8. APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH 132
STANLEY AVENUE, A BUILDING IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION
DISTRICT AND APPLICATION FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DEMANDE DE DEMOLITION DU 132, AVENUE STANLEY, UN BATIMENT SITUE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH, ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH |
That Council:
1. Approve
the demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue, a property located in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
2. Approve
the application to construct two groups of three townhouses, according to
drawings by David Mailing, Architects, received on February 11, 2008.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve
la démolition du 132, avenue Stanley, une propriété située dans le District de
conservation du patrimoine de New Edinburgh et désignée en vertu de la partie V
de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario.
2. approuve
la demande de construction de deux îlots de trois maisons en rangée,
conformément aux dessins de David Mailing, Architectes, reçue le 11 février
2008.
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 19 February 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0029).
2.
LACAC
Extract of Draft Minutes, 28 February 2008.
3.
Extract
of Draft Minutes, 25 March 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
19 February 2008 / le 19 février 2008
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
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend
that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue, a property located in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. Approve the application to construct two groups of three townhouses, according to drawings by David Mailing, Architects, received on February 11, 2008.
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)
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 à son tour au Conseil :
1. d’approuver la démolition du 132,
avenue Stanley, une propriété située dans le District de conservation du
patrimoine de New Edinburgh et désignée en vertu de la partie V de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario.
2. d’approuver la demande de construction
de deux îlots de trois maisons en rangée, conformément aux dessins de David
Mailing, Architectes, reçue le 11 février 2008.
(Nota : L’approbation de la
demande de modification aux termes de la Loi
sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne signifie pas pour autant qu’elle
satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)
BACKGROUND
The property at 132 Stanley Avenue is located within the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District which is designated under Part V of Ontario Heritage Act through By-law 2001-44. It is located at the corner of Queen Victoria Street and Stanley Avenue in the northwest part of the Heritage Conservation District (see Location Map, Document 1). Demolition of structures and new construction within a heritage conservation district requires the approval of City Council following consultation with the Local Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC).
DISCUSSION
The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation
District was designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act as a result of a co-operative effort between City of Ottawa
staff and New Edinburgh community members. During the course of the Study every
building in the proposed District was evaluated and given a score according to
the City of Ottawa's "Handbook for Evaluating Heritage Buildings and
Areas." In addition, the community and heritage staff worked together to
develop a "Heritage District Plan" that includes a heritage character
statement and Guidelines for managing change in the District.
Through consensus, the committee scoring the
buildings in the area agreed to place buildings built after 1939 in Category 4,
the lowest category, because it was believed that insufficient time had passed
to be able to judge the heritage value of these structures.
The house at 132 Stanley Avenue was built in
1967 on the site of a semi-detached residence and is thus a Category 4 building
(see Heritage Survey Form, Document 3).
The Heritage Conservation District Plan is
intended to manage change in the area. It is divided by topic, with specific
guidelines for restoration, rehabilitation and infill development, among
others. The Plan anticipates that infill buildings would be constructed on
vacant lots or lots where there were Category 4 buildings, and includes
Guidelines for new construction. The Introduction to the Guidelines states that
the general goal of the plan regarding new development is to:
encourage new construction that is
complementary to the character of the area and discourage attempts at
historicizing buildings by using architectural trim, window shutters etc. that
attempts to "age" a building. They [the Guidelines] will promote the
enhancement of New Edinburgh's streetscape through tree-planting, interpretive
panels etc., in a way that celebrates the area's "village character"
and contributes to its sense of space.
The specific Guidelines relating to infill are
relevant to the current application.
Section 3.3 ii) Houses, states:
1. Replacement buildings constructed in the part of New Edinburgh to which the Heritage Overlay (Sections 14-19, General Provisions) of the City of Ottawa Zoning Bylaw, 1998 applies, must be rebuilt "to the same height, bulk, size, floor area, spacing and in the same location as existed prior to its removal or destruction."
2. According
to the provisions of the City of Ottawa Zoning Bylaw, the Heritage Overlay does
not apply to lots vacant before 1978
3. As
the heritage character of adjacent properties throughout the District varies,
the character of adjacent properties should be acknowledged so that new
construction respects and reinforces the character of the streetscape.
