2007-09-10_Supplemental Agenda--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaire
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, September 10, 2007
Supplemental Agenda
Re 9.1
Heritage By-law Amendment
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 10 septembre 2007
l'ordre du jour supplementaire
Alim~a 9.1
Arrete No HC-11es Aires de Conservation Du Patrimoine de Saint John
Heritage Bylaw Amendment
(Heritage Development Board)
Preservation Review Board
10 September, 2007
Good Evening Your Worship and Councillors
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of the proposed
amendment on behalf of the Preservation Review
Board.
1
Introduction
Malcolm Boyd
Member of the
Preservation Review Board &
Heritage By-Law Review Committee
My name is Malcolm Boyd. I live at 76 Park Lawn
Court. I had the pleasure to be a member of the
Heritage By Law Review Committee and continue to
be a member of the Preservation Review Board.
2
Acknowledgements
Members of the
The Preservation Review Board &
Heritage Areas Bylaw Review Committee
Before I begin I would like to recognize the presence of
Ray Gorman - Chair Heritage By-Law Review Committee
Members of that committee: Damian Bone; Pat Darrah;
Jonathan Franklin; Danny Jardine and Christopher
Waldschutz;
as well as members of the Preservation Review Board
Chair Michelle Hooton
Vice Chairs Bob McVicar and Michael Gillis
Members: Diana Alexander; Hazel Braithwaite; Grant
Heckman; Leona Laracey and Greg Paterson
3
Members of the Preservation Review Board are
fond of saying that in Saint John we:
Build On Our Past To
Develop for Our Future
We believe that the proposed amendment
introduces important new tools to facilitate
conservation of existing buildings as well as
provide opportunities for new development.
4
A lot of effort and attention to detail, has gone into
the proposed amendment which reflect the
concerns raised by the community during
meetings held by the Heritage By-Law Review
Committee. The proposed amendment is
enthusiastically endorsed by the Preservation
Review Board.
5
The amendment reflects a change from the focus
of the current by-law on RESTORATION to a pre-
1915 appearance, to permit the use of either of 3
conservation approaches:
6
The 1 st conservation approach as noted on the left, is
PRESERVATION
The 2nd conservation approach, is
REHABILITATION
And the 3rd conservation approach as noted on the
right is RESTORATION
These pages are from the Standards and guidelines
for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
You will note the extensive use of Saint John
buildings in this national document.
7
We are recommending as part of this
amendment. . .. . .., that we build on the effort of
nationally recognized heritage conservation experts
who got together to produce this document, by
incorporating the standards for conservation as
a new section 8 in our By-Law. Our own Heritage
Development Officer was very involved in this
process.
8
The proposed amendment incorporates the
change in name of the By-Law to: Heritage
Development By-Law and the name of the Board
to the Heritage Development Board.
9
The standards currently in Section 9 remain and
will be used exclusively for construction of
contemporary new buildings or structures, yet are
sensitive to their historic neighbourhood.
10
The amendment includes the process for making
development decisions from the national Standards
& Guidelines specifically
UNDERSTANDING (research, historic photos);
PLANNING (preparation of conservation plan);
USING (the building in a manner that has
minimal impact on the Character Defining
Elements; and then
INTERVENING by making changes that respect
the heritage values of the building.
11
The Heritage By Law Review Committee
recommended that there be no change in the
800/0/1200/0 calculation for determining building
height at the street line. However, additional
upper stories could be built provided that they
were set back from the street fac;ade and that they
had minimal impact on the streetscape or on
adjoining properties.
12
Here is an example in San Francisco where a
similar planning principle has been used. This is
a new building, but as you see it fits well into its
streetsca pe.
13
When looking up at the building from immediately
across the street you can barely see that there are
additional stories because they are stepped back
from the front fac;ade.
14
This slide shows how this balance between new
development and sensitivity to context and
streetscape has been achieved.
15
This is the Hardy Arcade development on Sparks
Street in Ottawa where the same approach has
been used . You see here the streetscape....
16
Here the front fac;ade when looking straight on......
17
... .And here you get a glimpse of the new
development above, but again done in a manner with
minimal impact upon the streetscape.
18
This drawing of that same Hardy Arcade
Development in Ottawa, shows the original
building and how the new development is located
below a line so that it is not seen when looking up
from the street in front of the building.
19
Preferred Height Treatment
All unita aboIIIl grade
Maximum builOmg
heigh110.7 m
Some prolMlon of lhe
heighl en'llllope acc9plable
on comer sUes
Four1h storey maintains
required selback to reduce i
apparent heigh! along !he
Slrllel~
=::"
Intothlroof
! BuIlding moved eIow
to !he lronl properly line
I
6.1m~
Required , I
ltonl yar<1
IlltlICk
This is what that planning principal looks like when it
is shown on a diagram, in this case from Vancouver,
British Columbia.
20
140%
Diagram #1
__n 120 %
------------- 100 ~
------------- 80~
] 5 feet (1 S m)
The proposed amendment will allow additional
development, over and above the current
standard of 800/0/1200/0. The Board could approve
up to 1400/0 for height, provided it is setback so it
is not visible from the opposite side of the street.
This diagram forms part of the proposed
amendment.
21
In addition as recommended by the By law
Review Committee all buildings on the same side
of the street and not just those buildings built
before 1915, as is now the case, are proposed to
be used in the calculation to determine the
allowable height.
22
The By Law Review Committee recommended
expanding heritage designations to new areas
such as the Lower West Side, Torryburn and King
Street East.
23
The proposed amendment includes designation of
King Street East as Schedule "F" of the By-Law.
This slide shows some of the buildings on the
south side of the street;
24
This slide shows some of the buildings on the
north side of King Street East.
25
A block on King Street West is proposed to be
designated as Schedule "G";
26
Two buildings in Torryburn as Schedule "H", and
27
A block on Princess Street as Schedule "I"; as
requested by property owners in each of these
respective areas.
28
Members of the Heritage Development Board are
confident that the proposed amendment
successfully finds a balance between respect for
heritage and opportunities for development.
We feel that not only can the two co-exist but that
there is an opportunity in Saint John that does not
exist in any other city in Canada.....
For heritage and development to be one and the
same.
We are in favour of the proposed amendment
and we are confident that it will enable us......
29
To Build on Our Past Heritage and
at the same time.....
Develop a prosperous Future for Saint John.
Thank You
30