|
1. APPLICATION UNDER
THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT TO DEMOLISH 204 AND 212 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMITORY, ASHBURY COLLEGE, ROCKCLIFFE
PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE
EN VERTU DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO VISANT À DÉMOLIR LES 204 ET
212, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION D'UNE NOUVELLE RÉSIDENCE
D'ÉTUDIANTS, DU COLLÈGE ASHBURY, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU
PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
|
Committee recommendationS AS AMENDED
That Council:
1. Approve the demolition
of 204
and 212 Springfield Road;
2. Reject the
construction of a new boys' dormitory according to the application received on
August 14, 2007 and deemed complete on October 31, 2007.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve
la démolition des 204 et 212, chemin Springfield;
2. rejette la construction d'une
nouvelle résidence d'étudiants pour hommes, selon la demande reçue le 14 août
2007 et jugée complète le 31 octobre 2007.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 7 November 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-APR-0210).
2.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 12 February 2008.
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
07 November 2007 / le 07 novembre 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-0210
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Application under the Ontario Heritage Act TO Demolish 204
and 212 Springfield Road and application for construction of new dormitory,
ashbury college, ROCKCLIFFE Park HEritage Conservation District
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
DEMANDE EN
VERTU DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
VISANT À DÉMOLIR LES 204 ET 212, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET DEMANDE DE
CONSTRUCTION D'UNE NOUVELLE RÉSIDENCE D'ÉTUDIANTS, DU COLLÈGE ASHBURY, DANS
LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the demolition of 204 and 212 Springfield Road;
2. Approve the construction of a new boys'
dormitory according to the application received on August 14, 2007 and deemed
complete on October 31, 2007.
RECOMMANDATIONS 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 au Conseil :
1. d'approuver
la démolition des 204 et 212, chemin Springfield;
2. d'approuver
la construction d'une nouvelle résidence d'étudiants pour hommes, selon la
demande reçue le 14 août 2007 et jugée complète le 31 octobre 2007.
BACKGROUND
Ashbury
College, a private school, has submitted a proposal to construct a two storey
boys' dormitory (2180 square metres) to house 50 boys and two housemasters at
the corner of Springfield Road and Maple Lane (see Location Map, Document 1).
In order to do this, the College proposes to demolish two houses located at 204
and 214 Springfield Road. The College is the owner of three houses at the
northeast corner of Springfield Road and Maple Lane, part of the Rockcliffe
Park Heritage Conservation District designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. 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).
The
College grounds are extensive, occupying almost a full city block, and feature
the original school, constructed 1910, with later additions, a girls'
dormitory, playing fields and tennis courts, plus loading areas and parking
areas associated with the site's use as a school. The principle building
associated with Ashbury College is located at 362 Mariposa Avenue. It was
constructed in 1910 to the designs of architect Allan Keefer, Rockcliffe resident.
The College has grown incrementally since its arrival in Rockcliffe Park. Recent construction has included a new
dining hall and gymnasium linked to the original College building completed in
2004 to the designs of David S. McRobie, Architect and a girls' dormitory
located to the west of the College building, completed in 2007 to the designs
of Murray and Murray, architects. The College has designed these buildings
around the periphery of its grounds in order to preserve its playing fields as
open space. An Official Plan amendment, rezoning, and site plan for this
project will be considered at Planning and Environment Committee at the same
time as this application.
DISCUSSION
Demolition
There
are three houses at the northeast corner of Maple Lane and Springfield, 204,
212 and 224, Springfield.
Of
these, 204 and 224 were included on the former Village of Rockcliffe Park's
"Inventory of Heritage Resources." Dorothy Short, the daughter of its
builder, Samuel Short, a civil servant who also served as the Village tax
collector, bequeathed 224 Springfield Road to Ashbury College in the
1960s. This house, a one and a half
storey, cross gable-roofed structure, constructed circa 1891 will be retained.
The
other two houses, 204 and 212 Springfield, will be demolished. According to City Directories and Land Title
information, 204 and 212 Springfield, were constructed in the late 1899. Henry Schinzel, who appears in the City
Directories as both a florist and a gardener, initially occupied the house on
the corner, 204. Schinzel lived in New
Edinburgh prior to his arrival in Rockcliffe and was employed at Graham
Brothers, Florists and Seedsmen, a large commercial greenhouse complex located
at Springfield Road and Dufferin Terrace for many years. The next house to the north, 212, was built
at the same time and had a number of occupants until circa 1905 when Thomas
Jackson, a contractor, who also served as the part-time Village police
constable for many years, occupied it. The west side of Springfield in this
location was undeveloped until after the First World War. The south west
corner, the site of St. Brigid's School, was the site of St. Joseph's Orphanage
at the time of the construction of the three houses.
The
two houses proposed for demolition, 204 and 212 were probably very similar in
appearance when completed. Each was a
balloon framed, one and a half storey, gable-roofed, clapboard structure,
roughly "L" shaped in plan with a veranda on the west and south
sides. This type of house was very common across Canada at the turn of the
century particularly in Ottawa, the centre of the sawn lumber industry in
Canada.
In
1961, 204 was sold and renovated. The
house was subsequently altered through the re-arrangement of its door and window
openings and the insertion of a door designed by Nova Scotia architect, Philip
Dumaresq, inspired by the historic doors of the Maritime provinces so it is
difficult to discern its 19th century origins.
212 Springfield Road has lost much of its architectural integrity as it
has been re-clad in stucco and angelstone, and part of the veranda has been
enclosed.
In
addition to the proposed demolition of the two houses, a gable roofed shed is
also being considered for demolition. This utilitarian, stucco clad structure
was built in 1945 as a pumping station constructed to improve water pressure to
the houses in the Village on the City's water system. It ceased to function as a pump house in the early 1980s.