4. The
existing small lot development pattern should be maintained. Development over a number of lots is
discouraged. If development of this type occurs, the building should be
articulated so that it reads as a series of smaller elements.
5. New
buildings with garage doors that dominate the street will not be approved.
Other less unsightly provisions for parking should be developed such as
recessed garages.
The applicant for the infill development at 132
Stanley Avenue contacted the Department in late 2007 with a proposal for a
seven-unit townhouse development featuring seven garages facing Queen Victoria
Street. At that time, the applicant was advised that such a configuration would
not be supported and advised the applicant to redesign the project in a manner
that was more compatible with the Guidelines, above. Various options were
proposed, including recessed garages and garages located at the rear of the
units and accessed from a driveway running parallel to Queen Victoria
Street. In December 2007, the applicant
submitted a redesigned project. This version of the proposed development involved
a driveway behind the houses, and the reduction of the number of houses from
seven to six. Changes to the design were also undertaken at this time in order
to break up the mass of the building.
This version of the project was presented to a
well-attended public meeting in the community on January 8, 2008. The public’s
reaction to the project was unfavourable and prompted a redesign of the
project. The final version of the
project is included in Document 4.
The project now consists of two separate blocks
of three units each, separated by a green strip. The buildings are stylistically different; the south-westerly one
is evocative of the Arts and Crafts tradition. It has one unit facing Stanley
Avenue and two facing Queen Victoria and features, bracketed eaves, gabled bay
dormer windows and front veranda facing Stanley. Its contrasting brick and
masonry construction break up the building.
The other three-door row takes its cues from the flat roofed houses of
the District. It features a stone base with brick masonry above and a strong
cornice. Each building is set back 0.3
metres from the property line and three metres from the inner sidewalk
edge. There will be seven trees planted
between the buildings and Queen Victoria, three trees planted along Avon Lane
and three planted along Stanley Avenue.
The proposed project will require minor
variances to the Zoning By-law to allow it to proceed. The variances will
include relief from the Heritage Overlay that requires that a replacement
building be built "to the same height, bulk, size, floor area, spacing and
the same location as existed prior to its removal or destruction." The
underlying zone for this area is R5C (567) H10, a low-rise apartment zone. The
proposed development will need further variances related to lot area and
driveway width. The Committee of
Adjustment meeting to consider the request for minor variances will take place
after the application under the Ontario
Heritage Act has been considered by City Council. A site plan for this
project is also under consideration.
The multi-unit row is a housing type found
elsewhere in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District. Examples of this
building type include Lansdowne Terrace, 157-167 MacKay Street,
constructed in 1876, a six‑door row; and a number of three-door rows
including 38-40 Stanley Avenue, 5-7 Thomas (constructed 1952); 15-17 Thomas/75
John Street (constructed 1941), 102-106 Stanley Avenue (constructed circa
1910), 19-23 Crichton Street (c 1903), 143- 147 Crichton Street (c 1870s
and 1916), 137-141 Stanley Avenue (constructed 1901), and 189-193 MacKay Street
(constructed 1877-1878) (see Document 6 for examples). In addition there are
other multi-unit rows in the parts of the neighbourhood that are not included
in the Heritage Conservation District, including two rows at Crichton Street
and Beechwood Avenue.
The architectural character of Queen Victoria
Street, the street that the development faces, is very mixed and reflects
different eras of development within New Edinburgh. In the immediate vicinity
of the proposed project, there are two flat-roofed semi-detached dwellings
(constructed circa 1905), four gable roofed buildings with either front or side
gables profiles (constructed 1880-1900) and an infill dating from the 1970s.
The block of Stanley Avenue to the north of the project features a similarly
mixed group of housing types, including wood and brick dwellings with their
gable end facing the street, and a three-door row. Given the rich variety of
building types in this sector of New Edinburgh, and the existence of three-door
units elsewhere in the district, the Department believes that two three-unit
buildings with different architectural expressions are an appropriate response
to the setting and respect Guideline 3.3ii. 3 above.
Furthermore, the units are individually
expressed, respecting Guideline 3.3ii 4 above, which serves to break up the
mass of the development. Finally, there are no garage doors facing the street
proposed for the project thereby preserving the character of New Edinburgh as a
neighbourhood in which front doors and entryways are regularly spaced along the
street edge, and are not interrupted by garage doors.
