|
12. APPLICATION
TO DEMOLISH 456 LANSDOWNE AVENUE, APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE
ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION LE 456, CHEMIN LANSDOWNE ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE
CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE
PARK
|
Committee recommendationS AS
AMENDED
That Council :
1. Reject
the application to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District;
2. Reject
the application for new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District according to final plans received on July 6, 2007.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. rejette la
demande de démolition du 456, avenue Lansdowne dans le District de conservation
du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park conformément aux plans finaux reçus le 6
juillet 2007;
2. rejette la demande de nouvelle
construction dans le District de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park
conformément aux plans reçus le 6 juillet 2007.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 16 July 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-APR-0140).
Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory Committee, Extract of Minutes – 26 July 2007 and 8 November 2007.
2.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 27 November 2007.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur la
conservation de l'architecture locale
and /
et
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
16 July 2007 / le 16 juilliet 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager /
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment / Urbanisme,
Transport en commun
et Environnement
Contact
Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-APR-0140
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Application to demolish 456 lansdowne
avenue, application for new construction in the rockcliffe park heritage
conservation district
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
DEMANDE DE
DÉMOLITION LE 456, CHEMIN LANSDOWNE ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS
LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council;
1.
Approve the
application to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District;
2.
Approve the
application for new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation
District according to final plans received on July 6, 2007.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité consultatif sur la conservation de
l’architecture locale recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
de recommander à son tour au Conseil :
1. d'approuver la demande de démolition du
456, avenue Lansdowne dans le District de conservation du patrimoine de
Rockcliffe Park conformément aux plans finaux reçus le 6 juillet 2007;
2. d'approuver la demande de nouvelle
construction dans le District de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park
conformément aux plans reçus le 6 juillet 2007.
BACKGROUND
The
subject property, 456 Lansdowne Road is located in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District on a large lot that slopes down to Mackay Lake (see
Document 1). Under the Ontario
Heritage Act (OHA), the demolition of buildings and new construction within
a heritage conservation district requires the approval of City Council
following consultation with the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee (LACAC).
This
section of Lansdowne Road is mixed architecturally, featuring houses from the
post-war period on the west side and large 1930s houses on the east (lake)
side, including the Swiss (1927) and Israeli (1934) Embassies and two more
recent houses, the award-winning Hart Massey House (1959) at 400 Lansdowne Road
and 474 Lansdowne Road (1993) house to the immediate north of the subject
property. The tennis courts and parking
area of the Rockcliffe Park Lawn Tennis Club (1925) are also located on this
section of the road, facing the subject property. A sewer easement runs through the property, between the present
house and the lakeshore. As no construction
is allowed on the easement, development is restricted to the area between the
road and the easement.
DISCUSSION
House
The
house located at 456 Lansdowne Road was constructed in 1897, for Frannie and
Etta Wright, two of Hull pioneer Philomen Wright's many great
grand-daughters. Located on McKay Lake,
it was the first permanent year-round house built on the lake and one of the
first 20 houses built in the Village.
Until the busy building period of 1925-48 when the eastern portion of
the original Village began to be developed, it was the only house in this part
of the former Village. The two sisters
continued to live here until the 1940s, when the house was sold.
As
an early building on MacKay Lake, the house represents the settlement period of
Rockcliffe Park. Many of the first
houses built in the area were simple summer cottages for the residents of
nearby Ottawa who reached them by streetcar lines that were completed in
1894.
Eventually,
these were joined by more substantial structures designed by leading architects
for members of Ottawa's elite. Initally
development clustered around the south west part of the Village, gradually
moving north and east.
The house
is a red brick, two-and-a-half storey, gable-roofed structure. This type of simple front gabled house,
constructed in either brick, stone or wood was extremely common throughout
Ontario in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are many examples of the type
throughout Ottawa, particularly in the Glebe and Ottawa South. It is also common in the former villages
that now make up the city. A one-storey
addition to the building was added in 1979.