Of the three houses
located at the corner of Springfield and Maple Lane and the shed on Maple Lane,
the building that has the highest degree of architectural integrity and long
time association with the history of the Village, 224 Springfield, is to be
retained. 204 Springfield was occupied
by the same person, Henry Schinzel, for many years but he was not noted for his
contribution to Village life. Jackson, as the part-time police constable was
known in the Village, but the house retains little of its original character.
For these reasons, the Department has no objection to the demolition of the
houses located at 204 and 214 Springfield Road.
New
Construction
The
proposed building is a two storeys, roughly "C"-shaped, red brick
structure designed to house 50 boys and two housemasters. The building will have two wings, one that
will extend north along Springfield Road for approximately 40 metres, and the
other that will extend along Maple Lane for approximately 30 metres, stopping
at the edge of the existing driveway to the east of the former pumphouse. The living quarters for the housemasters
will be located at either end of the building with the boys' and dons' rooms
located between them. The proposed
dormitory is set back roughly seven metres from Springfield Road and eight
metres from Maple Lane.
The
proposed structure has a hipped roof with deep overhanging eaves, pedimented
gables, regularly spaced eight-over-eight sash windows and small projecting one
storey bays containing three windows on the ground floor. The windows have
precast stone sills and lintels that will extend and form stringcourses. At the corner of Springfield Road and Maple
Lane, the two wings meet and there is a semi-circular bay window facing the
intersection.
The
design of the proposed dormitory was inspired by the character of the College
and its buildings. The original college building was completed in 1910 to the
designs of Allan Keefer architect. This building is an example of the late
Queen Anne Revival style of architecture where the exuberance of the style in its
early days has been simplified, leaving the multi-paned sash windows,
decorative pedimented gables, and red brick associated with the style in the
1880s. Other buildings on the campus include the Headmaster's House (John
Ewart, 1924), a red brick structure with white wooden trim.
Initial
designs for the new Boys' Dormitory were presented to staff as part of the
pre-consultation for this project in February 2007. At the time, staff had
concerns about the proposal, as it required the demolition of all three houses
facing Springfield Road, was out-of scale with the residential character of the
surrounding area as it had a steeply pitched roof and a large footprint that
increased its presence on the street and was located quite close to Springfield
Road.
In
response to the concerns of staff, the architect shortened the building by
moving the housemasters' living quarters so that the house at 224 could be
retained, moved the dormitory eastward to allow a bigger setback from
Springfield Road, lowered the roof and changed its angle, and deleted the
stucco portions and added details that were more domestic in character and in
keeping with the character of the two adjacent residential neighbourhoods,
Rockcliffe Park and Lindenlea.
Ashbury
College is part of a cluster of schools, institutional buildings and public
lands located along Springfield Road, that include St. Brigid's Separate
School, Rockcliffe Park Public School, the Community Centre that houses
community space and the Rockcliffe Park Public Library, the Village Green and
Elmwood School. These institutions and
the public park that separates them create a distinctive area within the
Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District. As a new building for Ashbury College,
a long established institution within the boundaries of Rockcliffe Park, the
proposed Boys' Dormitory is an appropriate addition to the College grounds.
As
part of a corridor of buildings with varied uses other than residential, it is
in keeping with the character of this area of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District.
The
corner of Springfield Road and Maple Lane is one of the main entrances to
Rockcliffe Park and is marked by a boulder with a plaque on it. The proposed dormitory will be set back
further from both Springfield Road and Maple Lane than the existing houses,
creating a small greenspace intended for public use at the corner, which will
be landscaped and will have two benches and a low stone wall backed by a clump
of birch trees. This greenspace will
serve as a gateway to the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.
Cultural
Heritage Impact Statement
The
Official Plan, Section 4.6.1, requires that a Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement (CHIS) be prepared when demolition and new construction is proposed
in a heritage conservation district.
Accordingly, a CHIS was prepared for this development (Please see
extracts, Document 7 . The full study is on file and available from the LACAC
Co-ordinator). Regarding the demolition
of 204 and 212 Springfield Road, the Study found that "The pattern of
three gable-roofed dwellings at close proximity to the road holds the
possibility of evoking an early stage in Rockcliffe's development when
inexpensive houses could still be built and occupied by members of the working
class. However, alterations to the finishes, profiles, openings detailing and
outbuildings of 204 and 212 have detract [sic] from any value as an integral
streetscape."
The
CHIS found that the proposed boys' dormitory enhanced the character of the Rockcliffe
Park Heritage Conservation District because Ashbury College is an historic land
use within the District and is integral to its history; the building's style
introduces visitors to the eclectic nature of architecture in the district; and
the building's design "replicate[s] the rhythm and scale of private
homes." The CHIS stated that the proposed design also would improve views
of 224 Springfield, which is being preserved because of its character and the
contribution that its owners made to the history of the Village.
Management
Guidelines
The
Management Guidelines of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District
Study addresses demolitions and new construction in Section iv) Parts 1, 4 and
5. These recommendations state:
Any application to demolish and existing building
should be reviewed, with consideration of its historical and architectural
significance, its contribution to its streetscape the appropriateness of the
proposed development. Demolition should be recommended for approval only where
the existing building is of little significance and the proposed redevelopment
is sympathetic to the surrounding environment.
Any application to construct a new building or
addition should be reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance the
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.
New buildings and additions should be of their own
time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape.
Of
the three houses on the east side of Springfield Road in this location, 224,
the oldest of the three and the house most clearly associated with an
individual who made a significant contribution to the history of Rockcliffe
Park, is being retained for use by the College. The other two, 204 and 212, constructed in 1899 will be
demolished. The Department has no objection to the proposed demolitions because
the houses have been altered and no longer retain their late-19th
century character and their respective owners did not make a significant
contribution to the history of Rockcliffe Park.