The Department has no objection to the proposal
for new construction in the form of an infill development at 132 Stanley Avenue
because it largely respects the Guidelines, above, involves the removal of a
building previously determined to have no heritage significance, consists of
two, three-door rows, a building type common in the area and contributes to the
streetscape through the addition of new trees.
Cultural Heritage Impact Statement
In
accordance with Policy 4.6.3 of the Official Plan, a Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement (CHIS) was completed for this project (for complete CHIS, see
Document 6). The CHIS analysed the development within the context of the
Heritage Conservation District and its associated “Guidelines” and its impact
on the heritage conservation district.
It noted that there were positive impacts associated with the development
as it would animate Queen Victoria Street and Stanley Avenue,
follow types and forms found in the District; would contribute to diversity and
variety found in the District; would reflect the district vernacular and add to
the complexity of the streetscape and that the landscaping including paved
walkways and street trees would be pedestrian friendly. The CHIS also noted
that there were adverse impacts associated with the proposed development,
specifically the reduction in privacy for 128 Stanley Avenue and an increase in
traffic associated with the new dwellings.
In conclusion, the CHIS stated that
“… the
proposed infill development does not adversely impact the cultural heritage
value of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.”
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners and residential tenants 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.
The Councillor is aware of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The New Edinburgh Community Association (NECA) was consulted in the preparation of this report. NECA objected to the initial plans that featured a six-door row. The new plan was circulated to NECA but there was not sufficient time for the community to prepare full comments, however, NECA indicated that it continues to object to the development. A copy of NECA comments will be presented at the LACAC meeting.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of the application.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
This application was completed
within the 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 2 Aerial photograph
Document 3 Heritage Survey Form
Document 4 Site Plan
Document 5 Elevations
Document 6 Row Houses in New Edinburgh
Document 7 Cultural Heritage Impact Statement
DISPOSITION
The City Clerk's Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the applicant/ agent (Debbie Belfie, D.G. Belfie Planning & Development Consulting Ltd., 21 Pinecone Trail, Stittsville, ON K2S 1E1) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1J3) of City Council's consent to construct two, three-door row houses at 132 Stanley Avenue in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, HERITAGE CONSULTANTS
Mercury Court, 377 Dalhousie Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 9N8
PHONE: (613) 241-7198 FAX: (613) 241-5782 E-MAIL: email@padolsky-architects.com
CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT 132 STANLEY AVENUE
NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, OTTAWA
The subject property is
located on the corner of Stanley Avenue and Queen Victoria
Street in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District. It is a rectangular lot
extending 47.3 meters from
Stanley Avenue to River Lane on the west side of Queen
Victoria Street. The lot
has 18.3 meters of frontage on Stanley Avenue.
The existing house was
constructed in 1967. It is a detached one-storey home, clad with
rectangular stone and
brick. The front door and two large bow windows face Stanley
Avenue. An attached carport
and driveway accessing Queen Victoria Street are located
at the rear of the home. A
vinyl shed is located at the rear of the property close to River
Lane. In the City's
Heritage Building Evaluation Survey, 132 Stanley Avenue was placed
in Group 4, the lowest
category. The house is typical of single residences built in
Ottawa's suburbs in the 1960’s.
B. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF NEW EDINBURGH
The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District consists of a lively
mix of building
types including churches, schools, former commercial store fronts, large
Queen Anne
structures, row houses, singles, doubles, triples, and apartment
buildings. The one and a
half storey and two and a half storey front gabled structure is the most
common building
type in the district.
The heritage district has been slowly infilling and intensifying with
the introduction of
new housing, additions, and alterations through a process of scrutiny,
community
consultation, and City of Ottawa permits under the Ontario Heritage Act.
C. HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES
The New Edinburgh Conservation District guidelines are intended to
encourage the
conservation of the existing historic fabric and encourage new
construction that is
complementary to the character of the area. The guidelines are intended
to promote the
enhancement of the New Edinburgh streetscape and celebrate the
"village character".