The structure proposed for the
site is a two-storey, hipped roof stone structure. In style and massing the building evokes the Prairie style houses
of American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, although it is clearly a contemporary
structure. The windows, which are set
in bronzed, anodized aluminium frames, alternate with prominent solid bays clad
in cut sandstone The front door features a canopy suspended by iron rods over
double, glazed doors. The property
slopes to the rear of the house that features a deck with a glazed balustrade,
supported on square piers, overlooking the lake. There is a walkout stone terrace at grade, below the deck. The sloped nature of the site allows the
garage to be constructed at basement level with its doors facing south, and not
visible from the street.
The Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District Plan, Section IV.1.1 states:
Any application
to demolish an existing building should be reviewed, with consideration of its
historical and architectural significance, its contribution to its streetscape,
and the appropriateness of the proposed redevelopment. Demolition should be recommended for
approval only where the existing building is of little significance and the proposed
redevelopment is sympathetic to the surrounding development.
In the analysis of the proposed
demolition and new construction, staff examined the possibility of the
retention of the original building and the construction of additions to it to
accommodate the new spaces desired by the owner. The existing house is 320 square metres (excluding the basement)
and the proposed house is 742.4 square metres (excluding the basement). If the existing house were retained and an
addition of 422 square metres constructed around it to bring it up to the
size desired by the applicant and allowed within the Rockcliffe Park Zoning
Bylaw, staff concluded that such an addition would not only have a negative
impact on the heritage character of the existing building but also on the
landscape quality of this portion of Lansdowne Road. The impact on Lansdowne Road would be exacerbated because the
addition would be forced to extend to the south side yard setback because the
sewer easement would only allow an addition to extend 10 metres to the rear of
the existing building.
Landscape
The former Village of Rockcliffe
Park was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act for its
significance as a cultural heritage landscape, characterized by its informal
plantings, gardens and trees.
The preservation and enhancement
of the cultural heritage landscape is as important as the preservation of
individual houses as indicated in the “Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation
District Study” which states “… the architectural character of individual
residential and institutional properties is secondary to their landscaped
settings.”
The landscape of 456 Lansdowne
Road currently reflects the tradition of large, informal, heavily treed lots
found throughout the former Village of Rockcliffe Park. The front yard of the property features
mature trees, most of which will be preserved as the new driveway was designed
to pass between them. The existing cedar
hedges along the north and south property lines (some of which straddle the property
line) will remain in place and planting along these property lines will be
enhanced and filled in, as necessary.
The proposed house respects the sloping character of the site and is
situated approximately 30 metres back from the existing shoreline. The area between the shoreline and the house
will be left largely as it currently exists, except for the construction of a
terrace adjacent to the house. The
actual riparian zone will not be altered, and the bush adjacent to the water’s
edge will remain, respecting the waterfront policies found in the former
Rockcliffe Official Plan that has been adopted as a Secondary Plan to the
current City of Ottawa Official Plan.
Rockcliffe policies encourage the naturalization of lands within 10
metres of the shoreline and discourage the cutting of trees and disturbance of
vegetation within 30 metres of the shoreline.
(Village of Rockcliffe Park, Official Plan, Section 2.4.4.2, Special
Policies)
The “Guidelines” for the
management of the District reflect the importance of the landscape in defining
the heritage character of the District.
Sections IV) i, 1 and 2 address the District’s natural features stating
that “The existing topography should be maintained, without any major
excavation, filling and regrading…” and “Special attention should be given to
the protection and enhancement of the lake and pond environment …”
Further landscape guidelines in
the “Guidelines” ((Section IV) v, 1-3) emphasize the dominance of soft
landscape over hard, the importance of tree preservation and the preservation
of important existing features of the landscape. The proposed rear yard respects these Guidelines as it retains
existing retaining walls and lawns and features an arbour, relocated from
elsewhere on the property. The placement
of the new house allows for the retention of the majority of the trees and
shrubs in the front yard, respecting the character of this portion of Lansdowne
as a narrow street with trees overhanging it.