The
proposed dormitory fulfills the requirement that new development be sympathetic
to the surrounding environment as it is a two storey residential building,
domestic in character, constructed of red brick and featuring small bays and
sash windows, a low, sheltering roof and extensive landscaping. Its design has
been inspired not only by the design idioms of the Ashbury Campus but also by
the residential character of Lindenlea to the south and Rockcliffe Park to the
north. Furthermore, the proposed
landscaped open space at the corner of Maple Lane and Springfield Road will
provide an appropriate gateway to this part of Rockcliffe Park, which is
distinguished by its concentration of schools, institutional buildings and
public parkland. Finally, the
building, although inspired by almost a century of building on the campus of
Ashbury College, is clearly of its own time.
The
building's details, height, and material reflect the domestic character of the
houses of Rockcliffe Park. As one of a
group of public and institutional buildings, constructed from the early 20th
century until the present, Ashbury College has a long history in this part of
Rockcliffe Park and its expansion is appropriate. In addition, the proposed dormitory's setback and landscaping
will enhance the entrance to the heritage conservation district. For these reasons, the Department has no
objection to the new dormitory as presented.
CONSULTATION
Adjacent
property owners as well as area Community Associations were notified by letter
of the date of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and
Planning and Environment Committee meetings and were provided with comment
sheets to be returned to LACAC. This is
in accordance with the municipal public participation policy regarding heritage
alterations, demolitions and infill in a heritage district.
Councillor
Legendre is aware of this application.
The
Rockcliffe Park Residents Association is aware of this application. The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
does not support the proposed dormitory in its current location and has
suggested that the building be reoriented so that its courtyard faces the
intersection of Springfield Road and Maple Lane. Its comments are included as Document 8.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
This report was completed within the 90 days
prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Aerial photograph showing extent of the Ashbury College grounds
Document 3 Photographs of Existing Houses
Document 4 Site plan, new dormitory
Document 5 New Dormitory
Document 6 Intersection of Springfield Road and Maple
Lane, gateway to Rockcliffe Park, existing
Document 7 Extracts from Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, full document
on file with LACAC coordinator
Document 8 Comments from Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, full
comments in file with LACAC Co-ordinator
Document 9 LACAC
Extract of Minutes of 10 January 2008
DISPOSITION
City Manager's Office, Council
and Committee Services Division, to notify the applicant/ agent (David McRobie,
David S. McRobie, Architects, Suite 100 – 66 Queen Street, Ottawa, K1P 5C6) and
the Ontario Heritage Foundation (10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor,
Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of City Council’s consent to demolish 204 and 212
Springfield Road and to construct a new boys’ dormitory at Ashbury College, 362
Mariposa Avenue.
Mitigation
…
demolition of the two houses will have only a minor effect on the heritage
character of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District. Demolition of
the other two structures does not significantly affect the heritage character
of the District and mitigation is not required. Three possible approaches to
mitigate the effect of demolition may be considered: relocation; adaptation;
and the sensitive design of new construction. It should be noted that the
object of mitigation is to preserve the heritage character of the District as a
whole.
Relocation
Theoretically, these two houses could be moved
to another location on the Ashbury property or elsewhere in Rockcliffe.
However, given that their contribution to the heritage character of the District
is tied to their location within a particular streetscape, and not in their
architectural form, this action would not serve to protect or enhance heritage
character.32
Adaptation
Theoretically, the two houses could be
integrated in new development on the site through infill. However, adding
infill to the site would detract from any existing contribution the buildings
make to the heritage character of the District as a turn-of-the-century
streetscape, while giving greater prominence to their architectural form, a
feature which does not presently contribute to the heritage character of the
District.33
Design of New Construction
If the existing houses are demolished, new
development on the site has the potential to enhance the heritage character of
the District, by contributing to the heritage values identified in the Heritage
Conservation District Study. This can be done through: the generous use of
domestic idioms in the scale and rhythm of the building and the placement and
proportions of window and door openings; a design that complements the existing
architectural styles in the District, including those on the Ashbury College
site; and landscaping that adheres as much as possible to the picturesque
approach prevalent throughout the District. The proposed design achieves these
goals, as outlined above.
It is important that new construction not
detract from the contribution made by 224 Springfield. The proposed design
improves the sightlines from the corner to 224 Springfield by doubling the
existing setback and allowing 224 to participate in the gateway function of the
corner. The massing, roof slope and exterior treatment of the proposed design
emphasize the visual distinction between 224 and the proposed residence.
As with all properties in the District, it is
the street side presentation that is of primary importance in contributing to
heritage character. The proposed design has doubled the existing setback from
the street, opening up the amount of greenspace at the corner. It includes the
retention of mature trees and the addition of a grove of birch trees at the
corner to soften the effect of the building. The parkette at the corner,
defined by trees and a low stone wall, emphasizes the gateway function of the
corner and provides a visual transition between the street and the building.
It also softens the definition between private
and public areas by permitting public use of the corner. The new construction
has the potential to make a positive contribution to the heritage character of
the District.
32 In addition, restricted space on
Ashbury campus and site plan requirements within Rockcliffe Park as a whole
make this alternative unfeasible.
33 The addition of infill and the
adaptation of existing 19th century buildings would be extremely difficult if not impossible to
achieve given the functional requirements of an institutional residence.
Building
orientation
The RPRA is opposed to the building orientation as currently presented
by the applicant. While the RPRA
understands Ashbury’s need for a dormitory, an alternative orientation of the
proposed building would be a better fit for the cultural landscape of the
heritage district.
The
proposed orientation has two large wings abutting the street from the corner
along Springfield and Maple Lane. The
effect would be a very large institutional building that will transform the
streetscapes now composed of modest-sized single-family houses. Springfield at Maple Lane is the most-used
entrance to the Village of Rockcliffe Park heritage district. Because the new building would be so much
larger than the houses facing it, the message would be that one was entering a
dominantly institutional district rather then a residential one.