The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan includes the
following key
guidelines for new construction:
1. Demolished buildings must be replaced by new buildings of the same
height,
building size, floor area and spacing as existed prior to demolition
(City of
Ottawa Zoning Bylaw 1998).
2. New construction on recent lots (prior to 1978) should respect front and
side
yard set backs of adjacent heritage buildings to maintain the character
of the
streetscape.
3. New construction should acknowledge the character of adjacent
properties and
reinforce the character of the streetscape.
4. New buildings should be articulated so that they read as smaller
elements.
5. Parking should be in recessed garages. Garage doors that dominate the
street
will not be approved.
D. PROPOSED INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The proposed residential infill project will consist of two three-storey,
ground-oriented
"triples". The southern triple will have one unit with an
entrance on Stanley Avenue and
two units with entrances on Queen Victoria Street. The northern triple
will have three
addresses on Queen Victoria Street.
Parking is located in recessed garages accessed by a lane along the
western property line
at the rear of the units.
A review of the architect’s drawings has revealed that:
1. The architectural design is “contemporary” with references to the
forms
and elements familiar within the district.
2. The southern "triple" features gabled roofs and a columned
front porch
along Stanley Avenue to reinforce the established rhythm of the gabled
houses along the street. The Victoria Street elevation features three
gabled
bays and recessed entrances to break-up the massing and provide a
picturesque silhouette. Arched windows on the ground floor level and the
finely detailed windows on the second and third floors are designed to
add richness to the building's appearance. The residences are clad in
brick
and wood rising from a stone base in a composition which adds to the
visual complexity.
3. The northern "triple" features flat roofs drawing from the
architectural
language of other flat roof residences in the district. These three
residences
are designed to have a separate identity from the southern
"triple". This
approach contributes to the diversity of the architecture on Victoria
Street.
The elevation features three bays with raised parapets and recessed
entrances to break up the massing and to express the individuality of
each
residential unit. The residences are clad in brick and stone. The two
triples use cladding materials from the existing palate of finishes
typical of
the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
4. A new fence will be constructed along the new service lane on the
west side
of the property. Landscaping will be introduced along Stanley Avenue,
Queen Victoria Street, and River Lane. Eleven trees will be planted
along
the property lines (on City property) to contribute to the leafy
character of
the village.
E. IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The positive impact of the proposed infill development would be that:
1. The new residences face and animate Queen Victoria Street and Stanley
Avenue.
2. The building type and forms are familiar in the pattern of
development in
the district.
3. The two "triples" are different in form from each other and
contribute to the
diversity and variety found in the district.
4. The architectural forms and character take visual cues from the district
vernacular, and are articulated to add complexity to the streetscape
through the use of projections, recesses, gables, and parapets.
5. The exterior cladding, colours, and textures derive from the
district's palate
of material.
6. The heights are within the permitted height of the underlying zoning.
7. The introduction of landscaping along the streets, interlocking paved
walkways to each residence, and street trees add to the
pedestrian-friendly
ambience of the streetscapes.
8. Parking is located in the rear of the residences in enclosed recessed
garages.
9. The existing anonymous 1960’s "suburban" residence would be
replaced by
a redevelopment in which architectural forms reinterpret the local
vernacular, are richer in detail, and contribute to the district
streetscape.
The adverse impact of the proposed infill development would be that:
1. There would be a reduction in the privacy currently enjoyed by the
property at 128 Stanley Avenue.
2. There would be an increase in vehicular activity adjacent to 128
Stanley
Avenue and 54 Victoria Street at the corner of River Lane.
F. CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the proposed infill development does not adversely impact
the
cultural heritage value of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation
District.
Barry Padolsky
B. Arch., M. Sc. (Urban Design),
OAA, FRAIC, RCA, CAPHC
February 11, 2008
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee EXTRACT OF DRAFT Minutes 12 28 February 2008 |
|
Comité
consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale extrait
de l’Ébauche du
Procès-verbal 12 le
28 février 2008 |
|
|
|
APPLICATION
TO DEMOLISH 132 STANLEY AVENUE, A BUILDING IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND APPLICATION
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE DE
DEMOLITION DU 132, AVENUE STANLEY, UN BATIMENT SITUE DANS LE DISTRICT DE
CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH, ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE
CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH.