Site plan issues were addressed in accordance with the On
Time Review Implementation Policy approved by City Council on October 13,
2004. The approved landscape plan is
included as Document 4.
The Rockcliffe Park Development
Review Subcommittee met with the applicant on May 7, 2007 as part of the consultation
process. Its comments are included as
Document 5.
Conclusions
The Official Plan requires that a
“Cultural Heritage Impact Statement” (CHIS) be prepared by a heritage
professional to assess the impact of the development for projects within heritage
conservation districts. Contentworks,
an Ottawa heritage consulting firm, prepared the CHIS for this property.
The “Statement” examined the
proposal within the context of the “Guidelines,” above and assessed its impact
on the character of the property, Lansdowne Road and the Heritage Conservation
District, concluding that, “the house has moderate historical significance as
the former home of the Wright sisters and modest architectural significance as
an example of a common 19th century house type.” The study concluded “The house plays a
modest role in establishing a sense of place within its streetscape on
Lansdowne and within the views from the lake.”
These conclusions indicate that the house, while an early structure
constructed within the former Village of Rockcliffe Park, does not define the
character of the area. The CHIS also
concluded that the retention of the landscape values of the property would
diminish the effect of its loss on the heritage district. For a copy of the conclusion of the CHIS,
please see Document 6. The full
document is on file with the City Clerk.
After an analysis of the
Guidelines noted above and the CHIS, the Department decided to accept the
demolition and replacement of the building.
The decision was reached as the building is a common building type of
which there are many examples throughout Ottawa and Ontario, adding to the
building was not an option as its heritage character would have been negatively
affected by a large addition required by the new owner and because the
landscape of the property featuring an established garden to the rear, mature
trees and shrubs to the front and north and south lot lines were preserved to a
very great extent. Furthermore, the
restrained elegance of the new building will make a positive contribution to
the heritage conservation district.
This decision is consistent with Guideline 4) iv, 4 that states:
Any application
to construct a new building or addition should be reviewed, with consideration
of its potential to enhance the heritage character of the Village. New construction should be recommended for
approval only where the siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic
to the surrounding natural and cultural environment.
CONSULTATION
Ward Councillor, Jacques Legendre,
was informed of this project and his comments are included as Document 7.
The Rockcliffe Park
Development Review Subcommittee met with the architect on May 7,
2007. Its comments are included as
Document 5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
This report was considered by City Council
within the 90-day period required under the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document
1 Location Map
Document
2 Photographs
Document
3 Elevations of proposed house
Document
4 Landscape and tree preservations
Plans
Document
5 Comments from the Rockcliffe Park
Development Review Subcommittee
Document 6 Extracts from the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement,
Contentworks, 2007 (Entire document on file with the City Clerk)
Document 7 Comments from Councillor Legendre
DISPOSITION
City
Clerk's Branch, Council and Committee Services, to notify the applicant/agent
(Rod Lahey Architect Inc., 1501 Carling Avenue, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Z
7M1) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor, Toronto,
Ontario M5C 1J3) of City Council's
consent to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, and construct a new house on the lot.
Identification of Mitigative
Measures to Address Negative Impacts:
Mitigation to Address
the Negative Impact of Demolition:
The strongest negative impact is
the demolition of the existing house, which will remove one of the oldest
surviving year-round residences in the Village. Demolition of the house will reduce the richness of building
forms and age in the district. There is
no mitigation for demolition of a contributing cultural heritage resource,
although the impact is directly related to its historic significance and the
role that the resource plays in the heritage contributions made by the property
as a whole.
The district study guidelines
concerning demolition refer to approvals being tied to a building’s historical
and architectural significance, and its role as a major contributing element in
the streetscape. In this case, the
house has moderate historical significance as the former home of the Wright
sisters and modest architectural significance as an example of a common 19th
century house type. The house plays a
modest role in establishing a sense of place within its streetscape on
Lansdowne and within the views from the lake.