One
alternative orientation is to have the two ends of the L-shaped building facing
the two streets (Ashbury’s option 5).
This has several advantages. The
two ends house single-family residences intended for the housemasters and their
families. They could easily be designed
to reflect their residential use with domestic architectural language, separate
entrances, porches, balconies, appropriate landscaping, etc. Their presence on
the street could easily complement the existing residential pattern. The central mass of the building would be
away from the street frontage. The
common room would have long views into the campus instead of facing the street
corner. Ashbury has used this orientation successfully for the two-winged
girls’ dormitory at the Springfield/Mariposa corner.
In this
orientation, the landscaped space between the wings would make a gradual
transition from the street to the bulk of the building, more in keeping with
the manner in which the original Ashbury buildings are set back from
Mariposa. For the streetscape and the
neighbours, this is a more friendly face for the dormitory than the proposed
orientation in which the building sets its back to the community.
Location of Village entrance marker
The
proposed landscaping of the Springfield/Maple Lane corner includes relocating
the Village entrance marker on to Ashbury property. While we appreciate the intent of opening the corner, we
recommend that the entrance marker remain where it is on City land between the
sidewalk and the roadway. This
municipal marker is one of nine identifying the principal road entrances to the
heritage district. They are all close
to the roadway on municipal land.
Existing Trees
There
is a very large (1 m diameter) Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) just to the north
of the house at 204 Springfield. This fine specimen is destined for removal
under the current site plan but it is worthy of retention. The Village is losing its mature trees and
every loss diminishes the canopy cover and heritage value. Retaining the house at 204 Springfield and
ensuring adequate protection for this tree and its critical root zone (1 m of
protection for every 10 cm of trunk diameter) would be helpful.
Heritage Act considerations of
proposed demolitions
(The
following comments are based on the applicant’s ‘site demolitions plan’. We have not seen a cultural heritage impact
statement.)
We are
pleased to see that the house at 224 Springfield is to remain. The proposed demolitions of the houses at
212 and 204 Springfield have to be evaluated using the terms of the heritage
district Management Guidelines. This
requires assessing their historical and architectural significance, their
contributions to the streetscape, and the appropriateness of the proposed
redevelopment.
The appropriateness of the proposed
redevelopment is discussed above under site plan considerations. The building in the orientation proposed by
Ashbury is not an appropriate redevelopment, but reorienting the building so
that its two ends face the streets would be appropriate.
The
house at 212 Springfield is part of the rhythm of single houses along
Springfield, but does not appear to have particular historical or architectural
significance. Its demolition would not
be a serious loss to the heritage district provided that its replacement was
appropriate.
The
well-known house at 204 Springfield marks the corner and effectively introduces
the heritage district at its principal entrance. It is listed on the district’s Inventory of Heritage
Resources. It is an important component
of the streetscape. It apparently dates
to the end of the 19th century. The
recommendation of the RPRA is that the house remain, and that Ashbury make
continuing use of it. One possibility
is to incorporate the house into the proposed dormitory. Since the dormitory is to include two family
houses, the house at 204 could be one of them.
Retaining this house would mitigate the impact of the new building on
nearby residents.
|
Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory
Committee
EXTRACT OF DRAFT
Minutes 10
10 january 2008
|
|
Comité
consultatif sur la Conservation de l’architecture locale
extrait
de l’Ébauche
du
Procès-verbal 10
le
10 janvier 2008
|
DOCUMENT 9
APPLICATION
UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT TO DEMOLISH 204 AND 212 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMITORY, ASHBURY COLLEGE, ROCKCLIFFE PARK
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE EN VERTU DE LA LOI SUR LE
PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO VISANT À DÉMOLIR LES 204 ET 212, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET
DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION D'UNE NOUVELLE RÉSIDENCE D'ÉTUDIANTS, DU COLLÈGE
ASHBURY, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0210 Rideau
Rockcliffe (13)
Sally Coutts,
Heritage Planner provided an overview of the departmental report.
Tam
Matthews Headmaster, Ashbury College, Laurie Smith, Heritage Consultant and
David McRobie, Architect, were present to answer questions on the proposal and
gave short presentations on the project.
