Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-16 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA March 16, 2009 1:00 p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. Note: If required, there will be a 15 -minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGAT/ONS/STAFFPRESENTAT/ONS- (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 2. PUBL/C WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERV/CES Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1201 DP/DVP/040/06, 11943, 11935 and 11929 Burnett Street Staff report dated March 10, 2009 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/040/06 to regulate the form and character of a proposed apartment building and further that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DP/040/06 in support of a 65 unit apartment building. Committee of the Whole Agenda March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 3 1202 Community Heritage Context Study Project - Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission Staff report dated March 9, 2009 recommending that the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission undertake the Maple Ridge Heritage Context Study Public Project to enhance community awareness, understanding, and appreciation of heritage conservation and to identify the community's heritage values. 1203 St. Andrews Heritage Church Hall Conservation and Feasibility Plan Staff report dated March 10, 2009 recommending that the Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall be adopted and that the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada be adopted to guide conservation of protected sites. 1204 GVSDD License Agreement for the Recycling Depot Staff report dated March 11, 2009 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and execute the agreement titled "License of Use Agreement for Maple Ridge Recycling Depot. 1205 Sanitary Sewer Connection for Timberline Ranch Staff report dated March 10, 2009 recommending that Timberline Ranch be permitted to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system. Report to be circulated separately 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERV/CES (including Fire and Police) 1231 Disbursements for the month ended February 28, 2009 Staff report dated March 9, 2009 recommending that disbursements for February 2009 be approved. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERV/CES 1251 Committee of the Whole Agenda March 16, 2009 Page 3 of 3 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1271 6. OTHER ISSUES 1281 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). The total time for this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. If a member of the public has a concern related to a Municipal staff member, it should be brought to the attention of the Mayor and/or Chief Administrative Officer in a private meeting. Other opportunities to address Council may be available through the office of the Manager of Legislative Services who can be contacted at 463-5221 or by e-mail at cmarlo@mapleridge.ca. Checked by: Date: MAPLE RIDGE 8rilisd Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 10, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: DP/VP/040/06 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W SUBJECT: Development Permit and Development Variance Permit 11943, 11935 and 11929 Burnett Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Permit application and a Variance Permit application have been received for 11943, 11935 and 11929 Burnett Street to regulate the form and character of the proposed apartment building which falls within the East Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan. The three lots have been consolidated for the proposed 65 unit apartment building in the RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential District). This report will address the requirements of Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan for the Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/040/06 respecting property located at 11943, 11935 and 11929 Burnett Street; and further That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DP/040/06 respecting property located at 11943, 11935 and 11929 Burnett Street. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Geoff Lawlor of Geoff Lawlor Architecture Inc. Chelsea Park Holdings Ltd. Lot: 3, Section: 17, Township: 12, Plan: 22046, PID: 009-150-510 Lot: 4, Section: 17, Township: 12, Plan: 22046; PID: 004-628-624 Lot: 5, Section: 17, Township: 12, Plan: 22046; PID: 009-150-536 Urban Residential (low-rise apartment) Urban Residential (low-rise apartment) RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) 1201 Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: b) Project Description: Commercial CS -1 (Service Commercial) Town Centre Commercial & Service Commercial Single Family Residential RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential (Low-rise apartment) Single Family Residential RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential Vacant RM -6 (High Density Apartment) Urban Residential (Medium & High-rise apartment) Vacant Low-rise Apartment 0.404 HA (4039.99 m2) Burnett Street Full Urban RZ/040/06 The subject site totaling 4039.99 m2 comprises of three lots located on the west side of Burnett Street, immediately south of the commercial development occupied by Lordco. Existing single family houses have been demolished, and the three lots consolidated, to house a 65 -unit apartment building with an underground parkade. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan & the Town Centre Area Plan: The Town Centre Area Plan was adopted in November 2008, after this application received third reading for rezoning of the site. At that time, this proposal was subject to Multi -Family Development Permit Guidelines. While the project may not be in total compliance with the recently adopted Town Centre Area Development Permit Guidelines, the project -architect has done the necessary revisions in order to maximize compliance without having to revamp the whole design. The town centre area is divided into 7 precincts and the subject site lies within the East Precinct. The East precinct lies directly east of the Town Centre's civic core, between Brown Avenue to the north, Lougheed Highway to the south, 227th Street to the West and Burnett Street to the east. Among other designations, the East Precinct supports "Low -Rise Apartments" which is the town centre area designation for the subject site. The Low -Rise Apartment use is intended to be a 3 to 5 storey apartment form of housing with central access to all the units and underground parking. -2 East Precinct - Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines: The Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines are meant to provide possible design solutions for achieving architecture and site -related development objectives. Application of the East Precinct - Town Centre Development Permit Guidelines will be assessed against the following: • Provide a Gateway to the Town Centre; The proposed 65 -unit apartment building maintains architectural quality and character of associated new development to the north. Most of the other existing surrounding development is older. A combination of cultured stone veneer, board & batten vinyl siding and weathered shake vinyl siding have been proposed for the facades to create variation along with painted wood trim, asphalt shingle roofing and vinyl windows. • Creating a pedestrian -oriented mixed use development; This is not applicable to this development which is purely residential in nature and the low-rise apartment use has a central entrance for security reasons. The underground parking separates vehicular circulation from pedestrian within the central open space and around the building. • Enhancing the quality, character and vibrancy of the town centre; The town centre area population is projected to increase from 8000 to 21,750 residents by 2012 and this project among other efforts will assist with the residential density increase within the town centre area which in turn will help revitalize the downtown area and promote local businesses. The quality, form and scale of the proposed development will enhance the character of the town centre area and the project fits well with the town centre vision for its eastern most borders. • Capitalizing on Improved views; The building has been designed in a C -shape with 15 to 17 units per floor. The C-shaped layout along with several balconies not only promotes excellent natural light and ventilation into all units at all floors, but also places maximum of the units along the external sides of the C -shape, thus giving better views. Views have been maintained for the upper level units facing north, above the existing Lordco building to the north. • Providing public outdoor space; This is not applicable to this development which is purely residential in nature. No public outdoor spaces have been proposed, however the central open space is well planned for the residents to socialize or use for recreational purposes. • Provide climate -appropriate landscaping and green features; The landscaping proposed includes largely native plants that require modest watering & maintenance. 3- • Maintaining street -interconnectivity. This project does not have a lane and all the parking, except a nominal number of visitor parking stalls is proposed underground. Zoning Bylaw: Council has given third reading to the rezoning application; the vacated single family houses were demolished last year, and the three lots consolidated. The applicant and his team of consultants is working towards satisfying all the conditions of final reading which is anticipated to go on the March 24th Council Meeting agenda. The proposed RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) is intended for low to medium density apartment use and permits a maximum floor space ratio of 1.8 times the net lot area. Proposed floor spaces ratio is 1.29. The usable open space required in this zone is 803 m2 and proposed usable open space is 836 m2. The required common activity area of 65 m2 is divided between an indoor meeting room and the usable open space. Variances to the Zoning Bylaw: The applicant is seeking the following setback variances for the proposed development: • A front setback variance of 1.33m (proposed front setback=6.17m and required is 7.5m) with an intention of better street presence for the proposed building along Burnett Street. • An interior side setback on the north side, of 1.63m unto the staircase facade (proposed interior side setback unto staircase facade = 5.867m and required is 7.5m). The bylaw states that stairs may project beyond the building face as required with no minimum setback to an abutting front or rear lot line. Since this projection is not abutting a front or rear lot line and lies within the interior side yard, it is considered a variance. • An interior side yard setback on the south side, of 0.21m (proposed interior side setback = 7.29m and required is 7.5m). The above listed setback variances do not adversely impact any surrounding properties and all the sides have been adequately landscaped for screening and shade (Appendix D). Off -Street Parking & loading Bylaw: This proposal is subject to the revised minimum parking standards applicable only within the Central Business District of the Town Centre Area due to its location. The Town Centre Parking Strategy done by Bunt & Associates was based on research of existing scenarios and potential future land -use scenarios, density, projected population and mix of land -uses identified within the town centre area. Revised parking standards for residents are based on unit sizes for a multi -family residential use. As per Section 10 of the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990, a minimum of 0.9 spaces per unit are required for a bachelor apartment which increases by 0.1 space per additional bedroom. Based on the revised parking standard, for a total of 65 units, this project requires a total residential & visitor parking of 75 spaces. Total proposed parking is 104 spaces which includes 16 visitor parking stalls, 3 recharging stalls, 8 small car stalls and 3 handicapped -4- parking stalls. 3 visitor parking stalls are proposed at grade and 13 visitor parking spaces are proposed underground separated by an over -head security door from the residential parking. Section 10.3 of the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990 specifies long- term and short-term bicycle parking standards for various uses. For this proposal, a total of 19.5 short-term bicycle parking stalls and 16.25 long-term bicycle parking stalls are required. 22 bicycle storage lockers have been proposed in the under -ground parkade and the required short-term bicycle parking is provided at grade, closer to the main entrance of the building, in a well -lit area visible to pedestrians and cyclists. d) Advisory Design Panel: On June 12, 2007, the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal and was supportive of it due to its location and form. The panel had the following comments: 1. Revisions with streetscape improvements and enhanced landscaping at the entry point are recommended to be submitted to the Planning Department. The project -architect has made the necessary revisions with enhanced landscaping (Evergreen Huckleberry shrub fencing and Japanese Snowbell Street trees) providing shade to the pedestrians on the sidewalk along Burnett Street. e) Financial Implications: A refundable security equivalent to 2.5 % of the estimated value of construction has been provided by the developer/ owner to ensure that the development, including the on-site landscaping, is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. There will be 8 trees added to the municipal street tree inventory on completion of this project. The costs associated with maintaining these trees will need to be included in a subsequent operating budget. f) Alternatives: Not approving this proposal would result in a zoned and consolidated piece of land remaining vacant within the town centre area and may add to enforcement issues around squatters and the homeless. Under Section 919.1 of the Local Government Act and Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan the property has been designated a Town Centre Development Permit Area. Council approval is required for the Town Centre Development Permit Area as presented in this report prior to a Building Permit being issued. -5- CONCLUSION: The proposed project is centrally located with respect to many public transport choices, services and amenities. It is compatible with the surrounding uses and fits well with the policies of promoting maximum residential density within the Town Centre Area as stated in the Official Community Plan and the Town Centre Area Development Permit Guidelines. The proposed apartment building features articulated facades with quality materials chosen for its durability and aesthetic appearance. The C-shaped building promotes maximum natural light and ventilation with a central Courtyard/Open Space and the underground parkade minimizes impact on surrounding uses. Although the applicant has requested the setback variances to accommodate this development, the project reinforces the Official Community Plan vision for the regional town centre area which states that a priority will be placed on residential development within this area hence higher density development will be encouraged in appropriate locations. Therefore, it is recommended that DP/040/06 be approved. Prepared by: Rasika Ache Planner 11 Apprbu-• _ Jan:. Pick rya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD (SFU) C', MCIP Director of Ian ing Appro ed ■ - Franuinn;A, P.Eng ��. GM: Public Works & Development Services C Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Site Plan Appendix C -Architectural drawings Appendix D- Landscape drawings -6- lu P 52750 327 N 57 P 46839 11969 8 7 11963 11953 2 i 11907 (P 21553) LP 59674 LMP 26960 I P 7176441 LMP 42856 48 11954 SUBJECT PROPERTIES H r1) OD N CV 6 11917 11900 236 P 61527 NWS 1739 7 11903 8 11885 9 11873 11830 214 n-cnn'a q 10 N 11865 a 11 11851 167 P 43930 11843 BURNETT ST. IX 1 LMP 1505 1L P 2891 Rem. 1 P 7651 Rem. W 100' of B P 84291 DEWDP P 68237 M a w Rem. Pc! 1 07 0) a 220 P5 229 3011 230 231 P 2 158 11960 157 156 P 437 155 88 154 153 152 1 15 FULLER AVE. gi69 Rem 66 11940 65 11930 70 11931 64 11920 71 11921 63 11910 72 11911 62 11900 73 11901 61 11890 m 01 60 a 11880 74 11891 a 75 11681 59 11870 76 11869 58 11868 77 11857 57 11856 78 11845 H 56 11821 11944 79 11837 CT) N CV 102 V, 109 101 11932 110 11931 100 11922 111 11921 99 11912 112 11911 98 11902 0«3113 co 11901 .7 CL 97 11898 4 a 114 11891 96 11888 115 11881 95 11878 116 11871 94 11868 117 11861 Rem.93 11858 118 11851 EP 44489 A 11848 119 11841 11838 91 120 1183i SCALE 1:2,000 District of Pitt Meadows: Sawa Valley 1I ;o District of Langley 11929/35/43 BURNETT STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE MIDGE MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Apr 26, 2006 FILE: RZ/040/06 BY: PC 8m N O a,. ( ( [$; gglEl AVM AME _, A m! Eg A2 RQ! |° | `• mR ! 1$ lip .. 1 i /III au I I 11 E,e 8 h 5! all .11 .11 '']H.1.11 !]...._....... 4p}X E z m1� 5 east/west site section m2 IT! 1 Apfti.4 rx c q-peI% D 1 1 -1E in lin Inn immAngamum TCTCCCCCvCTPTPCTCC ...... .. C..T IR 4 h o.m to m8 0000049 OIM 01 3 133x15 .U3Nane rard_ s mei aTIATM .16 Vii► 3I -:I lei II�E FFi �;•ruyi eia�. c. _ C9 [ei r n�� Fgaffe ommf iJ%£]k7deVld 7. �: a n i g mumumen 01v ASD 0 z ri91jY11 t ili. 1 i 1 t i 1 II 1 111 1 { 1 ,111 3 1I 11� ifi1T 1 1 IIII1 111si 1�l11g 1 K 1lit { 11 ii 1i�1i, }i 11s�{jjt1 I Fi;x1�• �. 131111 1111 ii1911 11111111111 ! 11 III 1111 11;11: 1 ii 11 1 1111111111 1kit,ll4i1 f1 idi} 11E 1151e11171}F ;ais ,;a 11;11;;.1= 1 1• 1 1 11 1- r 11 1 1 1 r 1 i 1 i 9 I ill 111 Iti! [1 '- i 1 11 1 , 11 1 hil' IIiL,11111 ; 111 . sj � t 1! 1111 ] 1;11 1 1 1 1 1liJt11 E 181'311 �tii1 e,l t �i'� $ 1 1 1 ! I 1 1�1.i 111111111 b 3 ■I 1i {SEI € € � i i18111 41iI i1I1t 111ii1iiiI•i' L 9 e y. 3 Isk i �� 1,! I %i71�1�l1Iig11 €ii1 11 11111911.1a pit11111I!li:.11;111M➢f t11.1'111;,!,i1ii1 tart .1i 1t 1111 ;1' IIi i13q1: i; 1 11 i3iS is•n }a1 pal ! t 1111 I1 95 t1 �, , ,;a . � a 4 3 . e H r F I I! All e a I 'W' 11} }111,1i11 ii lliPI 4 MAPLE Rl;D6E:. rt6seCobovkli r Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 9, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Community Heritage Context Study Project Community Heritage Commission EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission has prioritized the completion of a Community Heritage Context Study in its 2009 work plan. The Heritage Commission is partnering with the B.C. Heritage Branch, who developed this heritage conservation tool and is providing 50% of the funding for this project. A Heritage Context Study project involves a public process that aims to enhance community awareness, understanding, and appreciation of heritage conservation and to identify the community's heritage values. The end product is intended to be a Heritage Context Study in the form of a report that provides a values -based framework for heritage conservation in Maple Ridge. The Community Heritage Context Study public process will be organized into three phases and project completion is expected for early 2010. The process will include two open houses for the general public and two stakeholder workshops. The participation of a number of local groups and organizations will be sought. Community input obtained through the process will be incorporated into the final Context Study report. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Maple Ridge Heritage Context Study Public Process to be undertaken by the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission, as laid out in the report entitled "Community Heritage Context Study Project - Community Heritage Commission", dated March 9, 2009, be endorsed. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Gaining knowledge about Maple Ridge heritage and increasing public awareness, understanding, and appreciation are key areas of the Commission's focus. 1202 The Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission was established in September 2000 with the following mandate: The Commission is appointed for the purpose of advising the Council on heritage conservation matters and undertaking and providing support for such activities as benefit and provide for the advancement of heritage conservation in the District. (Bylaw No. 5908-2000). In 2008, the Community Heritage Commission members discussed the significant amount of work on heritage conservation that has been accomplished over the past number of years and that the future direction of their work program needs refreshing. The Commission determined that it was timely to explore the breadth of heritage values in Maple Ridge. The aim of a Heritage Context Study project is to establish a solid foundation for planning the group's future direction. Through the creation of a Community Heritage Context Study, the major factors and influences that shaped the evolution of Maple Ridge will be identified. This includes the tangible components of heritage, such as significant places and landscapes, as well as less tangible culture, stories, and oral tradition. When the Context Study report is finalized, the Community Heritage Commission will be equipped with a more comprehensive framework that articulates the community's heritage values. The Community Heritage Context Study is a conservation tool developed by the B.C. Heritage Branch. The Heritage Branch is providing 50% of the funding for this project and the Community Heritage Commission is allocating the other 50% from their budget. b) Desired Outcomes: There are a number of goals and objectives that the Community Heritage Context Study process is intended to achieve. Many of these are related to improving awareness and understanding of heritage among community members, as well as providing the Heritage Commission with an understanding of the larger community's heritage values. Goals: 1. Increase public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of Maple Ridge heritage; 2. Integrate community input into the Maple Ridge Heritage Context Study, which will lay the foundation for a heritage strategic planning process; 3. Create avenues for identifying heritage assets that are valued, but not yet recognized; 4. Cultivate community and political support for municipal heritage conservation policies; 5. Establish a link between the conservation of heritage assets and sustainable economic development; 6. Provide opportunities for community partnerships. Objectives: 1. To engage the community stakeholders in an exploration of the major factors and processes that influenced the evolution of Maple Ridge; 2. Identify key historical themes that are important to the community of Maple Ridge; 3. Place Maple Ridge historic communities into a local, regional, provincial, and national context through a wide range of research sources; 4. Contribute new historical information to the existing heritage data for Maple Ridge; 5. Map existing and new information for a comprehensive visual perspective on Maple Ridge heritage. The Heritage Context Study document will be in the form of a final report that contains a contextual framework outlining a historical and evolutionary view of the community. This framework will include heritage themes that are identified by community stakeholders as having significant value and will also provide some specific Maple Ridge examples that support the meaning in each theme. Recommendations for next steps in heritage conservation and management for Maple Ridge will also be included. c) Process The process has been broken down into three phases and the entire project is expected to be completed in early 2010. Public involvement is a key component of this project. The general public will be invited to provide input early in the process at an initial open house and information session and at an open house held towards the end of the process. Two stakeholder workshops are planned to be held between the two open house sessions, which will focus on discussing and identifying key themes in Maple Ridge heritage. Stakeholders will include Maple Ridge Historical Society, Katzie First Nation, community groups and organizations, Business Improvement Association, Chamber of Commerce, municipal staff, B.C. Heritage Branch, and Community Heritage Commission members. The process outline is as follows: Community Heritage Context Planning - Project Timeline Phase Time Phase I Preparation & Planning March to May 2009 Task Project Organization Contact Stakeholder Workshop Invitees Phase II Information Gathering Phase III Preparation of Final Deliverables June to October 2009 Public Open House - Info Session Research, Data Collection, Analysis 2 Stakeholder Committee Workshops October 2009 to February Prepare 2nd Draft of Context Study 2010 Present to Heritage Commission Present at Council Workshop Present at Public Open House Present final draft at Council Meeting d) Strategic Alignment: Section 4.3 of the Official Community Plan addresses heritage conservation and contains numerous policies in support of heritage recognition, heritage management, and heritage education. There are three Official Community Plan policies that support the comprehensive and values -based aspects of a Heritage Context Study, as follows: 4-42 Maple Ridge, in consultation with the Community Heritage Commission, will work to establish a comprehensive heritage management framework that incorporates categories that address information and resource requirements, conservation incentives, education and awareness programs; and utilizes and considers a wide range of planning tools enabled by provincial legislation. 4-43 Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. 