While demolition will all but remove the historical associations of the
site (some residual value will be left in the lot’s association with the
original owners), the property could be developed in a sensitive manner, which
would mitigate the impact of the demolition on the heritage value of the
historic district.
Mitigation to Address the Negative Impact of New Construction and
Landscaping:
The district study requires that
new construction be ‘of its own time’ but harmonize with its setting. Any negative impact of new construction in
this heritage district can be mitigated by a design and materials that
harmonizes with the prevailing picturesque aesthetic.
In the case of the subject property, the new design is a
competent and elegant example of contemporary residential design achieved
through the generous use of natural materials for exterior treatments, its
domestic scale, the careful presentation toward the street and the revivalist
allusion to the Prairie style. Mitigation
can also be achieved through the retention of existing landscaping and mature
trees and the addition of hard and soft landscape features that will complement
the design of the house without diminishing the overall picturesque landscape
of Rockcliffe Park. These include
natural (rather than cast) materials for hard features such as walls and
walkways and devices that could reduce the visual impact of the driveway and
walkways from the street.
I have now had a chance to visit the site of 456
Lansdowne. I have also read the
material submitted by Mr. R. Lahey, architect for the owners who wish to
demolish and redevelop.
I find much interesting material in that submission,
including the historic background describing how the house came to be built and
the link to the history of this capital region captured in the fact that the
original owners were members of the Wright family. The submission acknowledges that the property at 456 Lansdowne
is listed on an inventory prepared by the former Village of Rockcliffe
Park that identifies buildings of significance. There are 5 criteria listed in the Village of Rockcliffe Park’s
designation as a Heritage Conservation District (HDC). These cover aspects of conformity with the
‘Village setting’ which is Rockcliffe Park, the property’s historical
associations and finally the quality of the building itself.
My observations during my visit led me to conclude
that the building structure is in excellent shape. The house is large by most standards and would not be considered
‘limiting’ to an owner’s enjoyment of the property. The house and its surrounds are one glorious property on the edge
of the lake; they are a beautiful fit to the existing area.
I am aware that the RPRA Development Review
Subcommittee is opposed to the demolition.
The RPRA “considers that the house in its setting on its lot is a
significant element of the heritage district and should therefore not be demolished”. The RPRA, upon examining the plans for the
new structure also found that it would not outweigh the cultural loss of the
existing house. After visiting the
site, leaning more of its history and examining the proposal, I find myself to
be in agreement with the RPRA’s Development Review Subcommittee on both
counts.
Real estate agents were informed that demolition
was not an option when the property was put on the market. Buyers would have known this to be the case
when the property was purchased, yet shortly after the sale this application
has come forward.
As Councillor for this area I am opposed to the
granting of a demolition permit under the Ontario Heritage Act. I believe that the criteria listed in this
Heritage Conservation District (HDC) are to be taken in a ‘wholistic’ manner,
all-together as it were. A request to
demolish in a HDC ought to answer the question, “How does demolition fit the
criteria of the HDC?” positively.
It ought never to be a question of which criteria might possibly be
sacrificed in order to accommodate the demolition. If properties with heritage significance, as this one surely is,
cannot be protected in the face of simple desires for a larger abode, there
really is little hope for the preservation of our history as it is expressed in
its older structures.
Jacques Legendre
Councillor
Rideau-Rockcliffe
APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH 456
LANSDOWNE AVENUE, APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE
DE DÉMOLITION LE 456, CHEMIN LANSDOWNE ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS
LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0140 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
Councillor
Feltmate assumed the Chair for this item.
