102 Seventh Avenue

Thank you for your questions and for taking the time to send us your comments and concerns about the proposed heritage revitalization agreement at 102 Seventh Avenue. Responses to your questions have been provided below.

Question 1: For the City, ensuring that buildings are safe for future residents is one of the most important pieces of a potential project and all applications are reviewed for compliance with the BC Building Code and the City’s Building Bylaw. For some buildings, meeting the regulation as written in the BC Building Code is not possible, which is why the building code allows for “alternative solutions” as long as they meet the overall intent of the regulation. While the duplex has been designed to meet the building code requirements, the heritage building does not. In this case, the designer has committed to working with a building code expert to create a unique solution to the roof soffit issue that will minimize the risk of fire spreading between the two buildings. While the details of the solution will be determined at the Building Permit stage, should Council choose to approve the application, it is likely that sprinklers will be added to the soffits.

Question 2: This project is an example of “infill” housing, which is buildings that are designed to fit into an established neighbourhood while increasing its overall density. The City encourages different types of infill housing across New Westminster, on average-sized lots, in order to make our neighbourhoods more accessible to those for whom single-family houses are not appropriate or affordable. For this project, creating two smaller lots from one standard sized lot impacts the project’s overall density, because density is measured as a ratio of floor space to lot area. However, the infill duplex has been designed at a similar size and height to houses in this neighbourhood.
The siting relaxations mentioned in the question refers to the project’s proposed setbacks. These relaxations allow for a few different benefits, including the ability to keep the heritage house in place, preserve the large and mature trees in the front yard, add a duplex with two family-sized units at the back of the property, and meet the City’s parking requirements. When weighed against their overall benefits, they are considered “minor.” 

Question 3: Thank you for your feedback on the clarity of the data provided in this report, as City staff are continuously looking for ways to make these reports more readable to members of the public. Table 2 refers to the overall permitted density for new construction in the RS-1 zone, which is 0.6 as this zone allows for one single-detached house (0.5 FSR) and one laneway house (0.1 FSR). A correction will be made in the forthcoming report to Table 4, to correct the Floor Space Ratio to 0.6.

Question 4: All questions and comments about development projects which are submitted via the City’s Be Heard New West public consultation website are answered by City staff in the Climate Action, Planning and Development Department.

For this project, the property owner has approached the City with a proposal that asks for the ability to build a duplex, which would be a non-financial benefit, in exchange for a few different community benefits. This type of proposal is called a Heritage Revitalization Agreement, which is different from a rezoning. There are a few different things the City thinks about when considering these types of applications. One of the most important things that the City is considering with regard to this proposal are the meanings and values of the existing building and whether or not it is appropriate to be protected as a heritage building. Heritage protection provides benefit to the community by ensuring that the story told by the building can be heard for many years to come. The house at 102 Seventh Avenue is a snapshot in time and tells a story about a particular type of historic design, the significant Tudor Revival style. The house also helps tell the story of the working class people who helped build community in Glenbrooke North.

The City is also considering the current condition of the building and the project’s proposed plan for its restoration. If this project were approved, the property owner would be required to restore the heritage house before being allowed to construct the duplex. As keeping the building in good condition is key to allowing it to tell its story over time, the property owner would also be required by law to maintain and upkeep the building, which would help avoid future infractions. 

Another important consideration as part of this proposal, is how the proposed duplex would fit into the neighbourhood and align with the Official Community Plan. The Official Community Plan was developed in close collaboration with members of the community. For this particular property, the Plan allows single family homes with suites and laneway houses, as well as duplexes. A single family home typically contains space for two families: one in the main part of the house, and one in the secondary suite. The duplex similarly would provide space for two families, but instead of living above and below, they would live side-by-side. As this duplex proposes to locate its bedrooms on the second floor, it is more family-friendly than a secondary suite, and could provide an important housing option in the neighbourhood to those who cannot afford a single family home.

The City is also considering the other benefits of the proposal, such as the retention of the secondary suite in the heritage house and the protection of the property’s trees. These benefits are being weighed against the owner’s request for permission to build a duplex. The project is very specific to this particular property. If approved, it would not set a precedence for other properties in the neighbourhood.

For this project, the property owner has approached the City with a proposal that asks for the ability to build a duplex, in exchange for a few different community benefits. This type of proposal is called a Heritage Revitalization Agreement.

One of the most important things that the City is considering with regard to this proposal are the meanings and values of the existing building and whether or not it is appropriate to be protected as a heritage building. Heritage protection provides benefit to the community by ensuring that the story told by the building can be heard for many years to come. The house at 102 Seventh Avenue is a snapshot in time and tells a story about a particular type of historic design, the significant Tudor Revival style. The house also helps tell the story of the working class people who helped build community in Glenbrooke North. 

Another important consideration as part of this proposal, is how the proposed duplex would fit into the neighbourhood and align with the Official Community Plan (OCP). The OCP was developed in close collaboration with members of the community. For this particular property, the Plan allows single family homes with suites and laneway houses, as well as duplexes. A single family home typically contains space for two families: one in the main part of the house, and one in the secondary suite. The duplex similarly would provide space for two families, but instead of living above and below, they would live side-by-side. As this duplex proposes to locate its bedrooms on the second floor, it is more family-friendly than a secondary suite, and could provide an important housing option in the neighbourhood to those who cannot afford a single family home.

The City is also considering the other benefits of the proposal, such as the retention of the secondary suite in the heritage house and the protection of the property’s trees. These benefits are being weighed against the owner’s request for permission to build a duplex. The project is very specific to this particular property. If approved, it would not set a precedence for other properties in the neighbourhood.

Why a duplex and not a laneway house?
This project proposes a variety of community benefits in exchange for a small amount of additional density and the ability to build a duplex. Some of these benefits include legal protection of the heritage house and its restoration and maintenance, which would allow it to continue to tell its story over the years to come. This project also proposes to keep the existing secondary suite in the heritage house and build family-friendly duplex units, both of which would help create more housing choices in the community for those who are not able to access a single family home. One additional benefit is that the proposal would retain all of the property’s trees. If the property owner chose to simply build a laneway house, the community would not have access to these additional benefits. 

Is it correct that the proposal calls for 4 parking spaces on site if each residence has parking?
Yes, that is correct. The project proposes four parking spaces, located at the rear of the site and accessed via the lane. The proposed parking complies with the Zoning Bylaw requirements.

How is the Maddock house heritage maintained if it has no yard space and a duplex crammed beside it?
The project proposes to restore the Maddock house through minor repairs to the building, which will be overseen by a heritage professional. The project also proposes to keep the house in its original location and to retain the English-style front garden with its mature trees. The project’s heritage consultant found that this front garden helps give the property its English country home character, which adds to the property’s heritage. More information on the property’s heritage value and planned restoration can be found on the project website (maddockhouse.ca).

In terms of outdoor space, the project proposes that residents of the heritage house have access to the large front yard as well as patio areas to the west of the heritage building. This will allow residents a few different options for how they want to use their outdoor space and exceeds the City’s requirements.