4-44 Maple Ridge will collaborate with the Community Heritage Commission, other local organizations, and the general public in order to develop specific programs and to increase public support and interest in heritage conservation activities. e) Citizen/Customer Implications: All members of the public will be encouraged to attend the two open houses and provide input. There will also be two stakeholder workshops, wherein representatives will be invited from a broad range of local interests, including the Katzie First Nations, heritage groups, business community and associations, Council Committees, and other local community organizations. f) Interdepartmental Implications: Staff from various departments will be invited to participate in the process, including those from Parks, Leisure Services,_ Engineering, and Economic Development. g) Business Plan/Financial Implications: It is expected that the entire project will cost $20,000. The B.C. Heritage Branch will provide a maximum amount of $10,000 towards professional services for the project. The Heritage Commission has allocated $10,000 in its budget to cover the other half of the costs for the project. h) Policy Implications: There are no direct policy implications for the District of Maple Ridge that will arise from completion of this project. The Official Community Plan policies currently support this and similar projects that contribute to conserving heritage in Maple Ridge. However, this project is an important step in helping to guide the future workplan of the Community Heritage Commission. CONCLUSIONS: A Community Heritage Context Study process will provide a significant benefit to heritage conservation in Maple Ridge. This public process will help to increase awareness, appreciation, and understanding of Maple Ridge heritage, which is the key to conservation. The process is intended to add a further layer of richness through the public exploration of contributors to the evolution of Maple Ridge as a place, providing the community with a comprehensive and meaningful compilation of local heritage. These outcomes will provide the Community Heritage Commission with a foundation upon which to build a future heritage conservation workplan that serves values of the Maple Ridge community. Prepared by: rove isa Zosiak, Planne Director anning App •veci b ral k Qui"n►a . Eng., PMP zAM: Public rks & Development Services am Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule /Chief Administrative Officer MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: FROM: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 10, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall Conservation and Feasibility Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge owns a number of heritage sites and three of these are protected by a Municipal Heritage Designation. Over the years, the District has maintained these buildings without the benefit of a plan that identifies a standard and the significant heritage features on the site. It has been recognized that the preparation of a Heritage Conservation and Feasibility Plan will ensure the preservation of heritage features on the site and establish a recognized program for the building's maintenance and protection. On May 27, 2008, Council passed a resolution to pursue funding with the B.C. Heritage Branch to prepare Conservation and Feasibility Plans for St. Andrew's Church Hall and Haney House. The Heritage Branch agreed to provide funding for a Heritage Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Church Hall first, as it urgently needs a new roof. The B.C. Heritage Branch is providing 80% of the funding for developing the plan and the process involved hiring a heritage consultant with expertise in architecture and heritage conservation. Public input was also requested at a public event held early in the process. The plan for St. Andrew's is now complete and attached for Council consideration, along with a recommendation in the Plan to adopt the Federally and Provincially recognized Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that: 1. The Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall be adopted; and 2. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada be adopted to guide the conservation of protected heritage sites in Maple Ridge; 1203 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Regular maintenance of the municipally owned heritage properties has kept them in sound condition over time. Three of the heritage sites owned by the District of Maple Ridge are protected through a municipal designation and Sections 967, 972, and 973 of the Local Government Act require that comprehensive maintenance standards are established and followed to ensure preservation of heritage value identified on each specific site. In discussions with the B.C. Heritage Branch on this issue, the District was advised that the preparation and adoption of a Conservation & Feasibility Plan for each site would establish a heritage conservation standard recognized by the Heritage Branch and be consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada. The attached Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Church will be utilized by the Parks & Leisure Services Department, Facilities Section, for preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration purposes and it will also be utilized by the Planning Department to review proposed alterations or work at the site that requires a Heritage Alteration Permit. The Local Government Act requires that no changes or alterations may be made to a protected heritage site without a Heritage Alteration Permit issued by the local government. The District of Maple Ridge currently does not have a Heritage Alteration Permit process and will be working on such a process in the short-term. The Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall sets a standard for heritage conservation specific to this site. The Plan contains a discussion of the history and evolution of the site, an evaluation of heritage significance, and an assessment of potential impacts, including physical condition, and a conservation action plan for short, medium, and long-term maintenance. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada In Section 4.3, on page 51 of the Plan, a recommendation is made for the District of Maple Ridge to formally adopt the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, "as the basis for the review of any permits relating to heritage projects." This is particularly important for heritage sites that are protected through legal mechanisms, such as a municipal designation. The Standards and Guidelines (2003) publication is the result of a collaborative effort between Canadian Provinces, Territories, and the Federal Government and is formally recognized by the Provincial and Federal governments as the appropriate national standard for maintaining the integrity of a heritage site (see www.historicplaces.ca). The purpose of the Standards and Guidelines is "to provide sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice" that offers "clear and consistent guidance". It is noted in the Standards and Guidelines document that the intent is "not to replace the role of conservation practitioners or provide detailed technical specifications" and is therefore, expected to work in conjunction with other heritage conservation tools that are applied to specific sites, such as the Conservation and Feasibility Plan. The adoption of these standards will enable the District to provide an illustrative example to owners of heritage property and will clearly establish the District's expectations for the conservation of heritage resources. b) Strategic Alignment: Improving the management of municipally owned heritage assets by setting a standard of preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration through the Heritage Conservation and Feasibility Plan aligns with policy 4-44 of the Official Community Plan: Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. The Conservation & Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Church is another step towards achieving the conservation objectives outlined in the Maple Ridge Heritage Management Plan (1998), which includes the following recommendations for municipal stewardship: • The District should develop a stewardship policy for publicly -owned heritage resources. There should be an internal monitoring process for these resources, including resources other than buildings. • The care of municipally -owned heritage sites should be standardized. Individual conservation plans for municipally -owned heritage buildings/sites should be developed. • Long-term protection should be considered for municipally -owned heritage sites that have not been designated. The Heritage and Conservation Feasibility Plan is a heritage conservation tool endorsed by the B.C. Heritage Branch as an important and informative component of a municipal heritage management program. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: The public was invited to comment early in the development of the St. Andrew's Plan. On September 25, 2008, the consultant gave a talk at the St. Andrew's Historical Church Hall, which was sponsored by the Maple Ridge Historical Society. The Community Heritage Commission also reviewed the plan and passed the following resolution at the March 3, 2009 Commission meeting: R09-009 It was moved and seconded That the Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Church be approved. CARRIED d) Interdepartmental Implications: The Planning department has been working in collaboration with the Parks & Leisure Services department and the Maple Ridge Museum on the Plan process. The B.C. Heritage Branch has also been involved in reviewing the Plan drafts. All three groups support the Plan and are comfortable with its adoption. Implementation of the Plan will require ongoing communication between Planning, Parks, and the Museum. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The cost of the Plan for St. Andrew's Heritage Church totaled $13,000. The B.C. Heritage Branch is providing a grant for $10,000 and the Parks & Leisure Services department has provided $3,000. Work will begin on preparing a Conservation & Feasibility Plan for Haney House once the B.C. Heritage Branch confirms that a $10,000 grant will be provided. The Parks & Leisure Services department has applied to Heritage B.C.'s Heritage Legacy Fund, which is a joint initiative of the Land Conservancy and the Heritage Society of B.C., for a grant to help pay the costs for replacing the roof. CONCLUSIONS: The Conservation and Feasibility Plan for St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall is an important step in fulfilling the commitment made to preserving this site through the adoption of its Municipal Heritage Designation in 1981. Adoption of the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada will provide clear requirements to those undertaking work on heritage sites protected by legislation, but that do not yet have a Conservation and Feasibility Plan. For those sites with a Conservation and Feasibility Plan, the Standards and Guidelines will serve as a guide on how to carry out site work in an appropriate manner. Together, both of these steps will make a significant contribution to the management of protected heritage properties in Maple Ridge. Prepared by: osiak, Planner proved •y Jam e P c - :, CP, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning Appro 1 .,r• r ., P. Eng. eneral Manager of Public Works & Development - i Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: Appendix 1 - St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall Conservation & Feasibility Plan Appendix 2 - Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards and Guidelines document PLAN ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL MARCH 2009 prepared for: District of MAPLE RIDGE prepared by: DONALD LUXTON x�. ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PART 1: DESCRIPTION 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 Site 5 PART 2: HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 7 2.1 History of Port Haney 7 2.2 History of St. Andrew's 8 2.3 Brickmaking in Port Haney 12 2.4 St. Andrew's: Major Transition Points 13 2.5 Comparison of Archival Images and Current Photos 14 2.6 Statement of Significance 20 PART 3: CONSERVATION POLICIES 22 3.1 Current Context 22 3.1.1 Administrative Framework 22 3.1.2 Site Opportunities & Constraints 23 3.1.3 Functional Deficiencies 25 3.2 Conservation Condition & Recommendations 26 3.2.1 Standards and Guidelines 26 3.2.2 Site 27 3.2.3 Exterior 28 3.2.3.1 Craw!space 28 3.2.3.2 Brick Walls 30 3.2.3.3 Mortar 31 3.2.3.4 Parging 35 3.2.3.5 Windows & Door 35 3.2.3.6 Roof 38 3.2.3.7 Belfry 41 3.2.3.8 Exterior Colours 41 3.2.4 Interior 42 3.2.5 Building Upgrading & Code Compliance 44 3.2.5.1 Structural 44 3.2.5.2 Accessibility 44 3.2.5.3 Fire Detection & Suppression 44 3.2.5.4 Security 44 3.2.5.5 Mechanical & Electrical 45 3.2.5.6 Acoustics 45 3.2.5.7 Health & Safety 45 3.2.6 Further Investigation 45 3.3 Rehabilitation Feasibility 46 3.3.1 Options for Renewal 46 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 1 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 PART 4: IMPLEMENTATION 48 4.1 Conservation Action Plan 48 4.1.1 Immediate Conservation Actions 48 4.1.2 Medium Term Conservation Actions 48 4.1.3 Long Term Conservation Actions 48 4.1.4 Summary of Conservation Recommendations 49 4.2 Potential Funding Sources 50 4.3 Heritage Permitting Procedures 51 4.4 Maintenance Plan 52 4.4.1 Preventative Maintenance Guidelines 52 4.4.1.1 Cleaning - Routine, Cyclical, Non-destructive 52 4.4.1.2 Repairs and Replacement of Deteriorated Materials 52 4.4.1.3 Inspections 53 4.4.1.4 Keeping Water Out 53 4.4.2 inspection Checklist 54 4.4.2.1 Site Inspection 54 4.4.2.2 Exterior Inspection 54 4.4.2.3 Interior Inspection 55 4.4.3 Maintenance Programme 56 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 57 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SOURCES 58 A.1 Collected Sources 58 A.2 Newspaper References 59 A.3 Design Precedents 61 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL ARCHIVAL IMAGES 62 Financial assistance for this project was provided by the Government of British Columbia through the Community Heritage Planning Program. Additional funding was provided by the District of Maple Ridge. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -2- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY St. Andrew's is a very significant historic resource, owned by the District of Maple Ridge and operated under lease agreement by the Maple Ridge Historical Society. For 120 years, it has been a key landmark of historic Port Haney, and in 1981 was designated as a municipal heritage site. Restored in 1982-1983, it has served as a very successful community facility through to the present. Given the age of this historic structure, and its heavy community use, there are normal maintenance and repair issues that need to be addressed, as well as functional challenges that affect its operation and utility. It is now timely to examine the short, medium and long-term actions required to conserve this historic resource and also augment opportunities for its community use. A comprehensive historical profile, extensive physical examination, and a thorough review of operations were conducted. Consultation on this project included meetings with the Maple Ridge Historical Society, District staff and the BC Heritage Branch. Through this process, a comprehensive plan of conservation, renewal and maintenance was developed for this important heritage resource. The following actions are recommended: Short -Term Actions: I. Install basic fire detection, suppression and security measures. 2. Remove vegetation from around the building. 3. Replace cedar shingle roof. 4. Repair cracks in the parging. 5. Carry out regular inspections and maintenance check. 6. Interior upgrades to improve finishes, acoustics & functionality for a variety of events. 7. Verify perimeter drains function. Medium Term Actions: I. Exterior upgrades to wall surfaces. 2. Consider installation of fire suppression system, and security and fire alarms. 3. Preserve wood windows. 4. Carry out seismic upgrades to the foundations. 5. Improve access to crawlspace. 6. Restore authentic colour scheme. 7. Undertake feasibility study of addition. Long -Term Actions: I. Remove remaining inappropriate mortar, rake -out joints and repoint with an appropriate conservation mortar. 2. If feasible, remove parging and replace with a breathable restoration stucco. 3. Replace soffits with more appropriate wooden material. 4. Repair wood elements of belfry including framing and finish wood, as necessary. 5. Full upgrade of kitchen and washroom through construction of a rear addition. 6. Upgrade perimeter drains. This work would be undertaken on a phased basis, as funds allow, including applications for restoration and other grants. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -3- ST, ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 PART 1: DESCRIPTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Name: St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall Address: 22279 116 Avenue, Maple Ridge Original Name: St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church Date of Original Construction: 1888 One of the oldest surviving brick churches on the British Columbia mainland, St. Andrew's is a physical link to the early development and settlers of the District of Maple Ridge. Deeded to municipal ownership in 1963, the church was restored in 1982-83 as a community facility, a function that it still serves. As such, it is a very important symbol of the history of Maple Ridge, as well as a living part of the community. Overall, St. Andrew's has been very well cared for. After 120 years, it remains in active use, is a source of local pride and a key resource in Historic Port Haney.. There are, however, maintenance and repair issues that need to be addressed. Additionally, this facility faces some functional challenges that affect its operation and utility. On September 25, 2008, a presentation on renewal options for this historic site was made to the Maple Ridge Historical Society. The meeting was held in St. Andrew's, and was followed by a lively discussion of the options. As the Society members are fully familiar with its history and operations, many useful suggestions were made regarding how to achieve the goal of renewal. The Society's input, as well as that of the District of Maple Ridge and the BC Heritage Branch, have been invaluable in shaping the recommendations of this report. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -4- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 1.2 SITE St. Andrew's is located on its original site. It is addressed at 22279 116 Avenue, and is just west of the Haney Bypass that was constructed in the 1980s. It is situated in historic Port Haney, a generally residential neighbourhood, that also retains a number of early commercial and institutional buildings. Port Haney was one of the original river settlements in Maple Ridge, and when the CPR arrived became a railway stop as well. The construction of the Lougheed Highway in the 1930s drew development further north, up the hill and away from the Fraser River and the historic neighbourhood. St. Andrew's is located just to the east of a steep ravine, created when a slide of unstable land occurred that rendered a large section to the west of Port Haney undevelopable, forming a natural boundary to the settlement. The Hall is located on an irregular lot (Plan 59018, Lot 4). The east side of the hall appears to encroach onto the lot to the east (Lot 31), on which the original Manse is located. 4 The zoning for the site, and the adjacent Masonic Hall to the west, is H-1 (Heritage Commercial). The adjacent Manse to the east is zoned RT -1 (Two Family Urban Residential). Minimal parking is provided onsite, on a gravel lot to the rear of the church. The Land -Use Designation for the site under the Town Centre Area Plan is "Port Haney Heritage Adaptive Use"; the policies that correspond to this designation are: 3-32 Maple Ridge will continue to encourage the conservation and designation of heritage properties recognized as having heritage value. 3-33 Adaptive re -use of heritage properties is encouraged to enable the longevity of use and ongoing conservation of historical resources. For any rezoning applications in the "Port Haney Heritage Adaptive Use" the permitted zones would be H-1 (Heritage Commercial) and CRM (Commercial/Residential). Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -5- ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 59018. LOT 4 sueuvlsoi mar OF LOIS 32,33,34 AND 35 BLK 1 OF 0 L 398 GROUP I PLAN 155 N W D 'i ',-, 1' • ; 1 i- ',....•;... .. •,' ......, , ' rcil. I i 1. 44 ;444a ;_..[...i ':"I ... ...rel. 1 : . lz1.1-11,1'il ['HI ..„. •, 714/ 1.341 - . 17 ?yii !.- _ 24.n1., F.. 1 [ .. 1: cl.par ..p.eb...i .. 1 r [ vialas ot ,ott 14'11, :13:1.2.....;_ti ._ ---4--•c:!-1-'21 U. F-_. T ;• 14 , •;1,„"-, 'r • . ,z•r4, , Tx1 1:•••••41-• biltm4 am 00.1. 010 a..}su 1W% alp iaI W..14,18.0 irell,•t•y G.q,, b3beverbk e•Abirl trbb 7,11 An wArd 14 pp.n,137.7 - L-11. Rlatalalla a C. 1.•••1-'51•111. 171.•41 b•dNI7PS 0.11 nis11-417 PLAN 5,90/ C.i..1110 lb Ito 1 •rX .17•• GI kW bitlybrabgie l [IA 4 NW 47 ilt•ht• , • " DETAIL 30.16••1 4000 . 'M10. 7.61b ,0in•••40.ig .11.....11W L. 011 V.A. • I ft j. • 1 M.0 W•4.4fitleysC-46.rtat01.3 ydry/Ir• ybkyi• b••00•31r/mb LVI•ly1 ttm• WIWI, et oaf 1••••/11g, bybr rt., • ••••••••••d by tlx• 0•111M1•1 11. •••,•• 114 b•-•fornt emp••••1 4114 t' dur el . . 15D66 a • 0..L.•• CALLIGAN AVENUE 116 1 Z1.07 1 I 071 AVENUE Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 6 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 PART 2: HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE 2A HISTORY OF PORT HANEY The official history of Maple Ridge begins with its incorporation on September 12, 1874. At this point the District was very sparsely settled; the assessment records of the next year list only 62 different property owners. Gradually empty land was developed for farming and served by ship traffic along the Fraser River. Construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway line began in 1882, opening up the area for further settlement. This was also the same year that the Town of Hammond was surveyed. Thomas Haney, originally from Cape Breton, and later from Ontario, came to Maple Ridge in 1876. He had learned the brickmaking trade in the east, and had been part owner of a brickyard in Ontario. He searched both sides of the Fraser River for suitable clay to establish his own business, and bought District Lot 398, one hundred and sixty acres of prime waterfront land, which soon became known as Haney's Landing. Haney set up many of the early services in the area, including the waterworks, donated land for churches, and held public office. In 1880 a large section of land on Howison's property slid into the Fraser River, and caused a tidal wave sixty feet high. This slide made travel between the early settlements of Haney and Hammond more difficult - localizing services in the two areas. In 1884 the first Haney Post Office was opened, with Daniel Docksteader as post master. In 1882, Port Haney was officially registered, and the town plan surveyed in 1889. The 1882-1883 Williams Directory for B.C. states: "Port Haney is the place chosen for the railway station, and will soon it is expected become a village of some importance. All the steamboats in going up and down the river generally stop here. A number of steamers are now running to and from Yale besides the regular mail steamer which runs up and down twice a week. Two of these are through boats to and from Victoria. At Port Haney there is already a licensed hotel, built and kept by Mr. Ross, where board and lodging may be obtained. Below Port Haney is a public wharf where the mails from and to Victoria are delivered and received twice a week. At the mail landing are two stores for general merchandise. There is also a boarding house at which good board and lodging can be obtained, and it is expected that ere long other business places will be established." In 1887 the train began to stop in Port Haney, but it was not until 1893 that a freight station was built, located on the river side of the tracks. Development of Port Haney proceeded rapidly after the coming of the railway, and the 1887 Malladaine & Williams B.C. Directory lists brickmaking as its chief industry, mentioning also the salmon freezing establishment which had been opened. It also states that Maple Ridge was the only rural municipality in British Columbia through which the Canadian Pacific Railway passed. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was built in 1888 on land donated by Thomas Haney. The Maple Ridge Agricultural Association was formed in 1901. The Port Haney Brick Works was formed in 1907 by Harold Burnet, E.G. Baynes and W.M. Horie. Electricity first supplied to Haney in 1912. Aggie Hall was built in 1909, and the Haney Branch of the Women's Institute formed in 1915. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -7- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Roads were stili scarce, and Maple Ridge was not connected to New Westminster until 1913 with the construction of River Road and the Pitt River Bridge. By this time the commercial district of Port Haney was expanding up 224th Street. The opening of the Lougheed Highway finally gave adequate road access, and gradually businesses migrated away from the old part of Port Haney to the new business district. The old townsite was thus less desirable for commercial development, and hence a number of historic structures have survived to this day. The only major change that has occurred in the area recently has been the construction of the Haney By-pass in the 1980s. 2.2 HISTORY OF ST. ANDREW'S St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall, located in Haney (originally called Port Haney) and Maple Ridge District Municipality, was originally built in 1888 for a Presbyterian congregation. It is one of the oldest surviving brick churches on the British Columbia Mainland. Presbyterianism was the system of church government by representative assemblies called presbyteries, and was the name given to one of the groups of ecclesiastical bodies that represent the features of Protestantism emphasized by John Calvin, whose writings crystallized much of the Reformed thinking that came before him. The emigration of Presbyterians from Scotland and Ireland throughout central and western Canada resulted in the establishment of numerous Presbyterian churches, seventy per cent of which joined the United Church of Canada when it was inaugurated in 1925. In the early days of Maple Ridge's settlement, the spiritual needs of the new residents were served by visiting ministers. In 1862, Rev. Robert Jamieson conducted the first Presbyterian service in Maple Ridge; services were subsequently held on an irregular basis. Reverend Alexander Dunn, who came from Scotland in 1875, spent thirty years in the Fraser Valley on behalf of the Presbyterian Church, including parishes in Maple Ridge from 1875-86 and 1892- 1903. In 1875, Dunn held his first service in the home of John Mclvor, and afterward preached in private homes and later in the Methodist Church. Rev. Alex Tait was the minister from 1886- 1892, during which time the present St. Andrew's was constructed. After Dunn's second appointment ended in 1903 he was followed by: Rev. John Fernie (1903-05); Rev. W.M. Reid (1905-09); Rev. G.H. Findlay (1909-21); Dunn's nephew, Rev. A. Dunn (1922); and Rev. C.H. Daly (1923-27). The first Methodist service in Maple Ridge had been held by Rev. Ebenezer Robson in 1865. Maple Ridge was included as part of the New Westminster Methodist circuit until 1876, when it was united with Langley. From 1883 until 1925 it was known as the Maple Ridge Circuit, which included preaching points at Albion, Whonnock, Johnson's Landing, Mission, Port Kells, Matsqui and Dewdney. In 1872-73, a Methodist church was built on the banks of the Fraser River, halfway between Haney and Hammond, that could seat 100 worshippers. Framing lumber was cut onsite, with flooring and siding milled on Burrard Inlet and brought in by scow. In a spirit of cooperation that foreshadowed church unification half a century later, the Methodist and Presbyterian congregations used the church on alternate Sundays for a number of years. In 1891, the church was moved to a site on River Road. In 1926 the Methodist congregation met for the last time, after which part of it united with the Hammond United congregation and part with Haney. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -8- ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church 1888-1926 The new Presbyterian church was built in part with funds raised by the elders of the church mortgaging their land, among them Hector Ferguson, Sr., an early Reeve of Maple Ridge. It was built by volunteer labour and cash donations, and no mortgage was ever required. The land was donated by Thomas Haney; although he was a devout Roman Catholic, he was a generous and public-spirited individual who was instrumental in the establishment of the community that bears his name, The Canadian Pacific Railway had arrived in Maple Ridge in 1885, and was still using a boxcar as a station at Port Haney. There were only six or seven homes in the surrounding area, and as recalled by Hal Menzies "There was of course no electric light, no telephones, no automobiles, in fact no buggies, a farm wagon was a conveyance deluxe, if you could find a road to use it on, very few had horses, some had oxen." The construction of a solid brick church was a clear sign of the determination of the early settlers to establish a permanent community at this location. The church was dedicated on Sunday March 25, 1888. It was built with volunteer labour, so there is no record of a tender call in any newspaper. The name of the architect and general contractor are therefore not known. However, several references confirm the name of the original bricklayer, John Wilson White, who was born in England in 1859, and moved to Canada in 1881. He appears to have arrived in Maple Ridge at about the time the church was built. White worked as a bricklayer for his entire career, and lived in Maple Ridge until his death in 1941. The adjacent manse was built in 1906, with the help of a $500 loan from the Presbytery, which was paid off within six years. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -9- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 St. Andrew's and adjacent Manse, 1906 [Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P07547] This image was described by long-time resident Howard Leggatt, in a Letter to the Editor in the Gazette on December 10, 1969. "As i attended Sunday School in this church from about 1915 and remember many of the pioneers who were concerned with its early history, I would like to comment a bit on the same.... A closer examination of the picture will reveal the toe -holds on the manse roof left by the shinglers, so, if anything, I would say that the photo was made upon the completion of the manse. I believe the manse was built by Mr. Menzies, father of Hal Menzies, who was superintendent of the Sunday School for many years.... The church itself was built at least in part with funds raised by the elders of the church mortgaging their land, among those being Hector Ferguson, Sr., who was an early Reeve of Maple Ridge. By 1915 the picket fence in the picture was gone, and the tree to the right of the entrance was a hefty specimen about 18 inches at the butt, and under which the boys used to mill about while waiting for classes to commence, while the girls of that time went inside and properly took their places. Mr. Summerville was superintendent of the Sunday School and the Rev. George Findlay the minister at the time. Mr. Findlay was an inveterate gardener and the manse displayed a great show of beautiful flowers and shrubs during his incumbency. The church, as I first recall it, was very much as shown, large round gable window and beautiful little gothic porticos, which collapsed from decay about 1917-1918. This was replaced by a larger porch of shed roof design and built by Mr. Ross, for whom Ross Road is named." Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 10 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 St. Andrew's United Church 1926-1963 Union of Methodist, Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches as the United Church of Canada took place in 1925, and local amalgamation of the churches occurred the following year. The old Methodist Church on River Road was closed, and the Maple Ridge area churches were rearranged into two charges: Haney and Hammond. Haney included St. Andrew's as well as Whonnock and Albion; Hammond included Pitt Meadows and Webster's Corners. A large wood -frame Sunday School Annex was built in 1927, to the rear of the original church, at a cost of $424 plus volunteer labour. An additional $200 was donated by Ladies Aid for interior finishes and furnishings. The old Methodist Church, unused since 1926, was standing vacant on River Road. It had a small tower above the entry that still had its original bell. In 1934, it was suggested that the bell, like many of the former parishioners, should be brought to St. Andrew's. Well-known local builder Dugald Brown was consulted on whether or not the roof would bear the weight of a bell tower, and he pronounced it safe to do so. "Before proceeding with the construction of the tower, consultation was made with one of the Whonnock members, a Mr. Robert Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton was a Scotsman who had come to Canada a number of years before, somewhat on an impulse, leaving an architect's business in Glasgow and settling on a farm on a hilltop above the Fraser at Whonnock. Mr. Hamilton's architectural skill was sought in the pursuance of the project and he drew a scale tower of the proper dimensions to harmonise with the rest of the building." Rev. Peter Henderson, "St. Andrew's United Church, Haney" (undated memoir) The new vestibule and the bell tower were built in 1934 with volunteer labour, supervised by Brown. The first indoor plumbing in the Annex was added in 1935. in 1930, certain adjustments were made in the parishes on the north side of the Fraser River. Haney was asked to relinquish Whonnock so that it could be joined with other churches to form a new charge to the east; St. Andrew's then instituted an extra evening service. Whonnock became separate again in 1930 and in 1937 the Haney -Hammond Pastoral Charge was created embracing St. Andrew's, Hammond and Webster's Corners. Webster's Corners was attached to the Whonnock charge in 1953 and in 1960 Haney and Hammond were again separated into the current arrangement of St. Andrew's (Haney) Pastoral Charge and Hammond -Pitt Meadows Pastoral Charge. With further growth in the area, and the business district now firmly established up the hill along Lougheed Highway, the Haney parish made the decision to move to a new building. The new St. Andrew's United Church opened on Dewdney Trunk Road on Sunday May 27, 1956 (Underwood, McKinley, Cameron Architects). The parish remains at this location today. The old St. Andrew's now sat vacant, and there were sporadic attempts to find other uses. The manse was sold to private ownership. In 1957, the idea of using the church for a museum was discussed. After several rounds of talks about tax exemption, the District was asked to take over the building, which it did in 1963. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 11 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Municipal Ownership: 1963 -Present On May 27, 1963 the old church was deeded to Municipal ownership. That October, a request was granted to demolish the Annex and start some preliminary renovations to allow rental, and the parking lot was developed. Although the historic value of the church was recognized, there was no clear vision about what to do with it. In 1974, as part of the Maple Ridge centennial celebrations, District Council voted to tear down the Church, to replace it with a brick -faced replica that would serve as a local museum. Despite this threat, St. Andrew's survived and was designated as a Municipal Heritage Site in 1981. Planning was underway in 1982 for the restoration work that would turn the vacant St. Andrew's Church into a community facility. The original assessment was carried out by Industrial Mill Installations Ltd. in 1982, and noted the following deficiencies: • The existing structure was noted as sound, except for a few minor spots of deterioration. Underpinning of the structure was recommended in some areas. • The interior plasterwork was noted as severely cracked, and recommended for replacement. • The brickwork was adequate except for four or five areas where the veneer was broken through and required rebuilding (about 50 square feet). • The parged stringcourses were noted as severely deteriorated. • The window sashes were worn on the exterior and missing about 50% of the glazing. • The exterior doors required replacement. • The brick chimney had separated from the wall and was slated for removal. • Crawl space ventilation, insulation and perimeter drainage were proposed. . In 1983, a restoration grant of $20,260 was received from the BC Heritage Trust by the Maple Ridge Historical Society. This augmented other funds that had been raised, and the construction work was undertaken by Ellison Construction (Division of lamco Holdings Ltd.) in 1983. Since that time, St. Andrew's has been used as a community rental facility. 2.3 BRICKMAKING IN PORT HANEY Brickmaking was the earliest industry in Port Haney, dating to the arrival of Thomas Haney in the area. Haney was the oldest of three brothers who owned a brickyard in Ontario, but decided to seek opportunities in the west. He explored both sides of the Fraser River for suitable clay deposits, and in 1876-77 acquired 160 acres from the Wickwire Estate, undoubtedly influenced by the potential construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway on the north side of the river. By 1892, three brickyards were located in Haney within half a mile of each other (Beckett & Co., Sinclair and Purdey). These were seasonal soft mud works, and employed some of the Chinese labourers who remained in the area after the CPR was completed. By the early twentieth century, many small brickmaking businesses were located throughout the Port Haney area, due to its 4,000 acres of rich clay deposits. The Port Haney Brick Company Ltd. was formed in 1907, largely to supply the very successful contracting firm of Baynes & Horie. It prospered as the Lower Mainland developed in the boom years prior to the First World War, and operated continuously for the next seventy years. The bricks were formed of local surface clay, burnt in wood and coal-fired down -draft kilns. The success of this brick yard and its close proximity to the core of Port Haney contributed greatly to the ongoing growth of the area. Donald Luxton & Associates inc. March 2009 - 12 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 24 ST. ANDREW'S: MAJOR TRANSITION POINTS 188.8 St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church is built, on land donated by Thomas Haney. 1906 The adjacent church Manse is built on the lot to the east. 1917-18 • The original porch collapses, and is replaced by a shed -roofed entry. 1925 Church Unification. Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist parishes join to form the United Church of Canada. 1927 The Sunday School Annex is built to the rear of the Church. 1934 Construction of new vestibule and bell tower. 1935 Indoor plumbing is first installed in the Annex. 1956 The new St. Andrew's United Church opens on Dewdney Trunk Road. The old church is abandoned. The bell is moved to the new church. 1963 The old church is deeded to Municipal ownership. The Sunday School Annex is demolished. 1981 St. Andrew's is designated as a Municipal Heritage Site. 1982-83 Restoration project; B.C. Heritage Trust grant to the Maple Ridge Historical Society; the church is restored and has been used as a community rental facility since. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 13 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 2.5 COMPARISON OF ARCHIVAL IMAGES AND CURRENT PHOTOS c St. Andrew's Church and Manse, 1906. Note presence of chimney and Gothic portico, and absence of belfry (MRM&A P00024) St. Andrew's Church (Heritage Church Hall) and Manse, 2008 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 14 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Southeastern view of St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall, circa 1920. Note presence of finial and ridge cresting, and porch replaced with shed -roofed vestibule (MRM&A P00970) Southeastern view of St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall, with belfry and vestibule added in 1934 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 15 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Southwest view, 1910s (MRM&A P01516) Southwest view, 2008. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 16 - o=rt ?EW'S. HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 East elevation prior to removal of annex, circa 1930s. Note diagonal boards of transoms (MRM&A P02638) East elevation with extensive adjacent vegetation growth, 2008. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 17 - ST. ANDREWS HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Northeastern view, 1950. Church annex was added in 1927 (MRM&A P02615) Northeastern view, 2008 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 18 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Nl rTh elevation ith outline of removed annex, 1980 (MRM&A P03014) North elevation, 2008 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 19 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 2.6 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE [Revised December 2008] DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PLACE St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall is located on 116 Avenue in its original location, adjacent to its 1906 manse and close to the historic core of Port Haney. The steeple is prominent in the area and the rear of the building is visible from the Haney By-pass. HERITAGE VALUE OF HISTORIC PLACE St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall is a significant heritage resource within Maple Ridge and is valued as one of the oldest churches in the District, for its association with area pioneer Thomas Haney, as a contributing factor in the growth of Port Haney at the time of its construction, and as a facility that has served community needs for over 120 years. The early settlement of Port Haney fronted on the Fraser River, which provided access before the development of roads through the area. Over time, significant commercial and residential activity developed and Port Haney became a major historic transportation hub in the region. Decline set in after the Great Depression and a devastating fire in 1932 that destroyed much of the business centre, causing commercial activity to relocate to the north along the newly - opened Lougheed Highway, a make-work project that connected the Fraser Valley communities by road. The historic portion of Port Haney was isolated, and survived to be recognized as a heritage precinct and a reminder of the early history of the District of Maple Ridge and the development of its original small town centres. The Presbyterian Church was considered an important community facility as demonstrated by the use of volunteer labour in its construction, the donation of land by Thomas Haney, who was Catholic, and the donation of bricks by the local small kiln operators in the area. The community spirit fostered by the construction of the church was further reflected in the growth of the commercial area of Port Haney, in close proximity to the church. Clad in local brick and designed in a manner that gives the building a strong sense of purpose, the presence of the building afforded the residents of Port Haney a feeling of permanence within their community. The Church is also valued as one of the few early churches in British Columbia clad with brick. A reflection of the bustling brick making businesses in the area, this structure is unique among the early pioneer churches of the region. The adjacent manse was built in 1906, and was first occupied by the Reverend William Reid and his family. St. Andrew's operated as a Presbyterian Church until 1926, when it merged during Unification with the Maple Ridge Methodist Church, and became St. Andrew's United Church. Symbolic of Union, the church steeple was built in 1934 to house the disused bell from Maple Ridge Methodist. In 1956, the bell followed the congregation to a new church built on Dewdney Trunk Road. The preservation of this important heritage structure demonstrated a growing community consciousness of the value of historic resources; the District of Maple Ridge acquired the church in 1963. It was restored by the Maple Ridge Historical Society In 1983, and since that time has been used as a community facility. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 20 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 CHARACTER -DEFINING ELEMENTS Key elements that define the heritage character of St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall include its: - location near the riverfront core of historic Port Haney, adjacent to the 1906 Presbyterian manse - form, scale and massing - symmetry of plan and elevation - locally -made brick cladding and soft lime mortar - barged brick courses and foundation - later bell tower and vestibule - 4 -over -4 wooden -sash windows with blind pointed arches above - surviving interior features including the volume of the original hall, original entry doors and wainscoting in the vestibule, and original window trim Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -21 - ST, ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FIEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 PART 3: CONSERVATION POLICIES 31 CURRENT CONTEXT 3.1.1 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall is currently owned by the District of Maple Ridge. As part of the "District of Maple Ridge Heritage Management Plan" prepared in 1998, the following suggestions were made for Municipal Stewardship: • The District should develop a stewardship policy for publicly -owned heritage resources, with a long-term view of integrating heritage conservation within the ongoing municipal process. • The care of municipally -owned heritage sites should be standardized. Individual conservation plans for municipally -owned heritage buildings/sites should be developed. • A consistent program of interpretive signing should be developed for municipally - owned sites. Under the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 6425-2006, the following policies relate to heritage: Section 3.1.2 Community Character & Sense of Place • 3-3: The stability of a neighbourhood's physical character is one of the keys to a successful community. Maple Ridge will protect residential neighbourhood character by: a) encouraging the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock; d) maintaining an adequate quality of community services and facilities; e) encouraging the conservation and restoration of heritage resources. • 3-4: To foster a sense of community and neighbourhood identity, Maple Ridge will encourage: a) opportunities for public catering spaces in and around community nodes; d) preservation of heritage elements as a unifying feature throughout the community. • 3-5: Maple Ridge will support Healthy Community Land Use Strategies and community wellness principles by: encouraging public space that offer opportunities for community interaction. Section 4.3.1 Heritage Recognition • 4-40: Maple Ridge will encourage the conservation and designation of significant heritage structures and natural and cultural landscape features in each neighbourhood. Section 4.3.2 Heritage Management • 4-42: Maple Ridge, in consultation with the Community Heritage Commission, will work to establish a comprehensive heritage management framework that incorporates categories that address information and resource requirements, conservation incentives, education and awareness programs; and utilizes and considers a wide range of planning tools enabled by provincial legislation. • 4-43: The development application review process will include an opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 22 - T. ANDREW'S HERIITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 characteristics and context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and standards should be prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from which recommendations can be made to Council. 4-44: Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage management in the District. Section 4.3.3 Heritage Education 4-46: Maple Ridge will collaborate with the Community Heritage Commission, other local organizations, and the general public in order to develop specific programs and to increase public support and interest in heritage conservation activities. Since 1983, St. Andrew's has been operated through a lease agreement with the Maple Ridge Historical Society. The current lease runs from 2008 until 2013, and the Society agrees to undertake all day-to-day maintenance and repairs, including mechanical repairs and interior painting. The District is responsible for structural repairs, roofing and replacement of heating, plumbing, air, electrical and ventilating systems, exterior painting and floor replacements. The facility is currently fully rented, primarily for after school programs, community events, weddings and church services for four different churches. 3.1.2 SITE OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS The church sits on its original site, one lot with a landscaped front yard, small side yards and a gravel parking lot to the rear. The parking lot was once the location of the Sunday School Annex, that was demolished in 1963. Onsite parking is limited to four cars; however larger events at the Hall are generally held at night and on the weekend, and there is usually sufficient street parking nearby. Any addition to the north of the church would remove some or all of the onsite parking, although there may be an opportunity to provide approximately the same number of stalls perpendicular to the rear street. Trees and shrubs at the sides of the building were planted .after the 1983 restoration. They have since grown quite large, and are now providing hiding spaces at night and also are retaining moisture in the soil along the foundations. There is no appropriate sense of arrival at the site. The identification signage at the front is poor, and there are no signs at the rear, where the parking is located. The rear is also the most visible facade to the Haney Bypass. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 23 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 By considering the constraints of an historic place, a more informed decision may be made pertaining to its future function and management. This should be integrated into the policy development. The Statement of Significance should be used in guiding the policy makers in determining site constraints. Character -Defining Element Constraints Location near the riverfront core of historic Port Haney, adjacent to the 1906 Presbyterian manse Form, scale and massing Symmetry of plan & elevation Adjacent development or development which may affect the building's relationship with the riverfront core and manse should be considered with the aid of the Maple Ridge Official Community Pian, Bylaw No. 6425 — 2006 Section 4.3.2 4-43 The development application review process will include an opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Ih designing a new addition, consider the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada to: - Construct a new addition to retain as many of the historic materials as possible and to ensure that the character—defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed, or the heritage value undermined. - Design a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. - Consider the design for an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the historic place as well as the historic district or neighbourhood. - Place a new addition on a non—character—defining portion and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic place. Preserve considering the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Standards and refer to Sections 3.2.3.2 Brick Walls and 3.2.3.3 Mortar of this document Preserve considering the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Standards and refer to Section 3.2.3.4 Parging of this document Consider the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Standard recommending the conservation of changes to a historic place, which over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. Locally -made brick cladding and soft lime mortar Parged brick courses and foundation Later bell tower and vestibule Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 24 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Character -Defining Element Constraints 4 -over -4 wooden -sash windows with blind pointed arches above Conserve and rehabilitate considering the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Standards and refer to Section 3.2.3.5 Windows & Doors of this document Surviving interior features including the volume of the original hall, original entry doors & wainscoting in the vestibule & window trim Consider the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Standards when designing the rehabilitation of the interior and preserve surviving interior features, where possible. 3.1.3 FUNCTIONAL DEFICIENCIES The church was originally one large open room, without any interior partitions. The 1983 work introduced an interior washroom, kitchen, mezzanine and utility room. The original plan was to construct an addition to the north to house these functional upgrades, however this was not carried out. These intrusions mean that the capacity of the interior is rated for 72 people, just under the size desirable for most weddings. There is only one unisex washroom in the facility, that does not meet barrier -free requirements. Similar to the other interior features, the aesthetics are worn and dated. There are no changing facilities, no dressing rooms, -no adequate stage facilities or additional lighting or sound equipment. As the facility is used by many different groups on an ongoing basis, the provision of storage is a key problem. Storage is currently provided in the mezzanine, which has been blocked off with a partial height wall. This storage is accessed by an inadequate dog -leg staircase. The poor visual appearance of the interior and limited functionality limits its marketability. Although the facility is fully rented, the potential for return, and the possibility for larger events, may not be optimal. The issue of cosmetic and functional upgrading, however, should not overshadow the other pertinent conservation factors that need to be addressed to retain the historic character of the site. The following functional deficiencies issues were identified during the current visual inspection: EXTERIOR • The windows have been painted shut, and cannot be opened due to the Lexan security covers. This limits ventilation within the space. • The coloured glass in the windows limits the available natural light. • The front steps are deteriorating. INTERIOR The entry vestibule does not provide the kind of appearance that would make guests feel welcome. It is currently used for chair storage. • Finishes are worn and unattractive. • The linoleum floor is institutional in appearance. • Hardware is cheap and wearing out. • Lighting is provided by overhead fixtures, is not directional and tends to be harsh. • The kitchen finishes are worn and undoubtedly hard to keep clean and follow food safe practices. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -25- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 • The washroom needs no further comment. A complete refurbishment is required. • The se stacking chairs and tables are functional but not attractive. • The stage area is inadequate. • Acoustics in the hall are very poor — likely due to the overall hard, reflective surfaces. 1: LDING CODE ISSUES • Barrier -free access is impeded by raised door silts, lack of ramps, and door and corridcr widths. There is no fire protection system, and the fire alarms are missing or may not be working. • There are no security alarms (and no telephone line). 3.2 CONSERVATION CONDITION & RECOMMENDATIONS 3.2.1 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003) is the nationally -recognized reference used to determine the approach of intervention to historic properties. The following Standards should be followed when carrying out any work to an historic property such as the St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall. STANDARDS 1. Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character -defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location is a character -defining element. 2. Conserve changes -to a historic place, which over time, have become character -defining elements in their own right. 3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. 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. 5. Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character - defining elements. 6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information. 7. Evaluate the existing condition of character -defining element to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. 8. Maintain character -defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character -defining element by reinforcing the materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 26 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character -defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention for future reference. Additional Standards relating to Rehabilitation 10. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements compatible with the character of the historic place. 11. Conserve the heritage value and character -defining elements when creating any new additions to a historic place and any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of a historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Additional Standards relating to Restoration 13. Repair rather than replace character -defining elements from the restoration period. Where character -defining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that match the forms. materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. 14. Replace missing features from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence. Considering these Standards and Guidelines, the interventions proposed for St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall include aspects of preservation, rehabilitation and restoration, defined below: Preservation: The action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation: The action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of an historic place or an individual component, through repair, alterations, and/or additions, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration: The action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of an historic place or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. 3.2.2 SITE A comparison of archival photographs from even twenty years ago demonstrates that there has been significant build-up of shrubbery and plants around the building. These are detrimental to the building in a number of ways, such as blocking the gutters and trapping moisture close to the masonry walls and foundations. in addition, there are security issues with the hiding opportunities provided by the plantings. It is recommended that the vegetation be almost Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 27 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 completely removed, or if some plants are retained, trimmed back significantly. Some of the large rhododendrons could be pruned back, and moved if necessary. Any new landscaping should be small-scale specimens that will only grow to moderate height (e.g. hydrangeas). The removal and trimming of vegetation will also allow greater visibility of the church structure itself. In addition, the site is inadequately signed, both at the front and the rear. New signs should be installed, to provide identification of the site. Interpretation of the historic significance of the site could also be provided. 3.2.3 EXTERIOR In 2006, the Puffer & Associates report concluded that the structure was overall in good condition, with no noted failures or water ingress issues. This report identified a number of deficiencies, some of which have since been corrected. Foundations and Footings: It was noted that the existing foundations would provide very little resistance to lateral movement, however, the structure is sitting on an expansive clay base with no compactable material visible. The 8 by 8 centre beam sits on brick columns, with additional bracing to correct settlement. The floor joists are 2" by 8" fir joists 16" OC, which are adequate for loading but additional bridging could be installed to alleviate deflection. Crawl Space: Recommendations were made for a new poly vapour barrier and additional venting. Insect nesting holes were noted in the clay and extermination was subsequently undertaken. The perimeter drainage system was noted as adequate and functioning. Roof: The roof surface and flashings were noted as at the end of their lifespan. Gutters and downspouts were recommended for replacement, with larger cross-sections. Insulation was considered adequate, but further ventilation of the attic was recommended. The wood is noted as being very dry, and the need for a fire protection system was noted. Electrical: The existing 200 amp service was considered adequate. Plumbing: The existing 3/4" service is considered adequate for the existing plumbing fixture load. Any additional water needs, such as a fire suppression system, would require upgraded service. As part of this current assessment, a further inspection was carried out by Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. on August 22, 2008 to assess the current condition of the building fabric. The building is considered to be generally in good condition, and has been well-maintained since the time of its major repairs in 1982-1983. In order to formulate a long-term restoration strategy and maintenance plan the physical deficiencies have been fully identified. 3.2.3.1 Crawlspace The crawlspace is accessed from a hatch on the east side of building; access to the crawlspace is adequate, but awkward. The crawlspace walls are constructed of brick, bonded with lime mortar. In 1983, the foundation walls were partly underpinned with concrete block and reinforced with poured concrete. There is an 8"x8" full dimension central beam supporting the 8"x2" floor joists. The cross -wise floor joists are 16" on centre. Wooden props provide additional support to the floor structure and there is insulation between the floor joists, under the floorboards. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 28 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Foliowino recommendations made in the Steve Puffer & Assoc. Report (dated May 22,• 2006) a vapour barrier placed on the ground, batt insulation installed under vestibule, the pipes under the building were insulated and insect infestation was addressed. The original brick piers that support the centre beam are unreinforced masonry with lime mortar. There is only one steel post located near the entry to the crawlspace. The brick piers are inadequate for seismic resistance. New structural piers should be installed between the brick piers to support the centre beam. Conservation Intervention: Rehabilitation • Determine structural requirements for additional seismic reinforcement of the centre beam. • Access to the crawlspace should be improved. Foundations in crawlspace prior to structural reinforcement (MRM&A 00678) View of crawlspace with polyethylene on ground and insulation above, 2008 Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 29 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.3.2 Brick Walls The walls are clad in local red brick, laid in a stretcher bond. This cladding, a character - defining element of the building, is one wythe thick, approximately 4", abutting internal wood framing. The soft -fired bricks came from small local brickyards that were located near the site. By the 1970s, the brickwork was in deteriorated condition. A report by Spratt Bailey Laboratories Ltd. in 1974 stated that the badly neglected brickwork had "suffered severely from freeze -thaw spelling in the lowest 10 courses, shear cracking elsewhere and vandalism at the corners where large portions of several square feet have been knocked out". The bricks are bonded by mortar. The original mortar is Time -based and is still present behind later and harder mortar, which has a higher cement content than the original and was applied in 1982/1983. The original chimney, visible in archival photographs, was considered to be in poor condition, and was removed in 1982-1983. The bricks are generally in good condition, and require little immediate attention other than remedial cleaning. Conservation Intervention: Preservation • Clean as required, using the gentlest possible means. Structural composition of walls: timber framing with diagonal shiplap clad in brick on the exterior, one wythe thick (MRM&A P00676) Interior view of structure: framing and shiplap (as seen in previous image) with interior finish of tongue -and -groove wainscoting. Note structure below floor joists (MRM&A P00682) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 30 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.3.3 Mortar The brickwork was originally constructed using a traditional lime -based mortar. Lime mortar does not contain any cement in it and was typical of the construction period and appropriate for this type of soft, local brick used. In 1982-1983 repair work to the building was carried out. The deteriorated mortar joints were filled with a replacement mortar. This replacement mortar is harder and more brittle than the original. Mortar should be softer than brick, and therefore sacrificial, in order to allow moisture to evaporate through the mortar instead of the brick. By doing this, the bricks have a longer lifespan. Restoration techniques have improved in the past twenty years, and the cementitious mortar is considered an inappropriate repair. Fortunately, in the case of St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall, the original mortar is still present behind the later mortar which was buttered into the joints and is now loose and in some areas failing, leaving the original mortar exposed in the recessed joint. Aside from giving an inconsistent, patchy appearance, it is considered that the harder mortar is not deteriorating the bricks. Recommended Repairs: To remove all of the inappropriate repair mortar is a huge undertaking and, in our opinion, unnecessary considering the current pattern of decay is for the repair mortar to fail by its natural weathering process. However, it is recommended that where any new mortar is being applied to the building, a softer mortar containing lime is used. A mix such as a Type 0 (1 part cement: 2 parts lime: 8-9 parts sand by volume) or Type K (1 part cement: 3 parts lime: 10-12 parts sand by volume) would be appropriate for the type of brick on the building. In the long-term, full repointing of the building with an appropriate lime -based mortar is recommended. This is because the mortar behind the removed repair mortar is recessed in the joint and may allow water to become trapped on the brick. If and when inappropriate repair mortar is being removed, it should be used using small pneumatically powered chisels or hand tools from horizontal joints and hand tools only to remove mortar from vertical joints. Power saws, or any other tools which may damage the brick, should not permitted. Conservation Intervention: Preservation • Repoint when required, using an appropriate lime -based mortar. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -31 - NDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 i ll Brickwork with replacement (whiter) and original mortar Replacement cementitious mortar buttered on original brickwork (particularly bad example) Detail of replacement mortar, with original mortar under. Replacement mortar was lifted off the original mortar Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 32 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Concision of bricks, mortar and parging prior to 1982-83 restoration (MRM&A P00671) Severely damaged brickwork. repaired during 1982-83 restora (MRM&A P00030) tion Structure of parged plinth with bricks underneath, early 1980s (MRM&A P00675) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 33 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Window prior to restoration 1982-83. Note similar cracking pattern. (MRM&A P00042) Parged window surround prior to 1982-83 restoration showing bricks beneath (MRM&A P00028) Parged window sills prior to 1982-83 restoration showing bricks beneath (MRM&A P00042) Typical four -over -four wood sash window, 2008 Current window surround with cementitious parging Current window sill with cementitious parging. Note pattern of cracking follows line of brick courses Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 34 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.3.4 Parging The parged window hoods, string course and plinth are formed in brick and parged/stuccoed with an unpainted cementitious parging. Based on archival images and on site investigation, the protruding elements were constructed in brick with a lime -based parging on the bricks. This was subsequently built-up with a cementitious parging during the 1983 works. Similarly to the mortar discussed above, the existing parging was carried out as part of the 1982-1983 restoration and is hard and brittle, which has a different differential movement to the brick substrate. This has caused the parging to crack and once a crack is formed, water enters the crack and becomes trapped beneath the cement parging. The result of this trapped moisture is dissolution of the softer original lime parging below and an increase in the cracks. Once moisture becomes trapped, the substrate is more susceptible to failure from freezing. The areas of cracked parging are predominantly at junctions e.g. junction of window hood and window transom. However, photographs taken prior to the 1983 repairs indicate a similar cracking pattern, so the problem may also be inherent in the building design and construction. On the plinth, there are areas of crazing and damage from impact by the northern door. These too permit additional moisture to penetrate the brick substrate. There is biological growth on the parging (notably the plinth), but aside from affecting the aesthetics, this is not seriously affecting the parging. Recommended Repairs: Many sections of parging are showing signs of cracking, particularly at junctions. In the short term, these should be repaired using an appropriate breathable restoration material, such as Jahn M40 Crack and Injection Void Grout or Jahn M60 Plaster/Stucco Mortar (by Cathedral Stone Products). In the long-term the existing parging should be removed, the brick substrate repaired and parging replaced with a breathable restoration stucco. Prior to removal of parging, trial samples should be carried out in order to determine the extent of damage to the original brick beneath. If the removal of parging causes considerable damage to the brick, it is not recommended, and patch repairs of failed sections would be appropriate. Conservation Intervention: Preservation • In the short term, patch with appropriate restoration mortar. • Long-term investigation of condition of substrate, and repairs as required. 3.2.3.5 Windows & Doors Only a few of the window sash were replaced during the 1982-1983 works, otherwise the sash are original to the 1888 date of construction. The windows throughout the Hall are the original narrow 4 -over -4 sash windows with a central mullion and pointed -arch blind transoms. The sashes are double -hung on one side, with horns on the upper sashes. The transoms consist of wood tracery with diagonal timber backing boards; the transoms were never glazed. Lexan in wood frames has been installed to the exterior of the windows. Over the vestibule on the south elevation is a circular opening that originally contained a rose window, which is currently closed over with mortar. The windows are generally in good condition and have been well maintained. Some windows have either been painted shut or are difficult to open from a build-up of many Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 35 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 layers of paint. There is no sash hardware present. Originally the double windows were operable on one side only, and here the sash pulleys remain in the window frame. On the exterior, putty has failed in some areas, but this is part of the natural weathering process and is not of particular concern. The appearance of the building might be improved if the Lexan were replaced as it has discoloured over time. There are two doors into the Hall. The front door on the south elevation is a double outward swinging panelled -wooden door assembly, with panic hardware on the interior of each door. Each leaf is 30" wide by 82" high. At the rear corner is a single -leaf, 36" wide by 84" high, outward swinging panelled door with panic hardware. All exterior doors date from 1983. The original church doors, dating to 1888, are enclosed by the later vestibule, and separate the vestibule from the main hall. These double leaf doors are panelled, and retain their original hinges. Recommended Repairs: An advantage of heritage wooden sash windows, like those in St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall, is that they can be fully dismantled, repaired and reassembled. In addition, functioning double -hung sash windows allow natural ventilation and summer cooling by permitting the free flow of fresh air. The windows that were previously openable should be made to open again by removing the extra layers of paint. Repair or replace missing or damaged elements, such as window stops and parting strips. Reinstate sash cord with appropriate cotton sash, sash weights (which may still be within the window framing) and hardware. Replace failed putty. Consideration can then be given to removal of the existing Lexan panels, and replacement with a more appropriate storm sash system, that would continue to provide protection and insulation but would also allow ventilation. Storm sash could consist of removable panels, that could also be hinged to allow partial opening. Ensure the space between window and any exterior window system is adequately ventilated to reduce condensation build-up. A window or door which is repaired should be made as energy efficient as possible by the use of appropriate weather-stripping to reduce air infiltration. A wide variety of products are available to assist in this task. Felt may be fastened to the top, bottom, and meeting rails, but may have the disadvantage of absorbing and holding moisture, particularly at the bottom rail. Rolled vinyl strips may also be tacked into place in appropriate locations to reduce infiltration. Metal strips or new plastic spring strips may be used on the rails and, if space permits, in the channels between the sash and jamb. Appropriate contemporary weather- stripping should be considered an integral part of the repair process for windows. The use of proper, operating sash locks installed on the meeting rail will ensure that the sash are kept tightly closed so that the weather-stripping will function more effectively to reduce infiltration. Conservation intervention: Rehabilitation • Repair windows to make operable. • Consider replacing current obscure glass with clear glass. • Install new storm sash system. • Weather-strip windows and doors as required. Conservation intervention: Restoration • Restore rose window when appropriate. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -36- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Covered rose window, south elevation Principal entrance to vestibule, south elevation Interior view of exposed rose window (!v1RM&A P00689) North entrance Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 37 - S`. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.3.6 Roof The principal roof', porch roofs and belfry are currently clad in inappropriate split cedar shakes. These were installed during the restoration works of 1983. The principal roof and porch roof are gabled and the belfry is pyramidal. An overhang projects from the principal roof to protect the waif below The fascia and soffits are constructed in plywood and chipboard. There are gutters and downspouts on the east and west elevations of the principal roof and entrance porch. The condition of the existing cedar shake roof was assessed from the belfry, which showed that the ridge joint had opened and the tin flashing has slipped. This allows water to penetrate the building, however, no evidence was visible on the ceiling finish so it was concluded that this form of weathering was in its early stages or that the moisture is able to evaporate . in the attic space. The metal flashing at the junction of the south wall and vestibule is also showing signs of lifting, which results in a weak point in the building's protection. Once again, there was no obvious evidence on the interior wall finish. The shakes covering the roofs and belfry were replaced during the 1982-1983 works and are displaying natural weathering, such as warping, lifting and splitting. Due to the proximity of the adjacent trees, biological growth in the form of moss and algae has built up on the shakes, exacerbating the signs of ageing. There is no evidence in archival images, in the attic, or in the shingles encased within the belfry, that there was ever a stain or colour treatment on the original cedar shingle roof. Therefore, none is proposed for the restored roof. The gutters appear to have been well maintained and there was no visible build-up of debris or obvious breaks in joints. Recommended Repairs: The cedar shake roof is at the end of its lifespan. A new, cedar shingle roof should be installed as quickly as possible. In the meantime the flashings should be repaired, particularly at the ridge and junction between vestibule and church, •and any slipped shingles refixed. During the replacement, consideration should be given to replacing the soffit with a more appropriate material, such as tongue -and -groove boards instead of chipboard. Conservation Intervention: Restoration • Install appropriate cedar shingle roof (sawn shingles, not split shakes). • Restore soffits with appropriate wooden material. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 38 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 interior of roof space Heritage Church Hall following replacement of shingles on roofs and belfry (1983 MRM&A P05362) Current condition of principal roof ridge showing slipped flashing and open ridge allowing moisture penetration Roof soffit formed in inappropriate chipboard and plywood Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 39 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 View of belfry and south apex, 1974. Note outline of removed trefoil (MRM&A P00043) Belfry with wood clad posts and tongue -and - groove ceiling View of belfry and south apex, 2008 Interior structure of Belfry showing shingle cladding on wide nailing battens Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 40 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.3.7 Belfry A belfry is located on the ridge of the southern part of the principal roofline. Clad in shakes, the structure is constructed in wood with four square columns supporting the finial -topped roof. The structure is open with wood trim and a tongue -and -groove ceiling. There are 6"x6" internal sleeper posts supporting the belfry. It was added in 1934 and reshingled, along with the roof, in 1983. The belfry is generally in good condition, with the same signs of weathering for the shingle cladding and roof covering as for the roof. The flat wood elements of the belfry are suffering from paint failure and minor decay only. Conservation Intervention: Restoration • Reclad with appropriate cedar shingle roof (sawn shingles, not split shakes). • Repair and repaint as required. 3.2.3.8 Exterior Colours Sampling of the original 1888 exterior paint colours was very difficult due to the severe deterioration of paint layers. Also, there are areas that cannot be sampled due to the Lexan covers over the windows, and difficulty of access due to overgrown vegetation. Only fragmentary paint evidence could be found on original 1888 elements, which was almost completely oxidized by the time the building was repainted; a later coat of medium - grey was identified on some trim elements, but this was possibly a later primer, as it shows up consistently in areas that are clearly both dark and light in archival images. The transom panelling also displays the same medium -grey primer, however some evidence could be found of a cream colour (match to Benjamin Moore True Colours Edwardian Cream VC -7). Under the grey is a very light cream (match to Benjamin Moore True Colours Oxford Ivory VC -1) that may be a match to the first paint colour. It is unknown when the front doors were originally painted, but a fragmentary sample of a dark green (match to Benjamin Moore True Colours Comox Green VC -19) was identified; the doors, however, may have been originally stained and varnished and this may have been a secondary application. It cannot be conclusively stated what the original colours were without further investigation. However, the application of the original paint colours may not be the most appropriate, as the appearance of the building has changed through later alterations, notably in 1934. Therefore the history of the paint colours should be understood through the development of a paint chronology, that would investigate the original 1888 elements as well as the belfry and the vestibule. During paint preparation, areas known to retain original paint should be left undisturbed if possible. This will leave evidence for future testing of paint samples. Areas that are down to bare wood should be sanded and spot -primed to preserve the wood. Conservation Intervention: Restoration • Once early paint colours have been adequately determined, repaint as required in an authentic colour scheme Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -41 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.4 INTERIOR The interior of the building was considerably altered in 1983. both to address deterioration due to long-term vacancy as well as for functional reasons. This included: • Replacement of the original lath & plaster walls'with drywall. • Replacement of the original wainscot with new 3" vertical tongue & groove. • Replacement of original picture rail and other mouldings. • Insertion of new functions, including washroom, kitchen, mechanical room and mezzanine. AH interior trim has now been painted. Some of the original fir flooring may be extant under the recent roll vinyl flooring, but is apparently seriously deteriorated. Despite these changes, the original volume of the hall is substantially intact, and some features, such as the original windows and window trim, and the original hall entry doors, are intact. Vestibule The vestibule added in 1934 is 110" long by 109" wide, and has side "piano" windows. The original 3 '/4" tongue & groove wall and ceiling panelling is extant, and has now been painted. The original plank entry doors open out into the vestibule, and retain their original hinges. The door hardware and pulls are inadequate. The doors are in degraded condition but all intact. Floor Further study should be made of appropriate flooring surfaces. Wood is an appropriate surface but carpet may be useful in some locations, and may help improve acoustic performance. The washroom and kitchen need surfaces that are easy to clean. Washroom There is one unisex washroom inside the building, with an interior dimension 6' wide by 5'1" deep. There are no grab bars, and it includes a standard toilet and vanity sink. The door is 36" by 80". The corridor that leads to the washroom has effective clearance of 34". Kitchen The kitchen is accessed by two doors, 30" by 79" and 32" by 79". There is a pass-through to the hall. The kitchen facilities are inadequate for larger functions. The appliances, cupboards and surfaces are deteriorated. Mechanical Room/Storage. This room is not accessible to the public, and contains a hot water heater. Access is very difficult and the space is mostly inaccessible. Mezzanine This area is not accessible to the public. The stairs do not conform to Code. The mezzanine is used for storage, and provide access to the attic hatch. Stage Area There is a very small movable stage and lectern that can be set up for events, but no additional lighting or sound equipment. A new area for a flexible, raised stage could be defined, to add focus to the space and also increase functionality and flexibility. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 42 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Above: Current view of interior. Below: Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P-00035 (This meeting demonstrated the overcrowding of the church, and the decision to move to a new building; George Mussallem is in the second pew, left, beside the empty chair in the aisle; 1954) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -43- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.2.5 BUILDING UPGRADING & CODE COMPLIANCE The building is in general conformance with Building Code requirements, with some notable deficiencies that would not conform to current requirements. Emergency lighting is provided, there is an exit sign above rear door, and fire extinguishers are mounted at the rear door and in the kitchen. The building therefore does not present an unsafe condition, but also does not present an optimal situation for long-term conservation of this historic resource. Notably, there is one smoke detector; it may be wired in but there is no light apparent, and it may not be working. This should be rectified immediately with a basic smoke detection system. There is no fire suppression system in this wood frame, public assembly building. There are also other deficiencies that could be addressed, through a program of incremental upgrading, that should also be considered within the potential for a full building upgrade. should be installed as soon as possible. 3.2.5.1 Structural As noted in the Puffer & Assoc. Report, the foundations, visible from the crawlspace, provide little structural stability in the event of an earthquake. There is only one steel post, located near the entry to the crawlspace, that supports the centre beam. The foundations have been partially reinforced, but the original brick piers that support the centre beam are unreinforced masonry with lime mortar; these brick piers are inadequate for seismic resistance. New piers or supports should be installed between the brick piers, to support the centre beam. The roof structure is accessible from an interior hatch and is constructed of 2"x6" full dimension rafters on 16" centres with 1 "x6" nailing strips, with gaps to allow for ventilation. Later, 5%"x '/8" bracing was added. The ceiling joists are 2"x6" on 16" centres. The roof structure appears to be adequate with no further bracing required. 3.2.5.2 Accessibility There are a number of ways in which the building is deficient in providing barrier -free access. The front entry is reached by stairs, with no provisions for a ramp, and there is a drop from the north door threshold to concrete of approximately 3". Neither entry allows access without assistance. The effective width of the corridor to the washroom is 34", and the washroom has no grab bars and has a vanity sink. Some of these issues are relatively minor and can be addressed with simple, remedial measures. In the short term, a simple cleat or wedge at the rear door could bridge the current drop. The washroom should be re- thought in terms of fixtures and safety features, and given its current aesthetics, this could be considered a priority. 3.2.5.3 Fire Detection & Suppression The lack of fire detection systems in the building can be considered a major deficiency. The provision of fire extinguishers would assist in the event of a small outbreak, but the lack of a fire suppression system in a public assembly building is unsupportable in the long term. For both fire safety and conservation purposes, a complete fire detection, alarm and suppression system should be considered, that can be expanded if an addition to the building is planned. 3.2.5.4 Security The building has no security systems and no phone line. Given the historic importance of the site, and the current issues in the neighbourhood with vandalism, this could be Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 44 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 considered a high priority. Security systems can now be provided on cell phone lines and do not require hard wiring. 3.2.5.5 Mechanical & Electrical The mechanical systems are currently considered adequate but are nearing the end of their useful life. Given their age, they are unlikely to be as energy efficient as new systems. Any mechanical or electrical upgrades should be weighed against the potential for the long-term construction of a functional addition to the north. The ventilation in the main hall is compromised by the sealed windows and lack of other venting. Ceiling fans are currently used to circulate air but are inadequate. Ventilation would be considerably improved by operable windows and the installation of new ceiling fans. This natural ventilation is recommended based on environmental grounds, both the well-being of the Hall users and the reduced operating costs and energy requirements. The washroom requires separate ventilation. Vents at the north and south ends of the crawlspace, as recommended in the Puffer & Assoc. report should be installed. Lighting is currently provided by overhead fixtures, is not directional and tends to be harsh. There is no specific provision for stage or special event lighting. New, improved lighting should be installed, that provides better overall illumination as well as better task lighting in the kitchen, vestibule and service areas. Insulation is currently installed in the attic and between the floor joists, and is assumed to have been installed in the walls in 1983. There are areas where energy efficiency could be explored, including weather-stripping and storm windows (see Section 3.2.3.5). If an addition is planned, the potential for ground -source heating should be explored. New, efficient mechanical systems would also lower energy consumption. 3.2.5.6 Acoustics Acoustics in the hall are very poor, likely due to the overall hard, reflective surfaces and the mezzanine wall, which may act as a sound trap. This issue will require further study to determine the best form of remediation, but the introduction of softer interior finish surfaces would help remediate this problem. This should be studied in conjunction with the option of a complete interior restoration. 3.2.5.7 Health & Safety In order to support and service community -catered functions, there should be a commercial - standard kitchen, that meets Health codes and FoodSafe standards. 3.2.6 FURTHER INVESTIGATION Any upgrades to the building should be considered both for short-term effectiveness and cost, as well as long-term applicability in the event that a functional addition is considered. • Structural investigation of the seismic resistance of the foundation brick piers, and possible methods of reinforcement. • Review of current mechanical systems and potential for upgrades. • Review of fire alarms and a fire suppression system • Review of a security system. • Investigate methods of improving acoustics in the hall. • Investigation of an authentic exterior colour scheme. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 45 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 3.3 REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY As part of this review, the functional requirements and programming for St. Andrews have been assessed. This facility is clearly serving a very important community function, and accommodates a variety of different events and programs, and is currently fully rented. Given the ever-increasing community need for rental facilities, there is anticipated demand for improved facilities. The current occupancy load for St. Andrew's is 72; this number is constrained as the functional elements (kitchen, washroom, mechanical room and staircase) were installed within the building shell, rather than placed in an addition as was originally envisioned. The functional interior dimensions of the church shell are 24 by 44 feet, a total of approximately 1,056 square feet. The height to the roof is approximately 36 feet and 44 feet to the top of the steeple. r :t_ T 3.3.1 OPTIONS FOR RENEWAL As part of this project, three options were developed for how the church can be rehabilitated to best suit current and proposed functions. These are based on: • an understanding of the functional and building code deficiencies of the current situation • current and projected uses, and • functional requirements and proposed upgrades Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 46 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 OPTION #1 (Status Quo) This option would retain the existing situation, with only modest improvements. Costs would be minimal, and would easily be amortized within the current financial structure. There would be no net gain in occupancy load and only modest aesthetic improvements. As the building is already fully rented, there is little impact to the current situation. OPTION #2 (Incremental Improvement) The existing configuration could be adjusted for improved efficiency and building code conformance. This would require more extensive interventions, but would not result in increased occupancy. Aesthetic improvements would be more extensive, and may result in improved functionality and possibly an improved rental structure. OPTION #3 (Addition) This would involve exploration of the construction of a new addition that would allow for full restoration of the interior volume, for maximum efficiency, increased capacity and improved services and circulation. Removal of the inefficient services within the shell would result in an increase of the occupancy load to approximately 100. New storage would allow chairs to be removed from the vestibule and an improved experience at the entry.. The kitchen, washroom, mechanical room and storage would be moved to the addition. Improved, at - grade storage facilities would present a considerable improvement for those renting the facilities on an ongoing basis. Other improvements could include a bride's changing room, and an enhanced kitchen that would facilitate catering. The existing gravel parking lot is very inefficient, and can only accommodate about four cars; the same amount of parking could likely be provided in stalls perpendicular to the street. It can be anticipated that these functions could be accommodated in a minimal way in an addition of 500 square feet. These options were presented to the Maple Ridge Historical Society for discussion and comment. Generally, it was concluded that although there are shortcomings,. the building is functional for the existing situation. Short-term improvements were felt to be desirable, and there was a consensus that in the long-term a full building rehabilitation, based on a rear addition, should be undertaken. Concerns were raised about potential costs and issues around parking, but these were not considered insurmountable. Other discussion revolved around more ambitious solutions, including acquiring the adjacent manse for further expansion, or exploring joint facilities that could be shared with the adjacent Masonic Hall; these are worthy ideas that could also be explored. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 47 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 PART 4: IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN The best and most economical form of conservation is regular maintenance to a building. with well planned repairs and replacement as elements reach the end of their lifespan. St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall was brought back from near dereliction in the 1980s, which effectively saved this heritage building from extinction. Routine maintenance has taken place which has certainly been of benefit to the building. There are now elements which are nearing their lifespan or items that wilt improve the functionality and safety of the building. These are described below and divided into immediate, medium-term and lona-term conservation actions. 4.1.1 IMMEDIATE CONSERVATION ACTIONS 1. Install basic fire detection and suppression and security measures. 2. Remove vegetation from around the building. 3. Replace cedar shingle roof (Roof Specification submitted under separate cover). 4. Repair cracks in the parging using an appropriate breathable restoration material. 5. Repaint as required. 6. Carry out regular inspections and maintenance check. 7. Interior upgrades to improve finishes, acoustics and functionality for a variety of events. 8. Verify perimeter drains are functioning properly. 4.1.2 MEDIUM-TERM CONSERVATION ACTIONS 1. Exterior upgrades to wall surfaces, When carrying out any repairs to the mortar joints, use a softer mortar, containing lime, appropriate for the brick. Carry out trial removal of parging to determine level of damage to brick substrate and plan long-term repairs accordingly. 2. Consider installation of fire suppression system, and security and fire alarms. 3. Preserve wood windows. 4. Carry out seismic upgrades to the foundations. 5. Improve access to crawlspace. 6. Restore authentic colour scheme. 7. Undertake feasibility study of addition, including appropriate architectural expression. 4.1.3 LONG-TERM CONSERVATION ACTIONS 1. Remove remaining inappropriate mortar, rake -out joints and repoint with an appropriate conservation mortar. 2. If feasible, remove parging and replace with a breathable restoration stucco. 3. Replace soffits with more appropriate wooden material, such as tongue -and -groove boards instead of chipboard. 4. Repair wood elements of belfry including framing and finish wood, as necessary. 5. Full upgrade of kitchen and washroom through construction of a rear addition. Restoration of original interior volume. 6. Upgrade perimeter drains. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 48 - NDIREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 4.1.4 SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following is a summary of the proposed conservation actions, with estimated order of magnitude costs. The costing is for comparative purposes only, and will need to be confirmed through further estimates once the scope of work is determined. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 49 - IMMEDIATE MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM Landscaping Cut back / remove vegetation, allow 54,000 Maintain Maintain Cedar shingle roof Replace, allow $30,000 Maintain Maintain Parging Repair cracks, allow $4,000 Maintain Replace parging; cost unknown Painting Repaint as required to cover bare wood, allow $2,000. Investigate authentic colours, allow $2,500. Complete repainting; restore authentic colour scheme, allow $10,000 Maintain Interior upgrades Improve finishes, washroom. allow $10,000 - $12,000 Further improvement to finishes and acoustics, allow $15,000 - $20,000 Complete restoration; cost unknown Exterior upgrades Maintain Repair brick wall surfaces; allow $5.000 Exterior repointing; Restore soffits; Repairs to belfry; costs unknown Fire suppression system and fire alarms Investigate Implement; hardwire alarms (as part of security upgrade); allow $20.000 Maintain; inspect regularly Security system and alarms Investigate; fix locks or other weak points Install security system and alarms: $5.000. Maintain; monthly monitoring charge Structural upgrades to foundations Maintain Install new supports for centre beam, allow $8,000 Maintain Improve access to crawlspace Maintain Excavate and improve entry; allow $3,500 Maintain Preserve wood windows Maintain Undertake full rehabilitation work; install storm sash; allow $25,000 Maintain Feasibility study of addition Initiate feasibility study; allow $25,000 Implement; allow 500 sq.ft. @ $200 psf as a minimum = $100,000 Electrical system and heating Investigate and repair if required Maintain Install new systems when required; cost unknown Weather-stripping and energy improvements Install: $2,500 Maintain Maintain Exterior signs Improve identification signs; allow $2.500 Additional interpretive signs, allow $5,000 Maintain Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 49 - STP ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 4.2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES It is recommended that the work should be phased in over time so that funding can be achieved in stages. The work should be done sequentially so that nothing has to be redone at a later stage. There are a number of potential grant programs that could provide assistance. These include but are not limited to: Conservation and Feasibility Planning Programme BC Heritage Branch of Minister of Tourism, Culture & the Arts This programme supports the preparation of conservation or feasibility plans for historic places included on an official community heritage register. Such plans must reflect the use of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Funds may be used for a variety of conservation activities, including preparing for emergency stabilization, preparing estimates for project costs and determining what function a resource might serve when conserved. The BC Heritage Branch may invest up to 80% of the total eligible costs, to a maximum of $10,000 per project. Grants can be applied for to cover individual aspects of the conservation planning work. . For further information, see: http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/heritage_branch/planning_programs/cons feasplans.htm Heritage Legacy Fund The Heritage Legacy Fund is a joint initiative of The Land Conservancy (TLC) and the Heritage Society of BC (HSBC). Its purpose is to provide guidance and financial assistance to registered non-profit societies, registered federal charities and local governments. Financial contributions are not made to individuals, unregistered organisations or private businesses. The Fund supports community projects that conserve and increase the understanding and appreciation of British Columbia's heritage resources. Funding is available through two programmes: 1. Heritage Conservation: provides financial contributions up to $25,000 for projects involving the preservation, rehabilitation and/or restoration of a built community heritage resource, as defined by the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. 2. Heritage Awareness: provides financial contributions up to $10,000 for projects involving the research, documentation, presentation, interpretation and publication of information that will increase public understanding, appreciation and education of specific existing built community heritage resources. For further information, see: www. heritagelegacyfund.ca Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 50 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Cultural Spaces Canada Program (CSC) Canadian Heritage Department The Cultural Spaces Canada Program is designed to increase and improve access to the arts and to museum collections, heritage displays and exhibition. It supports the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities and the acquisition of specialized equipment. Eligible applicants to the Cultural Spaces Canada Program include non-profit arts and heritage organizations. Applicants must demonstrate that their organization has been active for at least one year before being eligible to apply and have a clear artistic or heritage focus as part of their vision. Generally, the program offers support of up to 33% of eligible project costs for construction, adaptive re -use or renovation for arts and heritage activities and of up to 50% of eligible project costs for feasibility studies or specialized equipment. The program does not support regular or routine building maintenance costs or fund projects retroactively. Processing an application may take up to six months to complete. Eligible costs must be directly related to the project presented and to one of the following items: • Feasibility studies related to CSC program objectives, such as those that examine approaches for the development of new facilities or the renovation of existing ones • Costs related to building, adaptive re -use or renovating a building, including materials, demolition, excavation, labour, etc. and related fixed capital costs • Professional fees • Various fees related to property transfers and acquisition • Costs related to "green" construction and environmentally sound building practices • Specialized equipment purchases as well as their installation costs and initial training related to their operation. For heritage institutions, eligible types of specialized equipment include any piece of equipment specifically related to recognized heritage practices including: lighting systems, environment control, storage systems, security or fire safety For more information, see: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ecc-csp/index_e.cfm Other Funding Sources There are other potential funding sources such as legacy development, corporate fundraising and sponsorship, endowment and private fundraising. Service clubs, such as the Lions Club and Rotary, sometimes provide support for community heritage projects. 4.3 HERITAGE PERMITTING PROCEDURES As St. Andrew's is a designated heritage site, any exterior work will require the issuance of a Heritage Alteration Permit. As there are no interior features that are identified in the designation bylaw, this will apply only to exterior work. Any interior work will require the issuance of standard building permits and decisions based on the heritage value and character -defining elements. In order to properly assess the impacts of any interventions to the site, the District of Maple Ridge should formally adopt the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as the basis for the review of any permits relating to heritage projects. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -51 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 4.4 MAINTENANCE PLAN Routine maintenance is the best and most economical form of conservation of a building. The majority of maintenance in this climate is methods of keeping water out of a building, which is the single most damaging element to a heritage building. Maintenance also prevents damage by sun, wind, snow, frost and all weather; prevents damage by insects and vermin; and aids in protecting all parts of the building against deterioration. The effort and expense expended on an aggressive maintenance will not only lead to a higher degree of preservation, but will over time potentially save large amounts of money otherwise required for later repairs. 4.4.1 Preventative Maintenance Guidelines Preventive maintenance is a schedule of planned maintenance actions aimed at the prevention of large-scale failures of the building fabric by repairing small defects before they increase and cause repercussions on other built elements in a building. An example of this would be routinely cleaning out gutters and ensuring downspouts function, a relatively easy and inexpensive task, but left undone, could cause blockages, concentration of water, penetration of the building envelope and damage to structural timbers, mortar and interior finishes. The primary goal of preventive maintenance is to prevent the failure of organic and mechanical elements of a building, before it actually occurs A maintenance schedule should be formulated that adheres to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2003). As defined by the Standards and Guidelines, maintenance is defined as: Routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to slow the deterioration of a historic place. It entails periodic inspection; routine, cyclical, non-destructive cleaning; minor repair and refinishing operations; replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials that are impractical to save. 4.4.1.1 Cleaning - Routine, Cyclical, Non-destructive A formal schedule and checklist promotes maintenance actually being carried out. During maintenance the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be followed which recommends 'using the gentlest means possible'. Any cleaning procedures should be undertaken on a routine basis, and should be undertaken with non-destructive methods. Cleaning should be limited to the exterior material such as walls, windows and trim. All of these elements are usually easily cleaned, simply with a soft, natural bristle brush, without water, to remove dirt and other material. If a more intensive cleaning is required, this can be accomplished with warm water, mild detergent and a soft bristle brush. High pressure washing, sandblasting or any other form of abrasive cleaning should never be undertaken on the delicate brickwork of St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall. 4.4.1.2 Repairs and Replacement of Deteriorated Materials Interventions such as repairs and replacements must conform to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The building's character - defining elements — characteristics of the building which contribute to its heritage value such as materials, form, configuration, etc - must be conserved, referencing the following principals to guide interventions: Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 52 - T. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 • An approach of minimal intervention must be adopted - where intervention is carried out it will be by the least intrusive and most gentle means possible. 4 Repair rather than replace character -defining elements. • Repair character -defining elements using recognized conservation methods. • Replace 'in kind' extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character -defining elements. • Make interventions physically and visually compatible with the historic place. 4.4.1.3 Inspections Inspections are a key element in the maintenance plan. These inspections should be conducted on a regular and timely schedule. The inspection should address all aspects of the building including exterior, interior — including basement and attic - and site conditions. From this inspection, notes should be compiled with photographs and observations in order to monitor the rate of decay and record when work was carried out and by whom. It is helpful for the inspector to have copies of the building's elevation drawings on which to mark areas of concern such as cracks, staining and rot. An appropriate schedule for regular, periodic inspections, would be twice a year, preferably during Spring and Fall. The Spring inspection should be more rigorous since in Spring moisture -related deterioration is most visible, and because needed work, such as painting, can be completed during the good weather in Summer. The Fall inspection should focus on seasonal issues such as weather -sealant, mechanical (heating) systems and drainage issues. Comprehensive inspections should occur at five-year periods comparing records from previous inspections and the original work, particularly monitoring structural movement and durability of utilities. Inspections should also occur after major storms. It makes good sense to inspect a building in wet weather, as well as in dry, in order to see how water runs off — or through — a building. 4.4.1.4 Keeping Water Out Water, in all its forms and sources (rain, snow, frost, rising ground water, leaking pipes, back -splash, etc.) is the single most damaging element to historic buildings. Water supports biological decay such as rot, fungus, moss, lichen, termites, powder post beetle, and other insects. Keeping a building dry is the single best method of combating biological decay. The most common place for water to enter a building is through the roof and/or the guttering and downspout systems. An apparent minor roof leak or clogged gutter leak that is ignored can introduce enough moisture to support biological decay on a scale necessitating removal of walls and floors and replacement of structural systems and services. Keeping roofs repaired or renewed and gutters frequently cleaned is a more cost-effective option. Maintaining fully functioning perimeter drains is another important aspect in reducing moisture penetration. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 53 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 4.4.2 Inspection Checklist The following checklist considers a wide range of potential problems specific to St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall such as water/moisture penetration; material deterioration; structural deterioration: and site issues. 4.4.2.1 Site Inspection • Is the lot well drained? • Do landscape features need pruning - are there dangerous dead limbs? 4.4.2.2 Exterior Inspection Foundation • Moisture: Is rising damp present? • Does water drain away from foundation? • Is the moisture problem general or local? • Is spelling evident from freezing? (Flakes or powder?) • Is efflorescence evident? • Are there shrinkage cracks in the foundation? • Are there movement cracks in the foundation? • Is crack monitoring required? • Is there uneven foundation settlement evident? Condition of Exterior Masonry Surfaces • Surface finish (bricks, mortar, parging, wood elements) shows:, blistering, aliigatoring, peeling, algae growth. Cause? • Surface finish has the following stains: efflorescence, dark staining, rust. Cause? Windows • Is there glass cracked or missing? • Cracked or brittle putty? Fallen out? • Is there condensation or water damage to the paint and wood? • Are the sashes easy to operate? • Is the frame free from distortion? • Is the end grain properly sealed? • Do sills show weathering or deterioration? • Are drip mouldings/flashing above the windows properly shedding water? Doors • Do the doors create a good seal when closed? • Are door frames wicking up water? Where? Why? • Are door frames caulked at the sandstone surround? Is the caulking in good condition? • What is the condition of the door sills? Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -54- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 =utters and Downspouts • Are downspouts leaking? Clogged? Are there holes or corrosion that directs water towards the structure? • Are downspouts complete without any missing sections? Are they properly connected? • Are eaves clean? • Is the water being effectively carried away from the downspout by a perimeter drainage system? Do downspouts drain completely away? Roof • Are there water blockage points? • Is the leading edge of the roof wet? • Is there evidence of biological attack? (Fungus, moss, birds, insects) • Are flashings well seated, especially at the chimney? • Do the soffits show any signs of water damage? Insect or bird infestation? • Are there missing or damaged shingles? • Are the downspouts blocked? • Are the downspouts securely attached? • Are flashings well positioned and sealed? 4.4.2.3 Interior Inspection Crawlspace • Are there signs of moisture damage to the walls? Does it appear wet when surroundings are dry? • Are there signs of past flooding, or leaks from the floor above? Is the floor damp? • Are walls even or buckling or cracked? Is the floor cracked or heaved? • Are there signs of insect or rodent infestation? Hall & Interior • Materials: plaster, wood, — are they sound, or uneven, cracked, out of plumb or alignment; are there signs of settlement, old, or recent (bulging walls, long cracks, etc)? • Finishes: paints, stains, etc. — are they dirty, peeling, stained, cracked? • Are there any signs of water leakage or moisture damage? (Mould? Water - stains?) Attic • Is light visible through roof cladding indicating a slipped shingle/flashing? • Are wooden elements soft, damp, cracked? • Infestations - are there signs of birds, bats, insects, rodents, past or present? Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 55 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 4A3 Maintenance Programme The following programme is proposed as a framework: Quarterly • Check roofs inside and outside including gutters and downspouts Semi-annually • Semi-annual inspection with special focus on seasonal issues • Thorough cleaning of gutters and downspouts to cope with Winter rains and Summer storms • Check condition of weather sealants (Fall) • Service mechanical units such as heating (Fall) Annually (Spring) • Touch up worn paint on the building's exterior • Inspect masonry for cracks, deterioration, loss • Inspect windows for paint and glazing compound failure, wood decay and proper operation • Clean out of all perimeter drains and rainwater systems • Check all mechanical and electrical systems • Check all fire extinguishers • Check for plant, insect or animal infestation • Routine cleaning, as required Five -Year Cycle • A full inspection report should be undertaken every five years comparing records from previous inspections and the original work, particularly monitoring structural movement and durability of utilities. • Repaint as required, every five to fifteen years • Clean the exterior using a soft bristle broom/brush and hose -pressure washing • Check condition of pointing Ten -Year Cycle • Check condition of roof ten years after last replacement Twenty -Year Cycle • Confirm condition of roof and estimate effective lifespan. Replace when required. Storm Inspections (As required) • After any significant storm, inspect for any damage. Gutters and roofs should be checked and cleaned. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -56- ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The St. Andrew's Heritage Church Hall Conservation & Feasibility Plan 2008 was undertaken for the District of Maple Ridge by Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. The project team consisted of Donald Luxton, FRAIC, Principal, and Susan Seager, Technical Conservation Specialist, with additional research and background by Penny Robertson, Laura Pasacreta and Crystal Newland. We would like to thank: Lisa Zosiak, Planner, District of Maple Ridge, who acted as project liaison; Bob Parliament, Regional Heritage Planner, Heritage Branch, Province of British Columbia; and Tom Little, Resident Caretaker, Haney House, for their invaluable contributions to this project. Maple Ridge Historical Society • Claus Andrup, President • Janet Amsden, Vice -President • Lynne Probyn, Secretary • Mike Davies, Treasurer • Sheila Nickols, Past -President • Jim Connor, Director • Faye Isaac, Director • Dick Sutcliffe, Director Maple Ridge Museum & Archives • Val Patenaude, Director • Jordana Feist, Curator We would also like to acknowledge the generous assistance of the following individuals: Blair Galston, Conference Archivist, Bob Stewart Archives, United Church of Canada, BC Conference, Vancouver; Jim Wolf, New Westminster; Robert G. Hill, Toronto; Bill Stewart, First Presbyterian Church, New Westminster; Beryl Cunningham, Maple Ridge; and Wilma (Menzies) Robinson, Pitt Meadows. Financial assistance for this project was provided by the Government of British Columbia through the Community Heritage Planning Program. Additional funding was provided by the District of Maple Ridge. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 57 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH SOURCES A.1 COLLECTED SOURCES M€apte Ridge Museum & Archives: The NMRM&A maintains files on the Church, including a collection of archival images, newspaper clippings and church history notes. District of Maple Ridge: The District maintains files on building activity on the church, including records relating to the 1983 restoration work. Published Sources: J.M. Cummings and J.W. McCammon. Clay and Shale Deposits of British Columbia. British Columbia Department of Mines Bulletin No. 30, Queen's Printer, 1952. • Alexander Dunn. Experiences in Langley, and Memoirs of Prominent Pioneers: Presbyterianism in British Columbia. New Westminster, 1913. • Barry Downs. Sacred Places: British Columbia's Early Churches. Vancouver, Douglas & McIntyre, 1980. • Sheila Nickols, ed., Maple Ridge: A History of Settlement. Maple Ridge Branch, Canadian Federation of University Women, 1972. Previous Inventories: • Historic Port Haney Inventory, Foundation Group Ltd., 1985. • The Historic Resources of Maple Ridge, Donald Luxton & Associates, 1998. Statement of Significance: Prepared by Donald Luxton & Associates, 2004. British Columbia Archives, Victoria: The Archives collection was reviewed. Vital Events were used to determine information on John Wilson White. United Church of Canada British Columbia Conference Archives: The collection contains a number of pertinent items in their collection, including general information regarding the Fraser Valley parishes, individual churches and later church minutes and records. Finding aids are available online, including the St. Andrew's United Church (Haney) Fonds (1891-2000). Presbyterian Church Archives, Canada: The Archives were contacted, but have limited information. No early minute books appear to have survived. First Presbyterian Church, New Westminster: A search of church minutes and records does not indicate any information about connections between the New Westminster and Fraser Valley parishes. Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 58 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 A.2 NEWSPAPER REFERENCES A number of previously unidentified newspaper references have now been sourced: The Columbian: Monday March 19, 1888, page 4: "Maple Ridge Church Opening' "Attention is called to an advertisement in another column giving particulars of the entertainment in aid of the new Presbyterian church at Haney. The church is to be opened on Sunday, the 25th inst., and the entertainment takes place on the 27th. Rev. T. G. Thompson, of Vancouver, will preach the dedicatory sermon. It will be seen that the str. Adelaide will make a special trip to Haney on the evening of the entertainment, and persons from this city will be taken up and returned for 50 cents." "ADVT Grand Entertainment in aid of the Building Fund of the Presbyterian Church at Port Haney, will be given in the New Church on Tuesday Evening, 27th Inst. where the following gentlemen will deliver addresses: Rev. Thos. Scouler, Westminster; Rev. Mr. Paterson, Chilliwack; Rev. Mr. Thompson, Vancouver; Rev. Mr. Hemlaw, Maple Ridge; Rev. Alex Tait, Langley; and others. The New Westminster Presbyterian and Maple Ridge Methodist Choirs will furnish the music for the occasion. Tickets at Lyal's Booksellers, Westminster, and at the store at Langley, Port Haney and Port Hammond." The Columbian: Wednesday March 28 1888, page 4: "The Port Haney Concert" "The entertainment given last evening at Port Haney in aid of the building fund of the new Presbyterian church, which is just completed, was a very successful affair. The church is a very neat edifice, 16x 46 feet, and built of brick at a cost of $1,700. It is situated a few hundred feet back from the river at a distance of 300 yards west of the steamer landing. Immediately after the arrival of the str. Adelaide from Westminster, the party on board proceeded to Mr. Armstrong's residence where a magnificent spread was prepared for them by the ladies of the congregation. After doing justice to the many good things set before them, the whole company adjourned to the church, which was filled to its utmost capacity. A programme of selections of vocal music was then made up by the members of the Westminster St. Andrew's church choir. The Rev. Mr. Tait, who acted as chairman, read letters from the Rev. Thos. Scoular and the Hon. Mr. Robson, apologizing for their absence. Enclosed in the Hon. Mr. Robson's letter was a cheque for $25, as a donation to the building fund of the church. The Rev. Mr. Tait, then read the first four verses of the 100th Psalm, which was sung by the whole audience, and after prayer by the Rev. Mr. Hemlaw, of Maple Ridge, the choir have a part song, "Robin Adair." A solo by Mrs. Lyal, "The Better Land," was rendered in a very pleasing style, and showed her to be a lady of rare musical cultivation and talent. "The Old Brigade," a solo by Mr. H. Wilson, was well received, after which the Rev. Mr. Patterson, of Chilliwack, delivered a very able address, interspersed with amusing anecdotes. A Scotch song, "The Auld Hoose," by Miss McKeon, was enthusiastically encored. Mr. Ogle then sung "Wings" in a very creditable manner, after which the audience was favored with a quintette, "The Peasants Wedding March," by Mrs. Grant. Mrs. McKenzie, Miss McDougall, and Messrs. Ogle and Wilson. A sacred solo, "Not Ashamed of Christ," was given by J.S. Clute, Jr., with good effect. The Rev. Mr. Hemlaw have an address Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 59 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 and was followed by a trio, "Shepherds Tell Me," by Messrs. Lyal, Ogle and Wilson. The audience, was the treated to a Scotch song, "Within a Mile of Edinboro' Toun," by Miss Rankin, which received, well merited applause, and was followed by another Scotch song, "Mary of Argyle," by Mr. Lyai with equal effect on the appreciative audience. Miss Ciute accompanied, the singers on the organ and performed that task, with excellent precision and effect. The audience then passed a vote of thanks to the Westminster choir for the valuable assistance rendered by that body. The Doxololgy was then sung and the gathering dispersed, the Port Haney people to their homes and the Westminsterites to the steamer, all highly delighted with the result of the beneficial intercourse of the evening. The Adelaide arrived •in this city about 1:30 o'clock this morning. The net proceeds of the concert will about $100 to the building fund." Weekly Gazette, March 11, 1938, page 1: "The brick church at Haney was built in 1888, during the ministry of Rev. A. Tait (1886- 1892). The brick was donated by the operators of small kilns, one of them almost on the site of the church. J.W. White, who laid the brick so true and square that the building is as solid today as it was fifty years ago, lives in quiet retirement on the Ridge." Vancouver Daily Province, March 19, 1938: "The church was erected in 1888 during the ministry of Rev. A. Tait: the brick was donated by the operators of small kilns nearby and J.W. White, who laid the brick, is living in retirement at Maple Ridge." The Conference Historical Page, 1938, page 10: "The brick church at Haney was built in 1888, during the ministry of Rev. A. Tait, 1886- 1892. The brick was donated by the operators of small kilns on the site of the church. J.W. White, who laid the brick, true and square, lives in quiet retirement not too far distant." Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 60 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 A.3 DESIGN PRECEDENTS The architect of St. Andrew's in Port Haney cannot be determined, as no plans have survived. there was no tender call and there are no known references that would identify the designer. Although it cannot be confirmed, it has been speculated that New Westminster architect George W. Grant may have had a hand in the design. Grant (1852-1925) was a prolific architect who designed much of the built environment in downtown New Westminster before and after the Great Fire of 1898. Grant undertook over one hundred commissions in New Westminster during the period 1888-1892 including landmarks such as the Provincial Exhibition Building at Queen's Park (1889). and the New Westminster Court House (1890-91). New Westminster was the centre of the Fraser Valley's economy at the time. The growing congregation of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in New Westminster necessitated the construction of a larger new church at 321 Carnarvon Street in 1888-89. St. Andrew's in New Westminster is a large red brick Victorian Gothic Revival church with a square corner tower. There are key design elements that are common to both St. Andrew's churches, including: front -gabled roofs clad with cedar shingles; masonry construction of red brick cladding; Victorian Gothic Revival features such as the parged Gothic pointed arches and parged stringcourses; and stained-glass rose windows. Despite obvious differences• in scale, there is a family resemblance between the two churches; however no direct documentary evidence links G.W. Grant directly to the design of St. Andrew's in Haney. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, New Westminster, 1888-1889 [Left: British Columbia Archives D-02614. Right: current view] Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 -61 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL ARCHIVAL IMAGES Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00647 (1979) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00648 (1979) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00649 (1979) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00668 (1982) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 62 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00021 (1975) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P06616 (circa 1977) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00667 (1982) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 63 - ST. ANDREW'S HERITAGE CHURCH HALL CONSERVATION & FEASIBILITY PLAN 2008 Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00378 (This meeting demonstrated the overcrowding of the church and the decision to move to a new building; George Mussallem Is in the centre, second pew, face beside book en lectern; 1954) Maple Ridge useurn & Archives P01912 (wedding of Hector and Lila Ridd, April 1927) Maple Ridge Museum & Archives P00686 (1982) Donald Luxton & Associates Inc. March 2009 - 64 - ,(a Standards and Guidelines The primary purpose of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is to provide sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice. Anyone with an interest in conserving Canada's historic places who voluntarily follows these Standards and Guidelines will benefit from clear and consistent guidance. The intent of the document is not to replace the role of conservation practitioners or provide detailed technical specifications appropriate to every situation. It does, however, offer results -oriented guidance for sound decision making when planning for, intervening and using a historic place. A second purpose of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is to develop a pan - Canadian set of Standards and Guidelines. The Standards and Guidelines may be adopted by federal, provincial, ter- ritorial or other authorities as a benchmark for assessing proposed conservation interventions. For example, juris- dictions which adopt the Standards and Guidelines may use them to assess proposed changes to a historic place listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Under these circumstances, the Standards and Guidelines would be used to measure compliance with legislation relating to the statutory protection of these historic places. To comply with the legislation, a project would then have to respect and conserve the heritage value and character - defining elements of the historic place as recommended in these Standards and Guidelines and as determined by the appropriate authority both at the planning stage and upon completion. The third purpose is to assist people who intend to apply for government financial incentives for conservation. When adopted by a jurisdiction, the Standards and Guide- lines may form the basis for review and assessment of a preservation, rehabilitation or restoration project before the project starts, and again upon completion. To be approved and certified for federal financial incentives, a project must be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Con- servation of Historic Places in Canada. x tro uotion — The Purpose 1 Standards and Guidelines A number of terms used in this document have very spe- cific meanings in the context of heritage conservation and are defined as follows: Character -defining elements: the materials, forms, loca- tion, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings that contribute to the heritage value of a his- toric place, which must be retained in order to preserve its heritage value. Conservation: all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character defining elements of a cultural re- source so as to retain its heritage value and extend its physi- cal life. This may involve "Preservation," "Rehabilitation," "Restoration," or a combination of these actions or proc- esses. Reconstruction or reconstitution of a disappeared cultural resource is not considered conservation and is therefore not addressed in this document. Guidelines: statements that provide practical guidance in applying the Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places. They are presented herein as recommended and non -recommended actions. Heritage value: the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cul- tural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character -defining materials, forms, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associa- tions or meanings. Historic place: a structure, building, group of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site or other place in Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value. Intervention: any action, other than demolition or de- struction, that results in a physical change to an element of a historic place. Maintenance: routine, cyclical, non-destructive actions necessary to slow the deterioration of a historic place. It entails periodic inspection; routine, cyclical, non-destruc- tive cleaning; minor repair and refinishing operations; replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials that are impractical to save. Minimal intervention: the approach which allows func- tional goals to be met with the least physical intervention. Standards: Norms for the respectful conservation of his- toric places. 2 anIreelmen : Key Terms Preservation Preservation: dae -c[ion 0L pr, �Cr'.0 11 n;e;ilt - 4: .2„ru] r:'.r stabirvir.i.2, iiie existing 111.1 .1-ials- to]:at.. and 3; 3 ,: ll.i,st3 ; i Vlrr4 .d fl UJ1tibl'h;.ir'1�� t.:, nn-rpti3netrl;, while - a~ Preservation can include both short-term and interim measures to protect ar stabilize the place, as weft as long-term actions to retard deterioration or prevent damage so that the place can be kept serviceable through routine maintenance and minimal repair, rather than extensive replacement and new construction. Rehatiiilikation: Lip- ,IL til.i -,: r;r ri: CI: rnle • i y im c ].l `"!�,'3Jaz� L`�•'� '. 'Li[C��!'-'li�� , it l bi• . 1 l i1'•:il lllia1E:.i 1 (M1g2p@AL7rCLTi';� . lh 1z, Rehabilitation can include replacing features. The replacement may be an of the missing feature, or it may be a is compatible with the style, era, and historic place. missing historic accurate replica new design that character of the Restoration includes the removal of features from other periods in its history and the reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. Restoration must be based on clear evidence and detailed knowledge of the earlier forms and materials being recovered. These and other definitions can also be found in the GLOSSARY. 1, sr ed13.,,d n ® Key Terms 3 Standards and Guidelines f�h�E,�II'],ihi,� �Iz.efd.YY!.•. ir�+awYi a •,• ',TP • Heritage conservation involves identifying, protecting and promoting the elements that our society values. The term "heritage" can cover a wide range of physical things from a railway station to a garden to a painting, and non-physi- cal things such as traditional knowledge and language. The term "h eritage conservation" (or " historic preservation" in some regions) has traditionally been associated with protecting the physical or "built" environment, i.e., the tangible landscapes, buildings, structures and artefacts that have been created throughout the history of Canada. More recently, the term has also come to be associated with safe- guarding the non-physical associations between people and a place, i.e., associations linked to use, meanings and cultural or spiritual values. Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada deals with both the physical aspects of historic places and their non-physical associations. The fundamental principles that form the basis for good conservation practice have traditionally been collected and published in"charters."These charters, beginning with the Athens Charter in 1931, reflect our ongoing efforts to spell out as clearly as possible the reasons why one idea or one action may be better than another when dealing with our fragile and irreplaceable historic places. Each of the char- ters embodies a certain philosophy or bias or focus — the cultural associations in Australia's Burra Charter, for exam- ple. Nevertheless, a consistent thread of logic runs through each. This thread is summarized here and forms the philo- sophical foundation for the Standards and Guidelines that follow. The principles are presented in a sequence of ac- tions from"beginning" to "end"— from understanding the historic place to making changes to it. However, the per- sons involved in conservation must occasionally backtrack and re-examine their approaches and obtain additional information, because conservation, an ongoing process, is cyclical by nature. Decisions regarding any conservation action on the heritage value of a historic place require sound, cautious judgment to balance conflicting requirements while engaging all rel- evant stakeholders and considering case -specific criteria. Engaging multidisciplinary experts and all relevant stake- holders is often necessary in the decision-making process. 4 introducthon ® PrinciNas Bpahhwol A. Understanding A comprehensive understanding of a historic place is an essential first step to good conservation practice, which is normally achieved through documentary and oral research and physical investigation. It is important to know where the heritage value of the historic place lies; how it fits phys- ically and functionally into its surroundings; and how it was and is important to its larger community past, present, and future. The evaluation of a historic place therefore con- stitutes an important part of the process of understanding it. Planning for, using and intervening in a historic place must be made with this understanding. B. Planning Planning must precede any interventions to a historic place. In other words, conservation work must be coordinated and integrated with planning and other future -oriented activities. Planning is the mechanism that links a comprehensive understanding of a historic place with interventions that respect that place's specific heritage value. In planning, it is important to maintain a firm sense of the longer term and the larger picture, and to not place emphasis on particular character -defining elements at the expense of others. Planning should include consideration of all factors affecting the future of a historic place, including the owner's needs, resources, and external constraints. C. Using If the use of a historic place is part of its heritage value, then that use should be retained. Otherwise, a use compatible with its heritage value should be found. A viable use — economic, social or symbolic — will better ensure the long-term survival.of a historic place and lessen or prevent deterioration caused by environmental and human activities. Because of the effects of the ongoing day-to-day use of a historic place, regular inspection, monitoring and maintenance, appropriate to the particular circumstances of the place, should be planned and undertaken. Accessible records should be kept on an ongoing basis to document its condition over time. These records will add to the comprehensive understanding of the historic place. In addition, emergency response plans, monitoring systems and other safeguards should be implemented in a respectful way to protect the place and any people within, in the event of a disaster such as fire. D. Intervening Any interventions to a historic place, i.e., any actions or processes that result in a physical change to its tangible el- ements, must respect its heritage value. In any intervention, as French archaeologist Adolphe -Napoleon Didron wrote in 1839,"it is better to preserve than to repair, better to re- pair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct." New contributions should respect the spirit and substance of the old. The objective for the conservation of a historic place is to meet functional goals while respecting its herit- age value and character -defining elements. This "minimal intervention" approach is the foundation of good conser- vation practice. Translating good intentions into respectful interventions and clear, unambiguous instructions (usually in the form of design drawings and specifications) is essential. The Format of the Standards rd and GroideNnes Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada has four main sections. The first section, the Introduction, begins with the purpose of the Stand- ards and Guidelines, followed by definitions of some key terms. The fundamental principles that form the basis for good conservation practice and underlie every standard and guideline in this document are then summarized. The Introduction concludes with this outline of the format of the Standards and Guidelines, and a description of how to use this document. In the second section, the Standards for conservation are introduced and presented. Nine"General Standards" apply to historic places of all types and to the conservation treat- : ment `Preservation."They are also required for the two other conservation treatments, `Rehabilitation and "Restoration." There are three additional Standards that apply only to the Rehabilitation conservation treatment, and two additional Standards that apply only to the Restoration conservation treatment. The third and largest section of this document is made up of the Guidelines, which are intended to assist in apply- ing the Standards and determining whether the intent of . the Standards has been met. After an introduction that dis- cusses the application of the Guidelines, and a general discussion on substitute materials and balancing other considerations, the specific Guidelines for archaeological sites, landscapes, buildings and engineering works — any or all of which may be part of a historic place — are presented. Standards an: Guidelines the fourth section includes detailed recommendations for other considerations, such as health and safety issues, accessibility, energy efficiency and ecological objectives, and new additions to historic places. A number of terms used in this document have very specif- ic meanings in the context of heritage conservation. These terms are defined in this Introduction, and are also included in the Glossary. The glossary is followed by a bibliography (technical guide) of useful books and references. lrairled.andskilled workers•are:.a v;1Anl lrirt ata well tilouoht.out,:: and well -executed conservation prnjcct. 11-4 L:itoducton PrincipAes Behind 5 Standards and Gu[delines The following text and accompanying chart outline the main steps to achieving a successful conservation project. Key recommendations and cautions are highlighted. 1. Identify Heritage Value and Character -Defining Elements A concept that .permeates this document is a respect for heritage value and character -defining elements. A historic place's heritage value and character -defining elements are usu- ally identified when it is formally recognized by an author- ity or when it is nominated to the Canadian Register of His- toric Places. If the character -defining elements of a historic place have not been identified, the first and absolutely es- sential step in any project is to identify and describe the elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the historic place. The essence of these elements is usually captured in a"statement of sig- nificance" or equivalent document. 2. Determine the Primary Treatment While any conservation project may involve aspects of more than one of the three conservation treatments, it is truly beneficial to decide during the planning stage whether it is essentially a Preservation, a Reha- bilitation or a Restoration project. A clear idea of the primary focus or objective of the project along with the heritage values of the historic place, from the outset, will contribute to the success of a consistent, coherent conser- vation project. For a discussion on when to use Preservation, Rehabilitation or Restoration as the primary treatment, see section 2, APPLYING THE STANDARDS. 3. Review the Standards The Standards, which are at the heart of this document, and the principles on which they are based, are central to the process of Preserving, Rehabilitating or Restoring a historic place in a responsible and consistent manner. It is important, therefore, to review the Standards and the principles before getting into the Guidelines. Note that the Standards are interrelated, meaning that compliance with the Standards for each type of treatment means compliance with all of the Standards for that type of treatment, not just some of them. In other words, Standards 1 to 9 apply to a Preservation project; Standards 1 to 12 to a Rehabilitation project; and Standards 1 to 9 and 13 to 14 to a Restoration project. 6 intToducto ®Hn to Use ale SStnrio raz amid EaManez 4. Follow the Guidelines for the Appropriate Resource Type and Treatment A thorough understanding of a historic place and its components is essential to good conservation practice. The better the understanding, the more likely heritage value will be respected. The Guidelines therefore always recommend documenting, identifying, surveying and analyzing the form, materials and condition (and function and interrelationships, where applicable) of the historic place and its components before the project work begins. Balancing health and safety and other issues with conservation objectives is an extremely important aspect of any conservation project. The challenge often involves meeting requirements such as fire codes, seismic standards or the use of chemicals, while minimizing the negative impact on a historic place's heritage value. A conservation project's chances of success may depend on the extent to which fundamental issues of health, safety and heritage value can be adequately reconciled. Therefore, a general discussion on meeting these concerns while respecting heritage value is presented at the beginning of the Guidelines section (BALANCING OTHER CONSIDERATIONS). Detailed recommendations on these issues can be found in Section 4, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. After an understanding of the historic place and its com- ponents has been developed and other applicable issues have been given consideration, the next step is following the appropriate Guidelines. In terms of resource types, the Guidelines are divided into four parts: archaeological sites, landscapes, buildings and engineering works. For ease of use, the landscapes and buildings Guidelines are subdivided into separate components, such as landforms or windows. • These Guidelines, which deal with different resource types including their separate components, should not be used in isolation. There may be heritage value in the relationships between archaeological sites, landscapes, buildings or engineering works, and these values should not be compromised when undertaking a project on indi- vidual components of a historic place. Identify heritage value and character - defining elements Determine primary treatment Review standards Follow guidelines according to selected treatment... ... and according to type of resource Standards 1-9 Standards 1-12 Standards 1-9, 13, 14 General guidelines for preserving and repairing Replacing Adding Archaeological sites Landscapes Buildings Engineering Works Standards and Guidelines Replacing Removing Recreating 1: nce other cons'. Brat€on Mtroductien ®Caw to Use the Stannards nnd Guidelines 7 Standards and Guidelines In terms of treatments, each of the Guideline sections in this document begins with recommendations concerned with Preserving, i.e., stabilizing, protecting; maintaining a.nd/or retaining the elements that are important in defin- ing the heritage value of the historic place. All conserva- tion projects should follow these Guidelines. For projects requiring more than Preservation, one can follow either the additional -Guidelines for Rehabilitation or the additional Guidelines for Restoration. The Guidelines' approaches to work, treatments, and techniques that are consistent with the Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada are listed in the "Recommended" column on the left; those that are not are listed in the "Not Recommended" column on the right. 8 Introduction — 11o111f io IJso Mo Standards and Guidelines 51 Undertake the Project Work The project work is a critical phase in the conservation process; It is just as important to have well -supervised people with the right skills undertaking the work as it is to determine the right work to undertake. While giving advice on project management and related activities is beyond the scope of this document, one can safely say that it is vital to ensure that all those involved in the actual work of a conservation project possess the right training and skills. They must be familiar with special conservation approaches and understand the scope of the project. Furthermore, while significant interventions may be necessary in a conservation project, the best long- term investment in a historic place is adequate and appropriate maintenance. 4 MAPLE RIDGE British Cstumbia Deep Roots Greater Heights District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 11, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: E06-017-005 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W SUBJECT: GVSDD License Agreement for the Recycling Depot EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District of Maple Ridge and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVSDD) have a existing license agreement that provides for the siting and operation of the Recycling Depot and Collection plant facilities. The current lease agreement expires at the end of March 2009. A new five year license agreement with the GVSDD has been negotiated between staff for the on- going operation of the Maple Ridge Recycling Depot. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and execute the agreement titled "License of Use Agreement for Maple Ridge Recycling Depot" as attached to the staff report dated March 11, 2009. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge provides recycling depot services to residents of Maple Ridge under contracted services from Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (RMRS). The facility is co - located with the MetroVancouver's Solid Waste Transfer Station and under this agreement, the District leases from MetroVancouver the land on which the depot is situated. Maple Ridge has been granted a license agreement since 1989 (the opening of the Transfer Station and Recycling Depot). Over the years of operation, the space required by RMRS has been expanded and amendments to the agreement have been made to reflect the change in needs. In the proposed agreement, the area has again been expanded. b) Desired Outcome: To obtain Council approval of a license agreement and execution of the agreement by the Corporate Officer. 1204 c) Interdepartmental Implications: The property license is co -managed by the Engineering Department and the District's Property and Risk Manager. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The annual license fee for the depot has been increased from $11,000 in 2008 to $15,000 per year for each of the next five years. This increase can be accommodated in the 2009 Financial Plan. CONCLUSIONS: The Recycling Depot and Plant provides a key service to Maple Ridge residents. A license agreement is required to maintain the use of the area. An agreement has been negotiated between GVSDD and District staff and is recommended for Council approval. Prepared by: dWood, PhD, PEng. unici .- I En: ineer k ! v = `, PEng., PM P eral Manager: Public Works and Development Services Financial or ompson, CGA Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning Concurrence: J.L. {Jim) V'ule Chief Adrhinistrative Officer AW/mi LICENSE OF USE AGREEMENT FOR MAPLE RIDGE RECYCLING DEPOT THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of 2009 BETWEEN: AND: WHEREAS: The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 (the "GVS&DD") The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6G2 (the "Licensee") OF THE FIRST PART OF THE SECOND PART A. The GVS&DD owns and operates a sold waste transfer station within the Municipality of Maple Ridge located at 10092 236th Street (the "Transfer Station"). B. The GVS&DD is the registered and beneficial owner of lands within Maple Ridge described as: Legal Description: Lot B District Lot 275 Group 1 NWD Plan 7587 PID: 011-259-281 (the "Lands") The GVS&DD granted licenses to the Licensee from 1989 for operating a recycling depot on a portion of the Lands. The licenses were for 5 year terms with the renewal term ending on March 31, 2009. The license was amended in November 2005 to expand the area of the recycling depot and a further amendment was made in October 2006 to provide for the recycling of certain solvents and flammable liquids as identified in the Recycling Regulation pursuant to the Environmental Management Act. The Licensee has requested that the GVS&DD grant a new non-exclusive license to use certain portions of the Lands comprised of approximately 0.543 hectares as shown outlined in heavy black line as Area 1 and Area 2 on the plan attached as Schedule "A" (the "License Area") for continuation of the recycling operations and the GVS&DD has agreed subject to the terms and conditions contained within this Agreement. 2 NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the fee paid by the Licensee to the GVS&DD and in consideration of the premises and covenants and Agreements contained in this Agreement, the GVS&DD and the Licensee covenant and agree with each other as follows: 1.0 GRANT OF LICENSE OF USE 1.1 The GVS&DD, subject to the performance and observance by the Licensee of the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement and to earlier termination as provided in this Agreement, grants to the Licensee, its agents, employees and invitees a non-exclusive license to use the License Area for the purpose of operating a recycling depot (the "Recycling Facility") together with such related activities for which the GVS&DD may grant upon written approval (such facility and related activities being hereinafter called the "Recycling Operations"). 1.2 The GVS&DD grants to the Licensee access to the License Area from the end of 236th Street over the Transfer Station access road to the License Area. 2.0 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 2.1 The GVS&DD hereby reserves to itself from the grant and the covenants made by it to the Licensee under clause 1 above the right for the GVS&DD, its agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors to have full and complete access to the License Area to carry out any operations associated with the GVS&DD's use of the Lands. 3.0 LICENSE FEE 3.1 In consideration of the right to use, the Licensee shall pay to the GVS&DD the sum of fifteen thousand Dollars ($15,000) in advance, by the 1st day of April in each year of the Term plus the goods and services tax (GST), if applicable. 4.0 TERM AND RENEWAL 4.1 The Term of the License granted under this Agreement shall be for five years from the April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2014 (the "Term") unless earlier terminated under this Agreement. 4.2 The Licensee may make a request to GVS&DD to extend the Term of this License for a further five year term from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2019 (the "Renewal Term"). If the Licensee wishes to renew for the Renewal Term, the Licensee shall provide written notice to GVS&DD not Tess than 6 months and not more than 12 months prior to expiration of the Term of its request to renew for the Renewal Term. The granting of the Renewal Term shall be at the sole discretion of GVS&DD acting reasonably. 3 5.0 TAXES 5.1 The Licensee shall pay all taxes, rates, duties and assessments whatsoever whether federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise charged upon the Licensee or the GVS&DD as a result of the Licensee's occupation of or use of the License Area. 6.0 UTILITIES 6.1 The Licensee shall pay all charges for water, electricity, sewer, telephone and other utilities related to the License Area and the Recycling Operations. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION 7.1 The Licensee shall not construct or place any buildings or structures or make any improvements on the License Area, unless prior to any construction, it has obtained the GVS&DD's approval in writing to the site plans, working drawings, plans, specifications, and elevations, which approval may be withheld at the discretion of GVS&DD. 8.0 INSURANCE 8.1 The Licensee will, at the Licensee's expense, throughout the Term and any Renewal Term, secure and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount of no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) and pollution liability insurance in the amount of no less than three million dollars ($3,000,000) to the satisfaction of the GVS&DD, and to provide evidence satisfactory to the GVS&DD of such insurance and any renewals. The Insurer will acknowledge this agreement as an insured contract under the policy and will have added the Indemnified Parties, as defined under section 9.1, as additional insureds. The Licensee will be responsible to maintain All Risk property insurance coverage for their installed fixtures and equipment. The policy will contain a waiver of subrogation against the Licensor. If requested by the Licensee, the GVS&DD may, at their sole discretion and direction, waive and replace the requirement for the pollution liability insurance with the need for regular environmental risk analysis reports from a recognized environmental consultant. Acceptance of the risk assessment does in no way limit GVS&DD's rights and remedies in the indemnification under section 9. 9.0 INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE 9.1 The Licensee will save harmless and indemnify the GVS&DD and the Greater Vancouver Regional District and their directors, officers, servants, employees and agents (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against all actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses of any kind or nature (including but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, in respect of death, injury, loss or damage to any person or property) arising from the breach of this Agreement by the Licensee, its employees and agents or arising in any way out of or connected with the use of the License Area by the Licensee its agents, employees and invitees under this License Agreement, except to the proportionate extent that such actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses were caused by the 4 Indemnified Parties or any of them. 9.2 The Licensee will release and discharge the GVS&DD and the Greater Vancouver Regional District and their directors, officers, servants, employees and agents (the "Released Parties") from and against all actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses, of any kind or nature (including but not limiting the generality of the foregoing, in respect of death, injury, loss or damage to any person or property) which the Licensee , their employees, or agents might have in any manner contributed to arising in any way out of or connected with the use of the License Area by the Licensee under this agreement except to the proportionate extent that such actions, claims, demands, proceedings, suits, losses, damages, costs and expenses were caused by the Released Parties or any of them. 10.0 NOTICES 10.1 It is hereby mutually agreed: Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to be sufficiently given: to be delivered at the time of delivery and if mailed from any government post office in the Province of British Columbia by prepaid registered mail addressed as follows: (1) if to the GVS&DD: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Attention: Property Division Manager 4330 Kingsway — 5th Floor Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 (ii) if to the Licensee: The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Attention: Municipal Engineer 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 or at the address a party may from time to time designate, then the notice shall be deemed to have been received three days after the time and date of mailing. 11.0 ASSIGNMENT AND SUB -LETTING 11.1 The Licensee shall not assign or sub -let any of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the GVS&DD. GVS&DD does consent to the Licensee granting a sub -license to the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (the "Sub - Licensee") for the purpose of operating the Recycling Facility. 5 12.0 TERMINATION 12.1 If the Licensee is in default on the payment of License fees, or the payment of any other sum payable under this Agreement, or is in breach of this Agreement, and if the default continues 30 days after giving notice by the GVS&DD to the Licensee, then the GVS&DD may terminate this Agreement and the rights of the Licensee with respect to the License Area shall immediately lapse and be absolutely forfeited. 12.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party by giving the other party six months written notice. 13.0 FORFEITURE 13.1 The GVS&DD, by waiving or neglecting to enforce the right to forfeiture this Agreement or upon breach of this Agreement, does not waive the GVS&DD's rights upon any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 14.0 FIXTURES 14.1 That, unless the GVS&DD notifies the Licensee to remove fixtures, all buildings, structures or improvements constructed on the License Area by the Licensee shall at the termination of the Agreement, become the sole property of the GVS&DD at no cost to the GVS&DD. 15.0 REPAIRS BY THE GVS&DD 15.1 If the Licensee fails to repair or maintain the License Area or any building, structure or improvements on the License Area in accordance with this Agreement, the GVS&DD may, by its agents, employees or contractors enter the License Area and make the required repairs or do the required maintenance and the cost of the repairs or maintenance shall be a debt due from the Licensee to the GVS&DD. 16.0 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES 16.1 The Licensee will not place, store, use, manufacture or release or allow the placement, storage, use, manufacture or release of any Hazardous Materials on the License Area or the Lands except as permitted in the Agreement or by law and in accordance with such law. "Hazardous Materials" means all explosives, radioactive materials, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous or toxic substances, special waste, or other waste, the storage, use, manufacture, or release of which into the environment is prohibited, controlled or regulated under any laws, regulations, orders, bylaws, permits or lawful requirement of any government authority in respect of the protection of the natural environment, or of plant, animal or human health, or in respect of the regulation and use of such wastes and substances. 16.2 Notwithstanding the restrictions of section 16.1, the Licensee may bring such household hazardous wastes onto the License Area that are covered under Recycling Regulation 449/2004 enacted pursuant to the Environmental Management Act (British Columbia) as -6 collected through the Extended Producer Responsibility & Stewardship Program agreements or contracts (the "EPR Program") between the Licensee and the Ministry of the Environment, (the "Product Stewardship Agreements"). 