developers 2

3 Once refined, consideration ought to be given to having it formalized and publicized for applicants. While no enforcement of the Charter is proposed, it would provide fundamental principles for development in Heritage Areas. A Charter would place the onus on the Developer to demonstrate how it intends to meet the conditions of the Charter. Consideration ought to be given to having the Charter developed as a By-law or incorporated into the Development Regulations. Discussion concluded with the Panel agreeing, in principle, to the initiative. Panel members were invited to submit feedback and staff agreed to refine the document for further discussion at the next meeting of the Panel. Information Note dated January 11, 2017 re: Heritage Designation Criteria Review Further to discussion at the meeting of December 5, 2016 the Panel continued to discuss the possibility of updating the City s Heritage Designation Criteria to accept modern buildings. The current designation criteria was reviewed. Proposing to change the Age criterion from Existing: 1. Age Comparatively old in the context of its region. E VG G F/P 1921-present Proposed: 3

4 1. Age Comparatively old in the context of its region. E Pre 1892 (Great Fire) VG G F/P 1971-present Proposed: E Excellent VG - Very Good G Good F/P Fair/Poor Discussion took place with respect to the terms used for grading with agreement that staff review the document and propose language in the document that would not be year specific which would better guide the criteria for the future. Decision Note dated December 28, 2016 re: Review of Robert Mellin s List of Modern Buildings The Panel considered the following list for the purpose of identifying which properties which are worthy of further consideration as potential heritage buildings. While 32 buildings were reviewed it was recommended by staff that only those that have agreed to be designated be considered at this time. Recommendation: Moved by Garnet Kindervater; seconded by Lydia Lewycky That the following buildings be considered for heritage status and the owners be notified to see if they would be interested in having their buildings designated by Council as Heritage Buildings: Building Location Recommended Heritage Status 1. T.A.S. Building 342 Duckworth Street Yes 2. Duckworth Building 247 Duckworth Street Yes 3. West Fire Station 265 LeMarchant Road Yes 4. Churchill Park concrete Elizabeth Ave Yes apartment building on the square 5. Hickman Motors on Water 504 Water Street Yes Street 6. Goldstone Residence 7 Rostellan Street Yes 7. Spencer Residence 136 Rennie s Mill Rd Yes 4

5 8. St. Mary the Virgin Church 80 Craigmillar Avenue Yes 9. Queen s College 214 Prince Philip Drive No 10. Littledale/St. Bride s College 240 Waterford Bridge Yes Rd 11. Holy Heart of Mary High 55 Bonaventure Ave. Yes School 12. Early MUN Buildings: Admin, 194 Prince Philip Drive Yes Gym, Library, Science 13. Later MUN Buildings: 194 Prince Philip Drive Yes Chem/Physics, Arts/Admin. 14. Bowring Park Footbridge 100 Bowring Park Rd Yes 15. Bowring Park Roadbridge 100 Bowring Park Rd Yes 16. Signal Hill Interpretation Signal Hill Road Yes Centre 17. Imperial Oil Building 55 Elizabeth Avenue Yes 18. Confederation Building Prince Philip Drive Yes 19 Holland Hall, St. Bon s Bonaventure Avenue Yes 20. MacDonald Residence 3 Forest Avenue Yes 21. Clouston Residence 144 Elizabeth Avenue Yes 22. Model home for the Kinsmen 170 Elizabeth Avenue Yes 23. St. Michael s of All Angels 10 St. Clare Avenue Yes Church 24. American Aerated Water Co. 278 LeMarchant Road Yes Building 25. Cornwall Theatre 264 LeMarchant Road Yes 26. Bowring s Parking Garage & 281 and 281 Water St Yes Department Store 27. Arts & Culture Centre 95 Allandale Road Yes 28. Merit Insurance Company 25 Anderson Avenue No Building 29. Chimo Building 151 Crosbie Road Yes 30. Crosbie Building 1 Crosbie Place Yes 31. Carnell s Funeral Home 150 Crosbie Road Yes 32. Cummings Residence 143 Elizabeth Avenue No -carried unanimously The Panel suggested staff review the following locations to determine if these structures are also worthy of consideration for heritage status: 1. Ewing Residence Circular Road 2. Maple Street Residence 3. Some structures in Churchill Park 4. Houses that are 1 and ½ storey post war homes 5. Structures around Strawberry Marsh Road 5

6 6. Houses along Newtown Road 7. Structure at the intersection of Maple Street and Poplar Avenue Information Note dated October 24, 2016 re: Heritage By-Law Arthur MacDonald delivered a power point presentation outlining a proposed concept for a Heritage By-law. The intent of the proposed by-law is to incorporate the City s built heritage regulations under the City of St. John s Act; to provide further clarity to heritage provisions and to streamline the permit process and enable Council to focus on policy development. The proposed by-law addresses the following topics, which were discussed in detail: a. Introduction of a new permit system: i. Heritage Permits ii. Demolition Approval b. Vinyl siding standards Other items to consider for inclusion: a. Security of property b. Grandfather provisions for properties designated prior to approval of the bylaw c. Mechanism for appeal Discussion generated favorable feedback from the Panel concluding with agreement that, over the next few months, the Panel will continue to review/update the proposed Heritage By-law. Upon completion of its review, it will provide a recommendation to Council with respect to the implementation of a new Heritage By-law. Decision Note dated January 9, 2017 re: Application for Signage 76 Queen s Road The City received an application to erect a ground sign at 76 Queen s Road for The Kirk, the St. Andrew s Presbyterian Church. The subject property is located in Heritage Area 1, located in the Institutional District and the Institutional (INST) Zone. The building is designated as a Heritage Building. A copy of the Statement of Significance is attached for your review. 6