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0029 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner provided an overview of the departmental report.
Debbie
Belfie, D.G. Belfie Planning & Development Consulting Ltd., was present to
answer questions on the proposal and gave short presentations on the project.
The Committee heard from the following delegations speaking in opposition to the demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue and the application for construction of two groups of three townhouses. Their comments are outlined below:
1) John Wood
2) Paul McConnel
3) Rosemarie Tovell
4)
Peter Boehm
5)
Tony Roth
6)
David Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa
7) Iola Price
·
The proposed
development is unprecedented in terms of mass, population density and lack of
green space, to this part of Stanley Ave.
River Lane and Queen Victoria St.
Currently all buildings on the block are either single-family dwellings
or doubles, and one three unit town house.
There are no double three-unit,
three story townhouses on single or double lots.
·
Whereas all
other properties on the block have yards, the six units will not have yards and
the property will consist almost entirely of building and access road.
Additional comments are contained in their submissions, copies of which are held on file with the Coordinator.
Written comments in opposition to the proposal were received from the following and held on file:
a. New Edinburgh Community Alliance (N.E.C.A.)
b.
Tony Roth
c.
Joan Mason
d.
Isabelle Daoust
e.
Mr. and Mrs. J.
M. Fraser
f.
Sarah Taylor,
resident of New Edinburgh
g.
Susan Sinclair
h.
Steven Takach
i.
Amelia and
Grady Johnson
j.
Julia Way and
Peter Boehm
k.
David and Chris
Dodge, resident of New Edinburgh
l.
Jean - Louis
Wallace
m. Daid Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa,
ON
n. Gemma Kerr
o. James and Alexandra Lambert
p.
Iola Price
A petition containing 174 names opposing the
proposed development was also provided to the Committee.
Moved by A. Keith
Whereas the mass, the density and the
lack of green space of the proposed development are not appropriate for this
part of the Heritage District, and does not fit the streetscape;.
Therefore be it resolved that the Local
Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and
Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject the
demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue, a property located in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. Reject the
application to construct two groups of three townhouses, according to drawings
by David Mailing, Architects, received on February 11, 2008.
CARRIED as amended
APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH 132 STANLEY AVENUE, A BUILDING IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE DE DEMOLITION DU 132, AVENUE
STANLEY, UN BATIMENT SITUE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE
NEW EDINBURGH, ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE
CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH
ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0029 Rideau-RockCliffe (13)
The following email correspondence was received in opposition and is held on file with the City Clerk:
· Julie Smyth dated 25 March 2008
· C. Evans dated 20 March 2008
· Comments from Councillor Legendre dated 20 March 2008
· Diana Marley-Clarke dated 20 March 2008
· Erna Ricciuto and John Duchemin dated 20 March 2008
·
Diane
Vaillancourt and Léon Leblanc date 20 March 2008
· Susan Armstrong dated 19 March 2008
· Kathy Bunka dated 19 March 2008
· Michael Histed dated 19 March 2008
· Gemma Kerr dated 19 March 2008
· Dick and Louise Palmer dated 19 March 2008
· James Sine dated 19 March 2008
· Jean-Louis Wallace dated 19 March 2008
· Melanie and Paul Chedore dated 18 March 2008
· Andrew Kerr dated 18 March 2008
· Ann Young dated 18 March 2008
· Andre Staudte & Nelly Staudte-Blondeaux dated 17 March 2008
· Julia Sunday dated 17 March 2008
· Rosamond Jones dated 16 March 2008
· Margaret McGovern dated 16 March 2008
· Alexandra Reid and Isabelle Hyndman Reid dated 16 March 2008
· Pauline Whelan dated 15 March 2008
· Stuart and Gill Mapp dated 13 March 2008
· Elizabeth McFarlane dated 12 March 2008
· James and Alexandra Lambert dated 17 February 2008
· Sarah Taylor dated 13 February 2008
Email correspondence in support dated 16 March 2008 from Katherine Baird and Mark Mayhew was also received and is held on file.
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals Central/West accompanied her.
In response to questions from Councillors, staff provided the following information:
· Modifications to the design have occurred since the initial application, including placing the garages at the rear, breaking up the massing, utilizing different styles, and lowering the height.