16.3 The Licensee shall provide an annual written list to the GVS&DD on the description of products to be handled on the License Area including those products that fall within the EPR Program and those that do not fall within the EPR Program. 16.4 Handling of the Household Hazardous Wastes by the Licensee shall be conducted in accordance with the Product Stewardship Agreements and guidelines as administered by the association responsible for the specific Household Hazardous Waste or product. The Licensee is responsible for and shall carry out the appropriate training for all persons that are handling Household Hazardous Wastes on the License Area. 16.5 The Licensee is responsible for any and all costs associated with environmental clean up of the Lands and any adjacent lands, watercourses or other areas that may be contaminated by products accepted by the Licensee on the License Area whether pursuant to the License or any amendments thereto or otherwise. 17.0 TIDINESS AND CLEAN UP 17.1 The Licensee shall keep the License Area 1 and License Area 2, any improvements and the Recycling Operations in a neat, tidy, safe, secure and sanitary condition at all times. The Licensee shall place the recycling materials into appropriate receptacles and shall ensure that all such materials are moved from the License Area at frequent and regular intervals so that such materials or any wastes do not accumulate on the License Area. The Licensee shall also remove any litter on the access road between License Area 1 and License Area 2 that may be'attributed to the Recycling Facility operations. 17.2 At the end of the Term or Renewal Term, the Licensee shall clean up the License Area and restore the surface of the License Area to the satisfaction of the GVS&DD acting reasonably. 18.0 SECURITY, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 18.1 The Licensee, at its expense, will install and maintain fencing, a gate, all required locks and any other security measures as requested by GVS&DD for maintaining security and restricted access to the License Area. 18.2 The Licensee will maintain and keep in good repair all buildings, structures, fences, gates, locks and other improvements on the License Area. The Licensee will maintain the landscaping located in Area 2, shown on Schedule "A" as License Area 2 and is granted a license to do so and pass over the Lands with or without equipment for this purpose. License Area 2 is for landscaping only and for no other purpose. 19.0 REGULATIONS 19.1 The Licensee will comply promptly at its own expense with the legal requirements of all authorities, including an association of fire insurance underwriters or agents, and all -7 notices issued under them that are served upon the GVS&DD or the Licensee. 20.0 NO COMPENSATION 20.1 The Licensee shall not be entitled to compensation for any loss or injurious affection or disturbance resulting in any way from the termination of the License or the loss of the Licensee's interest in any building, structure or improvement built or placed on the License Area. 21.0 MISCELLANEOUS 21.1 (a) The Licensee warrants and represents that the execution of this Agreement by the Licensee on behalf of a group or organization is a warranty and representation to the GVS&DD that the Licensee has sufficient power, authority, and capacity to bind the group or organization with his or her signature; (b) If the Licensee represents a group or organization, the Licensee agrees to inform all responsible persons associated with the group or organization of the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (c) Where written consent is required under this Agreement by the GVS&DD such written consent can be provided by the Manager, Contracted Services or their designate unless otherwise stated in this Agreement; (d) The Licensee covenants and agrees to use the License Area in accordance with the terms of use attached to this Agreement as Schedule "B" and any breach of these terms of use will be considered a breach of the terms of this Agreement; (e) This Agreement shall not be interpreted as granting any interest in the Lands or the License Area to the Licensee; (f) Waiver of any default by a party shall not be interpreted or deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default; (g) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and cancels and supercedes any prior agreement between the parties with respect to this Agreement. 22.0 INTERPRETATION 22.1 (a) When the singular or neuter are used in this Agreement they include the plural or the feminine or the masculine or the body politic where the context or the parties require. (b) The headings to the clauses in this Agreement have been inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference only and in no way define, limit or enlarge the scope or meaning of this Agreement or any provision of it. 8 (c) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws applicable in the Province of British Columbia. (d) All provisions of this Agreement are to be construed as covenants and agreements as though the word importing covenants and agreements were used in each separate paragraph. (e) A provision in this Agreement granting the GVS&DD a right of approval shall be interpreted as granting a free and unrestricted right to be exercised by the GVS&DD in its discretion. The authorized signatories of the parties have executed this Agreement as follows. by the Licensee — Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Per: on Corporate Officer date by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Per: on Deputy CAO — Delia Laglagaron date SCHEDULE "A" LICENSE AREA OF RECYCLING FACILITY ON LOT "13"—PLAN 7587 AREA 2 = 0.023 ha. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE RgsER R/VFR $ 0 0 1Urm 20m 4am 60m IPF IPF .`-19,31.....1 i5C - 10 - SCHEDULE "B" Terms of Use The Licensee and GVS&DD further covenant and agree as follows: 1.0 The Licensee shall not carry on or permit any activity on the License Area which is considered a nuisance to the owners or occupiers of lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the License Area, including the creation of odor or excessive noise. 2.0 GVS&DD may, upon 6 months notice, give the Licensee notice to surrender up to 10% of the License Area, not including any area occupied by buildings, as required by GVS&DD to ensure a safe and efficient operation of the Transfer Station. 3.0 The Licensee must ensure that the gate leading into the emergency exit roadway is closed to the public at all times except for emergency purposes. MAPLE RIDGE omshcm"mmw Deep Roots DistrictGreater Heights of8���U� ��'��� Maple ^'^^~n�~ TO: His Worship Mayor Daykin DATE: March 11, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: E04'144'001 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Connection for Timberline Ranch EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 8, 2007 Council approved a municipal sanitary sewer connection for Timberline Ranch, subject to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) approval of an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA). The GVS&DD Board, on February 29, 2008 approved expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include a portion of Timberline's property. Since then, District and Timberline staff have been working on the design of the sewer connection. Of the three design options considered, the preferred option, from the District's perspective, was a connection to the existing sanitary sewer at the intersection of 224 Street and 127 Avenue (option 3). Timberline Ranch has expressed concerns with this option and have instead requested a less costly interim solution. Timberline's preference involves a connection to the existing sanitary sewer forcemain at 136 Avenue and 224 Street (option 2) as it would save them over $500,000. Timberline's request has been reviewed, resulting in a recommendation for Council approval, subject to a number of conditions which will be incorporated into a Restrictive Covenant. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Timberline Ranch be permitted to connect in the interim period to the municipal forcemain at 136 Avenue at 224 Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Timberline save the District harmless from any and all liabilities including those for any future expense resulting from granting this exception; and 2. Timberline Ranch will make the aon-site facility adjustments, at its own expense, if and when the connection is tied to a future low pressure sanitary sewer; and 3. Timberline Ranch ensure that the sanitary sewage flow within the District's forcemain will not be hampered by the incoming discharge from Timberline Ranch; and 4. Timberline Ranch provides adequate emergency sanitary sewage storage in the event that the District's forcemain is unavoidably out of commission (due to maintenance, power failure, etc.); and further 5. Timberline Ranch's offer of an unconditional contribution be accepted by the District. The intent of the contribution is to offset the future municipal costs to recover the existing system capacity lost as a result of permitting Timberline to connect to the existing sanitary sewer forcemain for the interim period. Ultimately, an opportunity will arise to switch the connection over to a system with better capacity. Jao�� DISCUSSION: a) Background{ontext: On May 8, 2007 Council approved the foliowing resolutions. That approval be granted for a sanitary sewer connection to the municipal system subject to: 1. approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District to amend the Fraser Sewerage Area to include the developed portion of Timberline Ranch; 2. a written agreement by Timberline Ranch to design and install the sewer connection and system in accordance with the current municipal standards and specifications and that they will oponate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the components over the period of time that Timberline Ranch remains in operation for the permitted land uses; 3. Timberline Ranch submitting an annual report to the District demonstrating that the connection and system is adequately maintained and has integrity; 4. the District retaining the right to terminate the connection should Timberline Ranch fail to perform any of its obligations under the agreement or should the land use or sewage volumes and characteristics change. The GVS&DD Board, on February 29, 2008 approved expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area to include a portion of Timberline's property. Following Council's approval, Timberline Ranch retained an engineering consultant to prepare a feasibility study for the connection. In a letter dated February 26, 2009 (see attached copy) Timberline Ranch outlined the three options considered by their consultant and requested Council approval for option 2 as an interim solution, connecting to the existing 3OOmmfnncemainat224Street and 13GAvenue. Option 2, although technically feasible, was originally not supported by District staff. Direct connections to municipal forcemains would result in variable inflows from intermediate connections which could destabilize system hydraulics and cause connection failures. Furthor, if direct connections are allowed to municipal forcemains, systematic planning and expansion of the sewerage system could be compromised by increased pressure from other developments. Of the three options presented, District staff preferred option 3, a connection to the gravity sewer across 224 Street south of 127 Avenue. Timberline Ranch has expressed concern with the additional cost of option 3 (approximately $500,000 more than option 2) and is seeking approval for option 2, direct connection to the existing sanitary forcemain at the intersection of 224 Street and 136 Avenue. Timberline Ranch has also offered to contribute funds to possible future system transfers to enable the District to recover capacity. Staff is currently discussing the appropriate amount with Timberline Ranch. b) Desired Outcome: Consistent with the earlier report, the desired outcome is a connection to the municipal sanitary sewer system to safely dispose of sewage generated by existing and future facilities at Timberline Ranch. c) Implications: According to Timberline Ranch, option 3 is prohibitively expensive and may delay expansion of the facility. Recognizing the contribution that this facility makes to the community, d) Interdepartmental Implications: Recently, the Planning Department recommended an expansion of the P3 zoning (Children's Institutional) boundary to allow expansion within the camp -ground facility. The Building Department is awaiting the resolution of the servicing issue and is ready to issue a building permit for the facility expansion. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Timberline Ranch has offered to contribute $12,240 to recover the existing system capacity lost as a result of Timberline's connection to the existing sanitary sewer forcemain. However, staff has calculated the Net Present Value of the cost to be $22.350 and are currently in discussions about this amount. Further, it is recommended that Timberline save the District harmless from any and all liabilities including those for any future expense resulting from granting of this exception. It is also recommended that Timberline make the appropriate on- site facility adjustments, at its own expense, if and when the connection is tied to any future n'sitefani|ityad]ustnoonts,atitsnvvnexponse,ifandwhenthenonneobnniedeUtoanyfuture Iow pressure sanitary sewer. Timberline Ranch should also ensure that the sanitary sewage flow within the District's forcemain will not be hampered by the incoming discharge from Timberline Ranch f) Policy Implications: Although current practice discourages direct connections to existing forcemains, an exception under these circumstances is warranted. It is important to note that this is an exception based on community support and is not a precedent that will be followed. Timberline Ranch is both an economic and community contributor to Maple Ridge and it is on these grounds that approval is being recommended. Alternatives: The alternative is to pursue construction of the sewer line as originally discussed. According to Timberline Ranch, if option 3 were pursued, the present operation and any future expansion of the facilities may be compromised by the expense of constructing it. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the additional costs of option 3 and the financial burden that this option places on Timberline Ranch, staff recommends that option 2, a direct connection to the sanitary sewer forcemain at 224 Streipt and 136 Avenun, be supported, subject to the conditions outlined in this report. // Submitted by: o un Wood, PhD., PEng. I Engineer Fr4.6 ,PEng. General ana8er: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: J'LUim0Rule Chief Administrative Officer f Timberline Ranch 22351 — 144'h Avenue, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada V4R 2P8 Phone (604) 463-9278 Fax (604) 463-4346 www.timberlineranch.com Frank Quinn General Manager: Public Works & Development Services District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 February 26, 2009 Dear Mr. Quinn, You will. recall that on May 8, 2007, Maple Ridge Council passed a resolution to permit Timberline Ranch to temporarily connect to the municipal sewer, subject to the GVRD's approval to include the developed portion of the Timberline Ranch's property into the Fraser Sewerage Area. Following Council's resolution, Timberline Ranch engaged Dayton & Knight Ltd. (hereinafter D&K) through the District, to conduct a study to review the feasibility of providing sanitary services to the Timberline Ranch. Three options were considered: Option 1 - Connection to the low pressure sewer system at 136 Avenue. This option was not recommended because of its current limitations. Option 2 - Connection to the existing 300mm diameter forcemain at 136 Avenue and 224 Street. Option 3 - Connection to the gravity sewer along 224 Street south of 132 Avenue, requiring 3,720m of new forcemain. Timberline Ranch, of course, prefers to adopt Option 2 because the total installation cost is estimated to be less than one-half of the total cost if Option 3 were to be pursued. This was also the option recommended by D&K. In our subsequent discussions with Amin Lalani, P. Eng, representing the District, we were given to understand that the District would prefer Option 3 for the following reasons: Allowing a connection to a municipal force -main (Option 2) would set a precedent, making it difficult to deny others the same opportunity thereafter. As more and more connections would be made to the forcemain, the system hydraulics would inevitably fail and the municipality would have to resolve failures and bear the costs. Mr. Lalani cited two examples: the low pressure sewer on 136 Avenue, which the owners had to pay for rather than allowing them to connect to the force -main that existed there; and the interest already expressed by others requesting that they be allowed the same privilege. More importantly, from the District's perspective, such short-cut options preclude systematic expansion of gravity sewerage system. When an infrastructure is not developed in a systematic manner, the District can become financially exposed to make amends when temporary systems begin to fail. Finally, one further reason which Mr. Lalani cited for not supporting our preferred option was that if the District were, for some compassionate reason, to allow this option, the District would have to bear the upsizing of the future low pressure sewer along 224 St. south to the interceptor (eventually needed to service the acreage homes) to allow for Timberline's volume, and they would also have to bear the expense of re -connecting Timberline's temporary connection to the low pressure sewer. We fully understand the reasoning behind these concerns. However, we believe that our situation is unique, as the necessity for this sewer line is for health and safety reasons, not convenience, and because we are a non-profit children's camp that has operated in this community for nearly 50 years. It would be extremely- onerous for Timberline Ranch to pay an additional expense of approximately $500,000 for the extra 1.6 km of installation under Option 3. We simply cannot afford such an investment, especially as we are currently required to heavily invest in replacing other aging infrastructure (as requested by the fire department). Further, if Timberline Ranch were somehow able to accomplish Option 3, there is little to no possibility that the capital investment could he recovered from the property owners along 224th under Latecomer provisions, given that these properties are not currently within the FSA and are not likely to be in the foreseeable future. Therefore, Timberline would be required to pay the entire cost for this infrastructure. We therefore appeal to you to consider our plight as an exception rather than a precedent -setting case and allow- us to connect to the municipal forcemain at 224 St. and 136 Ave. in the interim. We do not expect the District to have to undergo any expense on our behalf in the future, either for the necessary upsizing of the future low-pressure sewer line to the north -slope interceptor in order to accommodate our flow, or to switch the connection from the municipal forcernain over to the municipal (low- pressure) sewer when the latter is constructed and commissioned. With the consent of the Board of Directors, we have requested and received from our engineering consultants, KWL Ltd., an estimate of the above costs (with substantiation of quotes from the local supplier) to upsize the pipes and to switch the connection over from the interitn connection — presuming of course that you will allow us to do that — to the future low pressure sewer when it is constructed. We are prepared to make this contribution unconditionally if the District will make the exception and allow us — on a compassionate basis — to pursue Option 2 to service the Ranch. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this important matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Hal at 778-773-9279, or Craig at 604-463-9278, ext. 26. Sine ely, Hal Schienke Craig Douglas Property Manger Executive Director February 23, 2009 Mr. Hal Schienke Timberline Ranch 22351 144 Ave Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R 2P8 Dear Mr. Schienke: RE: TIMBERLINE RANCH Proposed Sanitary Sewer Foreeinain Our File 2268.002 KERR WOOD LEIDAL associate" limited ONSULTING ENGINEERS 200- 4 1.f35A StEl Creek Drive Burnaby. B.C. V C G 9 0 4 - 2 9 4 • 2 0 8 8 I' 0 4 2 9 4 2 0 9 0 F As discussed the following is an estimate of the cost to upsize approximately 1.6 kilometers of future 75 nun diameter sanitary sewer forcernain pipe on 224th Street south of 136th Avenue to 100 mm diameter pipe as part of the Ranch's contribution to this work. The cost of the pipe material is based on a telephone quote from Sandale Utility Products in Langley (604-882-2080) and includes applicable taxes and delivery to the site. Also included is an estimate of the cost to connect the Ranch's forcemain into the future pipe. The estimated cost is presented as follows: ▪ 1,600 metres of 100 mm series 160 poly pipe ($12.66/m.) $20,260 • 1,600 metres of 75 mm series 160 poly pipe cost ($6.151m) $ 9,840 Difference $10,420 • Allowance to reconnect the Ranch 75 ram forcemain to the future 100 mm sewer at 136th St. $ 2,000 The total estimated cost is $12,420. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD Ken Ferra y, P.Eng. Project Manager o:‘22oo-22991.2268-0o2+2ao-cen-correspolmberlineLTR.dec F'C.-:R•';',A,BY • engineering extclItoct since 1575 144 AVENUE 40, 1 1211 iWuk° OPTION 2 TIE IN 1111 1111 1 1111111111111111 X kOU Cr Lu f -- 69- N wp al OPTIO TI N V 3 127 AV IN„I N SCALE: N.T.S. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED TIMBERLINE RANCH SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM DATE: MARCH 2009 FILE/DWG No SK0301 8rit€sh Cetumbia Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: March 9, 2009 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended February 28, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has authorized all voucher payments to be approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor, together with the Director of Finance. Council authorizes the vouchers for the following period through Council resolution. The disbursement summary for the past period is attached for your information. Expenditure details are available to any Council member for review in the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the "disbursements as listed below for the month ended February 28, 2009 now be approved". GENERAL $ 4,565,344 PAYROLL $ 1,357,292 PURCHASE CARD $ 102.041 $ 6,024.677 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b) Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1231 c) Business Plan / Financial Implications: H,_ghlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution • Cockrill, Gregory - security refund $ 229,770 • Directional Mining & Drilling - Academy Park sanitary sewer $ 265,788 • Emergency Communications - Dispatch levy 1St quarter $ 276,169 • G.V. Water District - water consumption Nov 26 - Dec 31/08 $ 332,397 • Mierau - Fire Hall No. 1 expansion $ 163,193 d) Policy Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended February 28, 2009 have been reviewed and are in order. Prepared by: G'Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II Approved by: Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Financial Planning X17 L � Approved by: itralit, BBA, CGA - Corporate & Financia1`Services Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr VENDOR NAME Adventnet Inc Alouette River Management Soc Alpha Beta (228 St Hldgs) Corp BC Hydro BC SPCA Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Bynett Construction Services CUPE Local 622 Chevron Canada Ltd Cockrill, Gregory DB Perks & Associates Ltd Directional Mining & Drilling Double M Excavating Ltd Downtown Maple Ridge Business Emergency Communications Fraser City Installations Ltd Garaventa Canada Ltd Gold Creek Developments Ltd Greater Vanc Transp Authority Greater Vanc Water District Happy Heart Fitness & Educ Hub Fire Engines And Equipment ICBC - Fleet Insurance Kanaka Education And Environment Manulife Financial McTar Petroleum Ltd Medical Services Plan Mierau Minister Of Provincial Revenue MJT Enterprises Ltd Mobilecom Radio Company Municipal Pension Plan BC Points West Consulting Inc Receiver General For Canada RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - PERIOD 2, 2009 DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT 3yr service desk software maintenance 2009 service grant Security refund Hydro charges Feb Contract Jan & Feb lmpround fee Maintenance: Banners Cemetery Firehall Greg Moore Youth Centre Haney House Leisure Centre Maple Ridge Park Municipal Hall Operations Randy Herman Building RCMP Street Lights Xmas Lights Community Safety Building Dues - pay periods 09/03 & 09/04 Fuel Security refund Leisure Centre pool supplies Aquatic wheel chair Pool starting blocks Academy Park sanitary sewer Roadworks 240 Street 50% BIA funding Dispatch levy- 1th quarter Crosswalk overhead signs Winter Club wheelchair lift Winter Club wheelchair access ramp Soil deposit fee refund 2008 grant in lieu Water consumption Nov 26/08 - Dec 31/08 Water sample analysis Weight room supervision & childcare activity room Fire engine equipment 2009 fleet insurance renewal 2009 service grant Employee benefits premiums Road salt Employee medical & health premiums Feb Fire Hall No. 1 expansion 2008 grant in lieu Skating lessons Mobile radio system Radio repairs Pension remittance Parks & recreation services survey Employer/Employee remit PP09/04 & 09/05 Industry Canada radio license renewals Ice rental Jan Curling rink operating expenses Nov & Dec 44,686 50 579 1,644 369 1,870 125 2,325 353 71 1,060 2,573 494 5,114 331 2,051 2,424 12,293 89,850 6,824 332,397 750 19,729 106 646,949 12,819 51,703 8,058 AMOUNT 21,427 20,000 45,000 84,843 44,736 16,908 25,069 18,922 51,470 229,770 16,768 265,788 47,452 78,500 276,169 21,545 18,900 43,485 96,674 333,147 24,610 22,035 128,541 20,000 97,009 77,932 23,988 163,193 32,572 17,184 19,835 254,996 22,484 659,768 59,761 Ridge Meadow Comm Arts Council Ridgemeadows Recycling Society Sandpiper Contracting Ltd Terasen Gas Tybo Contracting Ltd Ultra -Tech Cleaning System Ltd Warrington PCI Management Disbursements In Excess $15,000 Disbursements Under $15,000 Total Payee Disbursements Payroll Purchase Cards - Payment TOTAL PERIOD 2 2009 DISBURSEMENTS GMR Art Centre grant Feb Program revenue Dec & Jan P&LS funding Theatre rental Subsidized program fees Monthly contract for recycling Feb Weekly recycling Litter pick-up contract 202 Street sanitary sewer Natural gas Feb Spirit Square Maintenance: Firehalls Greg Moore Youth Centre Library Municipal Hall Operations Centre Randy Herman Building RCMP Advance for Tower common costs Feb Tower expenses Jan PP09/04 & 09/05 Y:\Finance\Accounting\AP Remittances (Disbursements)\2009\[Monthly Council Report 2009.xls)FEB'09 46,956 40,226 1,500 926 1,762 77,772 282 1,293 1,215 5,978 4,171 3,808 551 4,038 3,297 35,000 1,160 91,370 79,347 44,545 59,132 85,384 23,058 36,160 3,799,478 765,866 4,565,344 1,357,292 102,041 6,024,677