Written comments
in opposition to the proposal were received from the following and held on
file:
a) Philip
S. Black, 100 sir Guy Carleton Ottawa, ON;
b) Marilyn
Venner, 221 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe ON, K1M 0L1;
c) Alexander
Macklin, President, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA)
d) Andrezes
Wisniowski, Lindenlea Community Association;
e) Herb
Stovel, resident, 36 Acacia Avenue, dated 9 January 2008;
f)
Catherine Muphy , 8 Lindenlea Road, Ottawa, ON, K1C 1B6;
g) David
Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa;
h) Brian
Murphy, 194 Cobourg Street, Ottawa, ON;
i)
Janet Thomas, Lindenlea Resident, 70 Maple Lane, Ottawa, ON,
K1M 1HZ
The Committee
heard from the following delegations speaking in opposition to the demolition
of 204
and 212 Springfield Road and the application for construction of New Dormitory,
Ashbury College their comments are outlined below:
1) Alexander
Macklin, President and Iola Price, Vice President, Rockcliffe Park Residents
Association (RPRA):
2) Catherine Muphy , 8 Lindenlea Road,
Ottawa, ON, K1C- 1B6:
3) Gavin Muphy, 8 Lindenlea Road, Ottawa, ON
K1C- 1B6:
4) Janet Thomas, Lindenlea Resident, 70 Maple
Lane, Ottawa, ON, K1M 1HZ;
5) Tim Moore, 78 Maple Lane, Ottawa, ON;
6) John
Verdon, Lindenla Community
Association,(LCA) 4 Ashbury Place Ottawa, ON, K1M 1H3,
7)
Andrezes Wisniowski, Lindenlea Commutiy Association
8)
Lorriane Groulx
9) David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa
10) Mark Green
11) Brian Murphy
12) David Jeanes
·
Both houses are an integral part of the history of
Rockcliffe with 204 located at the corner of Springfield and Maple Lane, and
are among the oldest houses in the village. The houses were (and continue to
be) the gateway into the village;
·
They represent the very foundations of Rockcliffe
itself and, in the case of 204 Springfield, stability and community continuity
with only two owners from 1905 to Ashbury’s acquisition in 2002. The house at
212 Springfield remained in the Jackson family for about 75 years;
·
Given the historical importance of these houses as
examples of original, unique and early Rockcliffe architecture, and the nature
of the legal and volunteer work conducted by the long term owner of 204, they
are deserving of protection, especially 204. These houses played a central part
in the development of Rockcliffe and are a vital link to our past;
·
The residents’ associations of both Rockcliffe Park and
Lindenlea, as well as many neighbours and friends of Ottawa heritage in the
surrounding area, are against demolition. The two residents’ associations have
come up with viable alternative development proposals that meet the needs of
Ashbury, while at the same time maintaining the architectural and historical
integrity of the village through preservation, not demolition;
·
The proposal does not address the impact the
development will have on an already busy and congested residential zone and the
long term impact this development will have on what will become the future
cultural heritage of this neighbourhood;
·
The proponent suggests that community consultation has
taken place, the Lindenlea Community Association feels that this has not in
fact been the case. The only public interaction during the design
conceptualization and the design development phases of the project, occurred
with the presentation of the option before you, as a fait accompli, in late May
of 2006;
·
It can be argued that there is no obligation on the
part of the proponent to engage in meaningful and inclusive dialogue, Ashbury
College purports to be a community-minded and sensitive stakeholder of the
neighbourhood’s social capital. Recent
development at the Ashbury Campus has had both positive and negative impacts on
the local community and on the immediately adjacent residents;
·
Laurie Smith`s assessment of the heritage values of 204
and 212 Springfield includes a great deal of useful background research on the
subject properties. However its
synthesis of the heritage values of these properties is incomplete,
methodologically unsound, and does not build logically on its own research base
or observations. Its conclusions re
significance and impacts, are not at all valid;
·
Review of the proposal before you suggests that further
work is required on the part of the proponents to protect important heritage
aspects of the properties within their control, and;
·
Examine development options that would optimize the
goals of all the stakeholders of this development, including those of Ashbury,
the RPRA, the LCA and the City of Ottawa;
·
The house at 212 Springfield is part of the rhythm of
single houses along Springfield, but does not appear to have particular
historical or architectural significance.
Its demolition would not be a serious loss to the heritage district
provided that its replacement was appropriate;
·
The recommendation of the RPRA is that the house
remain, and that Ashbury make continuing use of it. One possibility is to incorporate the house into the proposed
dormitory. Since the dormitory is to
include two family houses, the house at 204 could be one of them. Retaining this house would mitigate the
impact of the new building on nearby residents.
Additional
comments are contained in their submissions, copies of which are held on file
with the Coordinator.
Committee Members raised the following
concerns and comments:
·
Retaining these houses would mitigate the impact of the
new building on nearby residents;
·
Support for a design which allows for the retention of
both 204 and 212 Springfield;
·
Miiminizing the
new building’s impact on both Springfield Road and Maple Lane;
·
Orienting the new dormitory so that the ends of its
wings face the streets;
·
That a parking lot was being retained and not the
houses;
·
If a New England look is sought then the applicant
should retain the houses;
·
Trees being
removed and the effect on the streetscape;
·
A major impact
to the entrance of the Village of Rockcliffe Park;
·
It would never appear to be residential just a large
institution;
·
Onus is on the college to come up with an imaginative
way to incorporate the buildings;
·
Rejects the demolition of 333 Maple Lane if the
requirements are not met.
Following the discussion the Committee
considered and approved the following motion:
Moved
by A. Keith:
That the Local Architectural
Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject
demolition of 204 and 212 Springfield
Road;
2. Approve a
design which allows for the retention of both 204 and 212 Springfield Road, and
possibly includes them into a new scheme; and that the new building’s impact on
both Springfield Road and Maple Lane be minimized (for example such by
orienting the new dormitory so that the ends of its wings face the streets, as
in the girls’ dormitory);
3. Reject
the demolition of 333 Maple Lane unless the requirements of Recommendation 2
are met.
CARRIED
APPLICATION
UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT TO DEMOLISH 204 AND 212 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMITORY, ASHBURY COLLEGE, ROCKCLIFFE PARK
HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE EN VERTU DE LA
LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO VISANT À DÉMOLIR LES 204 ET 212, CHEMIN
SPRINGFIELD ET DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION D'UNE NOUVELLE RÉSIDENCE D'ÉTUDIANTS, DU
COLLÈGE ASHBURY, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE
PARK
ACS2007-PTE-APR-0210 Rideau
Rockcliffe (13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22 janvier 2008
The following documentation and submissions
were received on Items 1, 2 and 3 and are held on file with the City Clerk:
·
Email and
submission from Herb Stovel dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Iola Price dated February 11, 2008
·
Presentation
from the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee emailed on
February 11, 2008
·
Email from
Marilyn Venner dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Brian Murphy dated February 11, 2008
·
Email and
memorandum from David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Lorraine Groulx dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Catherine Murphy dated February 10, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Andrew Wisniowski, Lindenlea Community Association dated
February 7, 2008
·
Email and
submission from David Dubinski and Sandra Tomkins dated February 7, 2008
·
Email from Mark
Green dated February 5, 2008
·
Email and
submission from Tim Moore dated January 21, 2008
·
Email from
Patrice Stevenson and Dale Ross dated January 21, 2008
·
Submission from
Janet Thomas dated January 20, 2008
·
Email and
submission from G. Alexander Macklin, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
dated January 18, 2008
·
Cultural
Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Laurie J. Smith for 204 and 212
Springfield Road and 333 Maple Road
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner and Simon
Deiaco, Planner II provided PowerPoint presentations (held on file with the
City Clerk) on all three applications pertaining to the dormitory project. Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development
Approvals Central/West accompanied them.