· The Heritage Overlay was instituted in the 1970s as a way of controlling demolition of heritage buildings. In waiving the overlay, all factors should be determined and, in this instance, it is not appropriate to limit the height to the existing bungalow.
Alan Cohen, Debbie Belfie, David Mailing appeared on behalf of Larco Homes. Mr. Cohen explained that Barry Padolsky prepared the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) but did not receive a fee. He indicated no opposition exists to the demolition of the existing bungalow, a category 4 building. He touched on the consultation that occurred with staff, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) and the community, which resulted in refinements to the design. He put forth that the project conforms to all guidelines and policies. He suggested some of the community concerns are not related to heritage matters but rather to the minor variances before the Committee of Adjustment.
Ms. Belfie outlined the rationale for approving the application, touching on Official Plan policies and the district guidelines. She referenced the mixture and diversity of housing types in the area. She advised the buildings would be 10 metres in height, 0.7 metres lower than what is permitted under the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. She referred to Mr. Padolsky’s report and noted consultation occurred with the community and with LACAC through pre-consultation. Ms. Belfie explained additional landscaping would occur along the property to vastly improve the greenspace. She suggested the proposed buildings will contribute to the variety of the district and conforms to the guidelines and policies.
Mr. Mailing, the project architect, indicated the revised design reflected three constraints: placing the garages to the rear, breaking up the massing and responding to client requirements. He presented the design with the aid of slides.
In response to questions from Councillors, Mr. Cohen reiterated that Mr. Padolsky prepared the CHIS on behalf of Larco Homes but was not remunerated.
Councillor Hunter noted Mr. Padolsky’s comments raised two negative impacts, notably with respect to one of the rear balconies. Mr. Cohen, after consulting with his client, stated it was the only outdoor amenity space for the unit.
Jay Baltz, Chair, Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), read from a written submission. The extract of draft minutes from the LACAC meeting of 25 February 2008 was also circulated. Mr. Baltz’s main arguments were as follows:
· The design of the new construction is not compatible with the Heritage Conservation District guidelines.
· The massing is out of scale and is much higher and larger than any of the adjacent buildings.
· The proposed set of townhouses essentially fills the lot. The need for a new through-way to accommodate the garages at the rear changes the character of the district and emphasises that the proposal is out of scale.
· The proposal, although broken into two separate sets of three townhouses, still reads as very large, single buildings built to the envelope.
Heather McArthur, LACAC Vice-Chair, added that the district study was completed with the assistance and hard work of the community. She suggested the community’s input and opinion is critical and LACAC agrees that the proposal does not respect the guidelines.
Inge Vander Horst, New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA), referenced arguments in NECA’s submission of 19 March 2008, which is held on file with the City Clerk. The main points in objection are as follows:
· The proposal represents over-intensification due to the mass, footprint, width, height and setback of the new buildings. It does not fit well with the community
· The property is located in a section of the Heritage Conservation District composed mainly of singles and doubles; the rhythm and character of the streetscape would be changed.
· The scale and design does not respond to the heritage buildings in New Edinburgh, but rather to other infill projects.
· The scale and layout would cause unacceptable problems for adjacent properties, in particular shading, light intrusion, noise, and loss of privacy.
· Exiting traffic would not emerge onto a public street, but would be added to a narrow laneway.
· The project fails to comply with the Heritage Conservation District guidelines.
· The project could be precedent-setting as it is the first time the heritage overlay has been suspended since the creation of the district.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Ms. Coutts confirmed the underlining zoning for the area is a low-rise apartment R5 designation with a heritage overlay. Mr. Lindsay explained that changing the underlining zoning would create a number of legal non-conforming uses and would take away development rights.
Peter Boehme addressed points raised in his email of 19 March 2008 (held on file with the City Clerk). He focussed his comments on the detrimental impact the development would have on his and other adjacent homes. He specifically touched on the noise and traffic caused by the lane, the loss of greenspace, light and privacy, as well as possible impact to nearby stone foundations. He asked the Committee to reject the application.
In reply to questions from the Chair, Mr. Boehme reiterated that the project is too massive and a lower number of doubles and singles could be contemplated instead.