7 Pursuant to Section 20 of the City s Heritage Area Sign By-law, the Heritage Advisory Committee may recommend to Council the acceptance of certain nonconforming signs whose particular design or situation merit such consideration. Council may accept or reject the recommendation provided that no sign approved by Council shall contravene the provisions of the St. John s Sign By- Law. The proposed ground sign, as submitted, meets the requirements of the Heritage Sign By-law with the exception that it exceeds the maximum size dimension of 3.6m by 1.2m (12ft. by 4ft.) (Section 12(c) of the Heritage Area Sign By-law). Each sign board individually satisfies this requirement 2.44m by 1.22m and 2.44m by 0.61m (8ft. by 4ft. and 8ft. by 2ft.). However, the combination of two (2) sign board creates a sign dimension of 2.44m by 1.83m (8ft. by 6ft.) on a single face. In light of the above, it is recommended that the ground sign as submitted be considered. Recommendation Moved: Garnet Kindervater Seconded: Lydia Lewycky That the application for the installation of a ground sign at 76 Queen s Road for The Kirk, the St. Andrew s Presbyterian Church, be approved as submitted. Carried unanimously Information Note dated January 11, 2017 re: 8 Military Road, St. Thomas Anglican Church On the basis of a declared conflict of interest Matthew Mills stepped out of the meeting. The Panel was provided with an update regarding the above noted property. The BHEP during their meeting of December 5, 2016 approved the following motion: It is recommended that the request to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with a keystone block wall with the wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted, be approved. In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff s approval. 7

8 The Planning and Development Committee during their meeting of December 13, 2016 approved the following motion: That the Committee recommend Council s approval to demolish and replace the retaining wall at 8 Military Road with either a keystone block wall or a recon wall as well as a wooden vehicular guard rail and the gothic style pedestrian guard rail as submitted. In addition, it is recommended that approval for the erection of pedestrian lighting fixtures on the Church as well as the Hall be granted subject to staff s approval. As noted in the Planning and Development Committee s motion, both options, the recon block wall option as well as the keystone block wall option, were approved. Council approved the Committee s recommendation during their meeting of January 9, The change in motion was a result of an submitted by Fred Martin of the St. Thomas Anglican Church requesting the Committee to reconsider the Panel s motion and approve both options. Mr. Mills returned to the meeting. Information Note dated January 10, 2017 re: Heritage Financial Incentive Program Review The Panel was updated on amendments made by Council to the Heritage Financial Incentives Program as follows: To clarify the time limits for developments that are eligible for funding To clarify that vinyl siding is eligible for a grant provided the use of vinyl siding is permissible. To change the grant submission timeline to reflect the construction season. Council approved the City s Heritage Financial Incentives Program on July 25, 2016, offering two (2) types of grants 1. Heritage Maintenance Grant; and 2. Heritage Conservation Grant The City decided to allow those projects that have been completed prior to grant approval to remain eligible for funding assistance. However, no time limit was established as to how far back a development can remain eligible. Council decided to put a time limit in place. 8

9 During staff discussions, it was mentioned that vinyl siding, where permissible under the City s regulations, should be identified as being eligible for funding. As well, during staff discussions, it was mentioned that the timeline for funding applications should be moved to the spring rather than the fall to line up with the construction season. Therefore, it is recommended that the submission timelines be between March 1 and May 1 of each year, beginning in The following amendments to the Heritage Financial Incentives Program are thus being made: 1) A time limit be placed on developments that are eligible for funding, with the following amendment: Repeal Section 3.2 and replace with the following: Other Business 3.2 Any work undertaken prior to grant approval shall be identified and may be considered for funding at Council's discretion provided the City receives the grant application within the time frame as specified in Section 7.1 and within one (1) year of the date the Building Permit was issued. 2) The use of vinyl siding where permissible under the City s regulations, be clarified as being eligible for funding, with the following amendment: Insert a new section as outlined below: 3.3 For clarity, the use of vinyl siding where permissible pursuant to City s regulations shall be eligible for funding. 3) The timeline for funding applications should be moved to the spring rather than the fall to line up with the construction season, with the following amendment be considered: Repeal Section 7.1 and replace it with the following: 7.1 An application for a Heritage Grant shall be made in writing to the City between March 1 st and May 1 st. Staff was informed of a development on Carpasian Road north of Primose and near Hawthorn for the purpose of determining whether appropriate permits had been issued. Date of Next Meeting Next meeting March 1,

10 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Glenn Barnes, NLAA, MRAIC Chairperson 10