Councillor Desroches compared the growth of
Ashbury College with that of the University of Ottawa. Ms. Coutts advised that
both situations are different but growth is occurring at both campuses.
In response to questions from Councillor
Holmes, Ms. Coutts explained that Cultural Heritage Impact Statements are
prepared based on draft guidelines that were prepared based on other models
from municipalities across Ontario and Canada.
She indicated that the statements are paid for by the proponent and the
terms of reference are not circulated to community groups prior to
commencement. Ms. Coutts undertook to
provide the Councillor with a copy of the draft guidelines.
Chair Hume advised that he would call the
proponent as the first delegation and would provide an additional few minutes
at the completion of delegations for further response. He noted Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel is
preparing a memorandum with respect to the order of delegations, as previously
requested by Councillor Holmes.
Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright appeared on behalf of the applicant and was
accompanied by the architect and representatives from Ashbury College. He asked Committee and Council to support
the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments as these sites should be designated to
reflect their inclusion and institutional use.
He touched on the history of the College and the quality education it
provides. He stated the College welcomes
650 students and the new dormitory will allow for the reorganization of the campus
to ensure the main building is better utilized. The College welcomes 85 borders and 30 countries are represented
in the student population. Mr. Cohen
commented that 100 per cent of graduates proceed to post secondary education
and 75 per cent receive scholarships.
He stated a number of business persons count on the College to attract
employees.
David McRobie, Architect indicated the College undertook a master
plan in 2001. He added that extensive
consultation occurred with the community and staff over a one and half year
period, including a public meeting in May 2007. He stated that the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement is complete
and meets all requirements. He touched
on the orientation of the building and the provision of greenspace, noting the
plans have been changed over the process reflecting some feedback. He also presented a revised plan (held on
file with the City Clerk) that would orient the courtyard toward the street. The revised plan would still require the
demolition of both buildings.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr.
McRobie advanced the homes must be demolished even with the alternate plan to
ensure good land use by providing adequate landscaping and outdoor areas. He reiterated that the homes have no
heritage value. The architect also
explained that every square foot of the campus is already accounted for and
this corner is best situated to accommodate a new boys’ dormitory.
E. Alexander Macklin, Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association (RPRA)
said the RPRA has no issue with the College but instead is concerned with the
configuration of the proposed dormitory as it would destroy the character of
the corner, which is the entrance to both Rockcliffe Park and Lindenlea. In order to reduce the impact, the RPRA
requested as a minimum that the building be flipped. Mr. Macklin urged that
204 Springfield Road be preserved due to its cultural heritage
importance and location. He added that
preferably 212 Springfield Road would also be preserved.
Chair Hume asked what distinguishes 204 from
212. Mr. Macklin responded that the
buildings are of similar importance and the RPRA was seeking a compromise, but
suggested all three buildings could be preserved.
Councillor Desroches suggested it would make
more sense to locate the common area within the campus. Mr. Macklin retorted that the light and
windows of the dormitory are better located away from the street and noted a
large common room would face the inside of the campus should the building be
flipped.
Janet Thomas, an adjacent property owner on Maple Lane
for the last 11 years, pointed out that the proposed building would impact her
quality of life in terms of noise, light, loitering and traffic. She stated adjacent owners are unanimous in
their opposition to the project as proposed.
She raised the heritage significance and character of both 204 and 212
Springfield Road, suggesting the reasons for demolition are not
compelling. She touched on the gateway
nature of the corner, noting the homes act as a buffer between the residential
area and the campus. She requested that
all applications be rejected until such time as a full environmental audit is
undertaken and a true dialogue be pursued between parties with mutual
compromise.
In response to comments from Chair Hume on
whether preserving both homes and flipping the building would alleviate any
impact, Ms. Thomas reiterated the heritage value of the homes, which act as a
buffer and gateway to the community.
She suggested ample room existed on campus to accommodate a new
dormitory at a different location.
Lorraine Groulx, a resident of 215 Springfield Road, also
spoke in opposition to the proposals suggesting the dormitory could be
accommodated at a different location on campus to alleviate impact on adjacent
owners. She spoke of the traffic at the
intersection, which is very busy at morning peak. She also questioned if the dormitory would be rented during the
summer or the large hall for social events.
Ms. Groulx reiterated the importance of the two existing homes to be
demolished, noting their heritage value and contribution to the neighbourhood
as the gateway to both communities.
Mark J. Moher spoke in support of the LACAC
recommendations to reject the application for demolition and new construction,
reiterating earlier comments made by previous delegations. He said the proposed dormitory would result
in a dominating institutional façade on the street and change the residential
character of both Rockcliffe Park and Lindenlea. He suggested the alternate plan represents a starting point and
meaningful dialogue must be pursued to achieve a plan that is acceptable to
residents. He called on Committee not
to approve the applications as currently presented.
In response to a question from Chair Hume
with respect to the alternate plan, Mr. Moher stated the core issue would be
addressed by flipping the building; however, issues such as safety, heritage
preservation and visual impact must also be addressed.
Chair Hume noted the Site Plan could be
re-delegated to staff to allow the Ward Councillor to deal with any outstanding
issues.