Tony Roth followed up on issues raised in his email of 19 March 2008 (held on file with the City Clerk). His comments in opposition focussed on the impact as an immediate neighbour, including the following:
· The view from six southwest facing windows will be of a brick wall.
· His home will be dwarfed with impacts to view, light and privacy.
· The driveway will have implications such as noise, air pollution, traffic, and shining headlights.
·
One of the proposed balconies will feature a view of
his backyard.
In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Roth expressed concern with possible impact to stone foundations nearby. Mr. Lindsay indicated a standard condition in the Site Plan Control Agreement requires the survey of existing conditions of nearby properties.
Julia Boehm presented photographs of the community to outline the impact to the quality of life of adjacent residents. She specifically dealt with snow removal, gardens, style/mass/scale of adjacent homes, and other examples of infill development.
In reply to a query from Councillor Monette, Ms. Boehm confirmed snow removal was noticeably worst this year and concerns were communicated to the Ward Councillor.
David Sacks, President of NECA, referenced the City’s policy with respect to infill development. He suggested the application does not meet the numerous tests or objectives. He suggested the district guidelines were ignored. NECA’s written submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Rosemarie
Tovell tabled a petition objecting to the development. She referenced earlier points made by other
delegations in opposition with respect to compatibility and impact. She suggested the approval of the proposal would
undermine the heritage designation of the district. The petition is held on file with the City Clerk.
Joan Mason, registered to speak in opposition, but was not in attendance. Her email dated 16 March 2008 is held on file with the City Clerk.
Doré Dunne, spoke in support of the proposal, objecting to the views put forth by NECA, questioning the petition methodology. Ms. Dunne stated the new units would contribute to the area. She noted a number of restrictions apply to property ownerships, even more so with heritage properties. She added property owners in the area should be entitled to maximize investment.
David Flemming, President of Heritage Ottawa, touched on his submission dated 21 March 2008, which is held on file with the City Clerk. The following points were made in opposition to the proposal:
· The demolition offers an opportunity to provide a building that would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood.
·
The new development should not only pick up the
architectural treatment of the neighbourhood but also reflect the historic
pattern of development in New Edinburgh.
· The project should be reoriented with appropriate setbacks.
· Three detached houses on this site should be contemplated instead, one facing on Stanley Avenue and two others set back from and facing Queen Victoria, which is more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Official Plan and district guidelines.
Julian Hanlon registered to speak in support but was unable to attend.
Don Butler spoke in opposition to the proposal, indicating he moved to the area due to its character. He suggested the development is not appropriate and should not be approved.
In response to further questions from Committee, Mr. Cohen confirmed his client could explore the issue of the balcony and that the current design has evolved over time. He approximated the units would value in the high $100,000 range. Mr. Mailing also confirmed the front portion of the units are excavated for basements and the garages are located on slabs at grade.
Councillor Holmes suggested she would move a motion to lower the building height from three to two storeys. Staff advised that the building height is 10 metres, 0.7 metres lower than what is permitted by the underlying zone.
Mr. Lindsay stated lowering the height to 8 metres would modify the existing zoning, when the application currently meets performance standards. Following this information, Councillor Holmes withdrew her motion.
At Councillor Holmes request, Chair Hume undertook to review with the Committee Coordinator how LACAC recommendations are reflected in the Agenda and to ensure LACAC Minutes are also included. Ms. Coutts and the Chair noted time constraints with respect to including the Minutes.
The Committee proceeded to the vote on the LACAC recommendations.
Moved by D. Holmes:
That
the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning
and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject
the demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue, a property located in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
2. Reject
the application to construct two groups of three townhouses, according to
drawings by David Mailing, Architects, received on February 11, 2008.
LOST
YEAS (3): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes
NAYS (6): J. Harder, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate, P. Hume
The departmental recommendations were considered and voted on.
Moved by G. Hunter:
That
the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve
the demolition of 132 Stanley Avenue, a property located in the New Edinburgh
Heritage Conservation District and designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act.
2. Approve the application to construct
two groups of three townhouses, according to drawings by David Mailing,
Architects, received on February 11, 2008.
CARRIED, with M. Bellemare, C. Doucet and D. Holmes dissenting.