The following
written documentation was received and is held on file with the City Clerk:
·
LACAC Extract of Minutes – November 9, 2007 and July 26,
2007
·
Revised drawings and design plans from Roderick Lahey
Architect Inc. and Richcraft Group of Companies`
·
Presentation dated November 27, 2007 from the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
·
Presentation dated November 27, 2007 from the
Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee
·
Submission dated November 26, 2007 from Brian Dickson,
Vice-President, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
·
Submission dated November 26, 2007 from Professor Herb
Stovel, Heritage Conservation programme, Carleton University
·
Email dated November 26, 2007 from Susan and Thomas
d’Aquino
·
Emails dated November 26, 2007 and September 27, 2007 from
David Halton
·
Submission dated November 26, 2007 from Julian Smith,
Architect
·
Email dated November 26, 2007 from Rina Dalibard containing
a letter from the late Jacques Dalibard dated August 20, 2007
·
Submission dated November 25, 2007 from David B. Flemming,
President, Heritage Ottawa
·
Letters dated November 15, 2007 and September 25, 2007 from
G. B. Rogers, former owner of the subject property
·
Submission dated August 30, 2007 from Mark Brandt,
Architect
Sally Coutts,
Heritage Planner, provided a Power Presentation, which held
on file with the City Clerk. Grant
Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals Central/West, accompanied Ms. Coutts.
Jay Baltz, Chair
and Heather McArthur, Vice-Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee (LACAC) read from a written submission noting LACAC unanimously
rejected the application for demolition and new construction. Mr. Baltz asked the
Committee to keep in mind the significance of the buildings in the district,
not just the importance of the landscape. Ms. McArthur stated the tests for demolition were not met and
noted LACAC’s disagreement with regard to the conclusions of the Cultural
Heritage Impact Statement. LACAC felt
that the architect failed to give sufficient consideration to a sensitive
addition to the existing house or to other options for remediation of its
condition. Mr. Baltz asked the
Committee to keep in mind the significance of the buildings in he district, not
just the importance of the landscape. Ms. McArthur touched on the
removal of mortar in the fissure, which makes it difficult to assess whether
active settling is occurring. LACAC
rejected the application on the grounds of failure to respect, protect and
enhance the heritage character of the existing house and the district in which
it is located. A full copy of the
presentation, with the arguments contained therein, is held on file with the
City Clerk.
Martha Edmond, historian, who
recently authored a book on the history of Rockcliffe Park, touchtoucheded
on the important cultural heritage aspects of the existing building and its
relationship with the descendants of Philomen
Philemon Wright and 24 Sussex Drive. The home represents an early phase of
settlement within Rockcliffe Park, before it became a police village in 1908. It demonstrates the original pattern of
development established by Thomas KieferKeefer in the eighteen
sixties. The building is a local
landmark and retains its original lot size and survives
virtually intact down to the interior finishes and lay out. as the first home
built on MacKay Lake and the planning
influenced by Keifer. She noted it is the only existing Ontario
built structure linked to the Wright family.
Rina Dalibard, a nearby
resident with training in the field of architecture, experience in
heritage conservation and past member of LACAC, noted
her opposition to the demolition. She spoke of the sequence of
events and the structural reports for the building. She recalled that at the November meeting of LACAC, the structural
engineer stated that their first inspection of 456 Lansdowne occurred in August
2007, seven months after the property was purchased and subsequent to
LACAC’s initial rejection of the application in July. Ms. Dalibard suggested it was odd that no
structural assessment was carried out at the time of purchase at a price of $2.6
million for this 100-year-old, designated
home. Structural evaluation is essential if the
new owner intended to preserve the existing building and construct new
additions to it. She stated the
sequence of events suggests the new owner never intended to preserve the
existing house and treated 456 Lansdowne as a vacant lot.
Herb Stovel, Professor,head of Carleton University’s Heritage Conservation
programme and one of the most experienced professionals in the field in Canada,
read from his written statement. He,
focusseding
his comments on the incontestable heritage significance of the house , and
the regrettable inadequacy of the engineering reports submitted by
the owner counselling demolition, and the bizarre turn of events taking place
within this application process.