Gavin Murphy, also speaking on behalf of Catherine
Murphy, stated he grew up at 204 Springfield, recalling early memories of the
area. He spoke in opposition to the
plans as they do not respond to the issues raised by both community
associations. He outlined concerns with
the process, including the conclusions of the Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement. He touched on feedback
received by the City in opposition as outlined in the departmental
reports. He reiterated that both the
community and LACAC do not support demolition of the buildings, which could be
incorporate in a more imaginative development plan.
Chair Hume asked how traffic would increase
with the dormitory. Mr. Murphy noted
current issues with the intersection.
Many students are dropped off at the school and some students do drive
to the College.
Herb Stovel spoke in support of the LACAC recommendations, noting significant
concerns with the process with respect to the Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement, its preparation and conclusions.
He also touched on dealing with divergent opinion between heritage staff
and LACAC, suggesting a number of changes to the process. He urged that the buildings be preserved
with a revised development plan, noting the heritage value of the buildings is
undisputable.
Responding to comments from Councillor Doucet
with regard to process and the hiring of consultants, Mr. Stovel suggested that
the terms of reference of the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement should be
publicly agreed upon in advance. He
also suggested different ways to fund the exercise to ensure no bias. He noted the bigger issue revolves around
how the advice of the designated expert committee is received under the Ontario Heritage Act and the Official
Plan.
Ms. Coutts explained that Section 4.6.3 of
Official Plan outlines the requirements for a Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement.
Acting Chair Feltmate acknowledged concerns
with the process but suggested that discussion could occur at a later date,
noting that comments and concerns have been noted.
Councillor Legendre drew the Committee’s
attention to an article he circulated.
David Jeanes reiterated that this corner is the main
gateway to the village of Rockcliffe Park and Lindenlea. He noted the homes, ordinary as they may be,
contribute to the heritage value of the district as contributing elements of
the early history of the village.
Brian Murphy focused on the heritage value of the homes
proposed for demolition, stating the process is flawed as the proponent hired a
consultant to prepare the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement. He questioned the methodology used, noting
the homes represented an early founding cluster and were inhabited by few
families, which demonstrates stability in ownership. He suggested alternatives to their demolition have not been
sufficiently explored.
Heather McArthur, Vice-Chair, Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee read from a written submission, noting the following points:
·
These original
houses, which are well over 100 years old, constitute an important part of the
streetscape, cultural history, and heritage of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District.
·
LACAC was
unconvinced that demolition is necessary to allow the construction of the
dormitory. Both heritage considerations
and the needs of the school can be reasonably accommodated.
·
The houses at
204 and 212 Springfield Road should be retained.
·
The main part
of the dormitory should be sited behind the existing houses.
·
The shorter
faces of the dormitory should be oriented to face the street.
David Dubinski also spoke in opposition to the proposal,
suggesting alternatives must be explored.
He raised existing issues with the intersection and noted quality of
life impacts of the proposed dormitory.
He also suggested consultation was information sharing in nature and
Lindenlea was not adequately involved in the process. He called for a more imaginative solution through meaningful
consultation.
Martha Edmond registered to speak in opposition to the
departmental recommendations, but was unable to attend. A written copy of her presentation is held
on file with the City Clerk.
Anthony Keith presented a diagram, which showed a plan
that would enable the retention of 204 Springfield Road. He noted both buildings could be preserved
but 204 should be retained as it has particular value.
David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa suggested the demolition of such buildings
represents death by a thousand cuts compromising the heritage value of the
district. He suggested additional
research is required to adequately provide background information on heritage
resources. He suggested an excellent
case exists to preserve the buildings in a revised development plan.
Iola Price, Chair of the RPRA Environment
Committee, noted that
inhabitants of both homes were distinguished, including a respected lawyer and
a gardener consulted by Mackenzie King.
She indicated heritage districts are valued for their whole and not just
grand homes. With respect to the
Secondary Plan, Ms. Price advised that the proposal does not meet the
requirements of Sections 2.4.5.2 and 2.4.6 that require enlargements or changes
in public and private schools to be located and designed in a manner in keeping
with the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood and to be
designed to present an appearance that is harmonious and aesthetically in
accordance with the character of the area.
Section 3 also requires the conservation of the village’s heritage
resources and the proposed demolition of both homes does not meet this
test. With respect to the Zoning and
Official Plan amendments, Ms. Price reiterated that residents have expressed
concerns that the dormitory would be rented out to non-students in the summer
and a 50-person dormitory is not included in the list of permitted uses in the
new Institution 1A zone to be applied to the site under the new Comprehensive
Zoning By-law. In regard to trees, Ms.
Price drew attention to the large one metre diameter, very mature and beautiful
sugar maple tree that will be destroyed should the dormitory go ahead as
planned. Two large white spruce trees
will also be demolished for this plan.
She suggested it is time to go back to the drawing board to rethink the
whole plan.
Responding to a question from Chair Hume, Ms.
Price stated she supports the flip but noted the homes should be preserved
including the mature trees. Chair Hume
suggested the preservation of the large mature maple tree could be a condition
in the Site Plan Control Agreement. Ms.
Price cautioned the possible impact of construction to the root zone.
Andrew J. Wisniowski, Lindenlea Community
Association, raised points
made in his written submission. The
Community Association fully supports the unanimous LACAC recommendation to
reject demolition and new construction.
With respect to the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments, Mr. Wisniowski
stated the LCA is not necessarily opposed, provided that it is conditional on
the preservation of 204 and 212 Springfield Road.
With regard to the Site Plan, the LCA is
strongly opposed to its approval as it fails to protect both heritage
properties, a heritage urban pattern element at the entrance of a key heritage
district, and does not respect long stated concerns of the local
community. The LCA asked for an
accommodation of legitimate interests and reasonable requests of key
stakeholders, as reasonable alternatives have shown to exist. He also called into question the fait
accompli nature of the application and the lack of constructive early
consultation. He also requested that
Ashbury College fully disclose their long-term development plan to the public
as an opening phase of consultation for the future.
Councillor Desroches asked whether the LCA
was contacted through the standard process.
Mr. Wisniowski indicated the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association was
contacted earlier and Lindenlea was involved later in the process.
Mr. McRobie was provided an opportunity to
respond to some of the concerns raised by other delegations, noting the
following:
·
The parking
area serves its purpose by reducing on street parking.
·
The dormitory
will not impact the intersection in any way.
·
All trees will
be preserved with the exception of the sugar maple, which would be kept under
the alternate plan.
·
No exterior or
flood lighting of the building is planned.
·
The dormitory
will be set back three times more than the other homes on the street.
·
The windows
will only open slightly, approximately six inches.
·
The College
does not have the funds and is not searching to buy other homes in Rockcliffe
Park.
·
The College
will not be renting the dormitory during the summer period but will possibly
house visiting sports team, which is a normal part of campus life.
·
The
configuration of the girls’ residence is not optimal and the greenspace between
the homes and the dormitory is not useful.
·
The applicant
requested approval of the current plan with the possibility of pursuing the
alternate plan with the demolition of the two homes to provide adequate
greenspace.
Councillor Legendre stated this application
has been a difficult file involving two community associations, who generally
do not oppose the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments. He suggested other schemes could be pursued,
including a linear model. With respect
to the Ontario Heritage Act
application, he confirmed his support of the LACAC recommendations. He referenced an article he circulated,
suggesting political will is required.
He commented on the excellence of the proposed design commending Mr. McRobie
for his work. He also asked that the
Site Plan application be re-delegated to staff.
Councillor Holmes advised that she would
support the Ward Councillor and LACAC in rejecting the application under the Ontario Heritage Act. She indicated other options could be pursued
and further discussion could occur to allow the protection of the heritage
buildings while allowing the College to proceed with its development.
Councillor Doucet noted he was convinced by
delegations to preserve both heritage homes, which contribute to the early
history of the village and the district.
He agreed other solutions could be pursued to ensure their preservation,
noting the design of the proposed dormitory is pleasing.
Councillor Hunter spoke in support of the
application, suggesting these homes are not significant and would not be
preserved if located in other parts of the City of Ottawa. He indicated the proposal is very good and
outweighs heritage considerations. He
specified that the plan represents good urban planning, including a parkette
and the orientation of the building to the street. He commended the architect for the excellence of his design. He touched on the importance of Ashbury
College and its contribution to the community.
Councillor Desroches said he preferred the
plan before the committee, noting an internal courtyard would have less impact
on the street. He asked Ms. Coutts to
comment on the process with respect to checks and balances.
Ms. Coutts responded that heritage staff does
review Cultural Heritage Impact Statements to ensure they meet the draft
guidelines. She indicated the
statements are only one factor in considering applications, as planners use
professional judgment is assessing applications on their merit.
Councillor Monette asked staff to comment on
the possible retention of 204 Springfield Road. Mr. Lindsay responded that a number of options were presented and
certain details could be worked out through Site Plan Control.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr.
Marc confirmed the applicant had right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal
Board. He also clarified that under the
Ontario Heritage Act a tie vote at
Council on an application is considered approval.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
1. Reject demolition
of 204 and 212 Springfield Road;
2. Approve a design which allows for the
retention of both 204 and 212 Springfield Road, and possibly includes them into
a new scheme; and that the new building’s impact on both Springfield Road and
Maple Lane be minimized (for example such as by orienting the new dormitory so
that the ends of its wings face the streets, as in the girls’ dormitory;
3. Reject the demolition of 333 Maple
Lane unless the requirements of Recommendation 2 are met.
LOST
YEAS (5): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, S.
Qadri, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B.
Monette, P. Hume
Moved by G. Hunter:
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
demolition of 204 Springfield
Road.
LOST
YEAS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, S.
Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (5): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, B.
Monette, P. Feltmate
Moved by G. Hunter:
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
demolition of 212 Springfield Road.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, B.
Monette, S. Qadri, P. Hume
NAYS (4): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, P.
Feltmate
Moved by D. Holmes:
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council reject the
construction of a new boys' dormitory according to the application received on
August 14, 2007 and deemed complete on October 31, 2007.
CARRIED
YEAS (6): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, B.
Monette, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate
NAYS (5): S. Desroches, J. Harder, G. Hunter, P.
Hume
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the demolition of 204 and
212 Springfield Road;
2. Reject the construction of a new
boys' dormitory according to the application received on August 14, 2007 and
deemed complete on October 31, 2007.
CARRIED as amended
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING – 204 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND 362 MARIPOSA AVENUE
PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE – 204, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET 362, AVENUE MARIPOSA
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0006 Rideau-Rockcliffe
(13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22
janvier 2008
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
That the
Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the former
Village of Rockcliffe Park Secondary Plan, Volume 2A of the Official Plan to
redesignate 204 Springfield Road and a portion of 362 Mariposa Avenue from
"Residential" to "Special Uses", as detailed in
Document 2.
2. Approve
an amendment to the former Village of Rockcliffe Zoning By-law to rezone 204
Springfield Road and a portion of 362 Mariposa Avenue from “Residential Zone
RD5” to “Residential Special Use Zone RS” as detailed in Document 3.
CARRIED
SITE PLAN CONTROL - 204 SPRINGFIELD ROAD AND 362 MARIPOSA AVENUE
PLAN D'IMPLANTATION - 204, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD ET 362, AVENUE MARIPOSA
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0007 RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13)
Deferred on January 22, 2008 / Reporté le 22
janvier 2008
Moved by D.
Holmes:
That the Site Plan Control application be re-delegated to staff.
CARRIED
That Planning and Environment Committee approve the Site Plan Control
application for 204 Springfield Road and 362 Mariposa Avenue as set out in
Document 2.
WITHDRAWN