He touched on the flawed conclusions of the Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement and engineering reports, suggesting the owner has not employed qualified
engineering consultants in the heritage area.
. Mr. Stovel also discussed
LACAC’s review of the application and letters of the previous owner with regard
to the condition of the building.
Councillor Legendre noted the important nature of the Committee’s decision on this
matter and observed that a quorum of the
Committee was not listening to delegations, as a number of side
conversations were occurring at the table or nearby. He asked that the Committee pay respectful attention to the delegations.
On a point of order, Councillor Hunter
objected to the ward councillor’s suggestion that members were not listening. He noted they were multi-tasking and summarized elements raised by
the previous delegations. He asked that the ward councillor
be asked
to
withdraw his remarks, suggesting they were offensive.
Councillor Legendre objected to some of the
language used by Councillor Hunter. He stated
he did not cast personal aspersions.
Vice-Chair Feltmate stated Councillor Hunter’s
language
was unacceptable and asked Councillor Legendre if he wished to
withdraw his remarks. He refused. She called on both
councillors to cease their interventions, noting their objections were
noted.
Councillor
Legendre raised a point of order, asking
colleagues to carefully listen to the presenters.
In
a point of privilege, Councillor Hunter
noted he was insulted by the assertions made by the ward councillor. In turn, the language used by Councillor
Hunter offended Councillor Legendre.
Vice-Chair
Feltmate asked members to refrain from using offensive language or calling into
question their colleagues.
Brian Dickson,
Vice-Chair of the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association read from his
written submission and agreed with the comments
from previous presenters. Mr. Dickson touched
on noted
buildings are also extremely important in a heritage district, not just landscapes. He stated that although this
may be a common housing type in Ontario or even the Glebe, it is not
common in the Village of Rockcliffe Park, much less on Mackay Lake. Demolition in this district should be recommended
for approval only when the existing building is of little significance. Mr. Dickson argued the applicant has’s
failureed to properly meet the criteria for
demolition. He, the
questioned the assertions related to the building’s condition, referring to the
views opinion of
the previous owner in this regard,.
and
the potential negative precedent
of this application.The Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association offered previously to fund engineering assessment by a qualified heritage expert but the
owner’s
representative did not accept. Mr. Dickson suggested a
potential negative precedent could be created should this application be
approved, which would justify the flawed logic both in the Cultural Heritage
Impact Statement and the departmental report. He called for the onus to be on the owner to
show that an addition or a demolition benefits the heritage district. Mr. Dickson asked the Committee to consider
LACAC’s recommendation and the views of the residents association,
Heritage Ottawa, Heritage Canada, village historian, as well as highly
respected and qualified heritage experts.
Anthony Keith read a statement
on behalf of Julian Smith, which focussed on four points:
·
The building is on the Heritage Resources List and the
design guidelines did not even discuss the replacement of those homes on the
list.
·
The house is an essential component in establishing and
maintaining the heritage character of the village. It contributes to the architectural variety of the village, has
important historical association with the Philomen
Philemon Wright family and is one of the
earlier homes of the village.
·
The challenge for the owner and the architect, if expansion
is required, is to design an addition that protects and enhances the existing
house.
·
Someone involved in the structural analysis raked out the
joint along the diagonal crack, which makes it look more serious and removes
the one key piece of evidence about
whether there is any significant movement at all.
Iola Price,
Chair, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee addressed her
comment s on the potential impact of the proposal on the magnificent tall and mature
city trees
fronting the existing house, specifically as it relates to the critical root
zone. She noted staff recommended
approval of the demolition on the basis that an addition would be harmful to
the heritage landscape, but Ms. Price noted the possible impacts of the new
construction. She stated the municipal tree protection
by-law passed in 2006 requires a
permit from the Director of Surface Operations before carrying out any work
within the critical root zone, whether the work is on private or public
property, if there is a potential for damage to a municipal tree. The proponent has not yet applied to the
director by providing a site plan for review for this new proposal. She stated the proposed new house is three times
larger in foot print than the current house and, if constructed, will intrude into
the root zone of the mature trees, which form a vital part of the landscape. The largest tree, which is 117 centimetres in diameter at
breast height, would have its feeder roots removed by the
excavation.
In response to a
question from Councillor Hunter with respect to tree planting along
on
road allowances, Ms. Price indicated trees
were planted her … Trees do best and can adjust when they are planted and grow
at the same time as the house/street is constructednoted the
difference is whether or not the critical root zone is impacted during
construction. She
indicated the trees in question were probably planted 100 or so years ago, as
called for by the KieferKeefer lot sales. The best situation is when the tree, the road and
the house “grow
up” together, as opposed to digging out the critical roots, which are in the
top 10 to 12 inches of the soil, during new construction.
David B.
Flemming, President of Heritage Ottawa, also spoke in opposition to
the proposed demolition touching on the client’s aspirations versus heritage
conservation. He referred to his
written submission, which asked six questionsdoes not support
the departmental report or the findings of the engineering plans.
Over the past 5
years, he noted Heritage Ottawa has made numerous presentations to LACAC and this
Committee where developers sought demolition of buildings, which in many
instances were allowed to deteriorate to the point where the Minister of Labour or Fire Marshal get involved and a demolition
order is issued. He noted
the soil study indicates the area is unstable and questioned the
impact on nearby buildings, including the Massey House built in 1959. Mr. Flemming suggested this is not a case of
a house that is ready to fall down. He stated
if the strict criteria used by the applicant’s
engineers to justify demolition (floors are not level, door frames are
not square) were used broadly much of Ottawa’s century old buildings would be
lost.
Alan Cohen,
Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of the applicant, calling into question comments
made by the previous delegations, characterising them as regrettablegratuitous
attacks on staff and consultants retained by his client. He also called for the disbandment of the
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, suggesting the
tone of the debate on this issue.
He talked about his involvement with Rockcliffe Park as a young boy and later as solicitor
for the village prior to amalgamation. He suggested the
test for demolition is whether the building’s heritage significance should override the owner’s right
to replace it. Mr. Cohen was
accompanied by Julie Harris, Rod Lahey and other consultants on behalf of the
applicant.
Julie Harris, s,
Content Works , touched on her professional experience and
qualifications. She addressed her
conclusions concerning the heritage value of this property within the
district. She stated she does not enjoy taking a
position that many of her esteemed professional colleagues have described as
dangerous, jumbled and illogical; however, she suggested some old things are
heritage and others are not and do not require heritage strategies, engineers
and approaches. She iterated that Rockcliffe Park’s cultural heritage
landscapes include many
components, including roads, landscaping elements, natural topography,
trees,
buildings, and tennis courts. The district study
states every development and house is a product of its time and place.
Ms. Harris noted the district
study indicates demolition should be approved only where the existing building
is of little architectural significance, does not make a major contribution to the streetscape and the proposed
development is sympathetic to the surrounding environment. She stated that in her opinion the proposed house is
sympathetic to the district, as well as a thoughtful, elegant, and an appropriate contemporary response to the
requirements for new construction. The existing home was
constructed in the 1900 to 1925 village era and numerous other examples from
this period exist. It is an
early example of a lakeside house, but this theme,
development around the lake, was rightly in her opinion not identified in the
district study as significant.
Ms. Harris opined
the building is of little to medium cultural heritage value. In the words of Humphrey Carver, the influential
and talented architect, urban planner and author of the Cultural Landscape of
Rockcliffe Park Village in 1985, this house is a “Plain Jane Ontario red
brick house.” She concurred by noting
changes to the exterior are almost identical to changes that were used as
justification for approving the demolition of another old Rockcliffe
House. With respect to the
streetscape, the curve in the street, the topography of this part
of the village and the way in which adjacent houses have been placed on their
lots has diminished the potential for the house to make a major contribution to
the streetscape. While the house is
old and contributes to the chronology of the district, it is not of sufficient
cultural heritage value or interest. Ms. Harris explained Rockcliffe Park’s
heritage value and the quality of its landscape rests on the long and standing
tradition of replacing houses rather than using additions to service a primary
space for core functions in homes.
Rod Lahey,
Roderick Lahey Architect Inc. addressed comments by earlier delegations on the
integrity of the consultants, including structural engineers. He indicated Planning staff early on advised
that building
condition
should
not be dwelled on in the report as it is not a means to justify the
demolition. Subsequent to the first
LACAC hearing, the client asked that the condition be investigated to provide
additional information. He pointed to
photographs that illustrate the original mortar, which shows additional shift
has occurred since the spring of 2007.
Mr. Lahey discussed
the new plans for the replacement building, suggesting the owner never intended
to tear down the home, but began by looking at how to work with
the existing building and incorporating new personal requirements. He noted that study
and analysis showed that the best option would be to demolish the existing
house,
as an addition would be too overpowering. He presented a drawing of the streetscape with the
proposed new construction, noting Lansdowne Avenue has large separation between the
buildings and a wide range of styles.
With respect to the new plans, the driveway is no longer circular, reduced in width, and moved to the north side of the house to minimise tree
disruption. The new design was
presented to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association Heritage Sub-Committee
and the size of the front patio area will be reduced significantly to increase
the amount of greenspace in the front yard.
With respect to the new design, Mr. Lahey
explained it is a flat roof building with all parking underground. The building mass was broken down and natural,
high-end materials will be employed, including sandstone, bronze window
framing, and rich cedar detailing.
Councillor Holmes
requested that the LACAC Extract of MinutesMinutes be
included in the Agenda and the departmental report. She touched on LACAC’s legislative role in advising Committee and
Council on Heritage Act matters.
The Committee Coordinator was directed to pursue this matterrequest.
Councillor Holmes
spoke in support of LACAC’s recommendations, as the existing building is an important part of the district. She stated heritage districts contain a variety of
buildings that contribute differently both individually and as a whole to the
heritage significance of the area. .
Councillor
Legendre suggested the applicant has not met the test for demolition,
which is noted
in the departmental report:
“Demolition
should be recommended for approval only where the existing building of little
significance and the proposed is sympathetic.”
He noted even the
heritage consultant retained by the proponent stated the building is of moderate to little heritage
value. He expressed support for LACAC’s conclusions and
recommendations. Councillor Legendre
indicated he visited the site on two occasions and complimented Mr. Lahey on the
design of the new building, but stated the existing building should be
preserved.
Councillor Hunter
spoke in support of the departmental recommendation, stating a significant
reason to prohibit demolition has not been made. He refuted the importance placed to the links to
the Wright family and noted the architectural style is prevalent in many parts of
the City. He suggested the new proposal with its striking
design would
add to the character of the district by contributing positively to the eclectic architecture.
Councillor
Bellemare also
supported the demolition noting the existing building is an old wood-frame
house of little significance and extraordinary engineering work would be
required to preserve it. He characterised
some of the arguments in favour of preserving the existing building as wishful
thinking, second guessing of
professional engineering reports, and personal opinions that come down to a matter
of taste. He stated the existing
building is far from unique and urged the Committee to rely on professional
advice, which says this building is
unsafe and should be demolished.
Councillor Monette said heritage is not limited to
expensive grand homes and opposed the demolition of the existing home. He noted the home is not fancy, but is a part of
the heritage of Rockcliffe Park.
Councillor Feltmate supported the
LACAC recommendation, noting the existing home is an important part of the
district. She stated the district concept must be
respected.
That the
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject
the application to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District;
2. Reject
the application for new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District according to final plans received on July 6, 2007.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): D.
Holmes, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume, P. Feltmate
NAYS (2): M. Bellemare, G. Hunter
