3. APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 80 MACKINNON ROAD, A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION ET DEMANDE D’AMÉNAGEMENT VISANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ DU 80, CHEMIN MACKINNON, SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK, DÉSIGNÉÉ AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

Committee recommendations as amended

That Council:

1. Approve the demolition of 80 MacKinnon Road and the application for new construction at 80 MacKinnon Road, a property designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with drawings by James Bell, David Mailing Architect Associates Inc. received on October 16, 2008, conditional on the closing and purchase of the lane being processed through the standard City process.

2. Delegate approval of any subsequent design changes of a minor nature to the Director of Planning.

Recommandations modifiÉe du Comité

Que le Conseil :

1. approuve la demande de démolition visant la propriété du 80, chemin MacKinnon et la demande d’aménagement sur la propriété du 80, chemin MacKinnon, désignée aux termes de la partie V de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, conformément aux plans de James Bell, David Mailing Architect Associates Inc. reçus le 16 octobre 2008, sous réserve de la fermeture et de l’acquisition de la voie par le biais du processus standard de la Ville.

2. délègue le pouvoir d’approuver les modifications mineures à la conception pouvant être apportées ultérieurement au directeur de l’Urbanisme.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 8 October 2008 (ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0212).

2. LACAC Extract of Draft Minutes of 16 October 2008.

3. Extract of Draft Minutes 41, 28 October 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

08 October 2008 / le 08 octobre 2008

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Approvals/Approbation des demandes d'aménagement, Planning Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme

(613) 580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca

Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Ref N°: ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0212

SUBJECT:

Application TO DEMOLISH AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 80 MACKINNON road, A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE ROCKCLIFFE park heritage conservation district AND designated under part v of the ontario heritage act

OBJET:

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

2. Delegate approval of any subsequent design changes of a minor nature to the Director of Planning.

(The 90-day period for this application will expire on December 24, 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.)

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil :

1. d’approuver la demande de démolition visant la propriété du 80, chemin MacKinnon et la demande d’aménagement sur la propriété du 80, chemin MacKinnon, désignée aux termes de la partie V de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, conformément aux plans de James Bell, David Mailing Architect Associates Inc. reçus le 25 septembre 2008.

2. de déléguer le pouvoir d’approuver les modifications mineures à la conception pouvant être apportées ultérieurement au directeur de l’Urbanisme.

(La période de 90 jours visant cette demande viendra à échéance le 24 décembre 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 building at 80 MacKinnon Road is located within the boundaries of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997 (see Document 1, Location Map and Document 2, Aerial Photograph). Constructed in the 1940s, it is not included on the list of properties identified by the former Village of Rockcliffe Park as having architectural significance. This report has been prepared because the consent of City Council is required before a building can be demolished and new construction can proceed within the District.

DISCUSSION

The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District was created in 1997. The Village of Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study contains Management Guidelines that are intended to protect and enhance those elements in the Village that contribute to the definition of heritage character. The Guidelines are not prescriptive, rather, they outline the principles to be

applied to future development, based on past experience. They are intended to guide the evolution of the Village as a picturesque landscape of buildings set in informal grounds, and where the soft landscape in particular ties together, and makes sense of, the irregular road layout, the diverse lot arrangements, and the eclectic mix of building styles. The Guidelines stress that:

1. Any application to demolish an existing building should be reviewed, with consideration of its historical and architectural significance, its contribution to its streetscape, and the appropriateness of the proposed redevelopment. Demolition should be recommended for approval only where the existing building is of little significance and the proposed redevelopment is sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

4. Any application to construct a new building or addition should be reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance the heritage character of the Village. New construction should be recommended for approval only where the siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment.

5. New buildings and additions should be of their own time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape. They should also be sited and designed so as to retain the existing topography. The use of natural materials should be encouraged.

The subject property is located on the south side of MacKinnon Road, a one block long street located between Minto Place and Birkenfels Road. The street is characterized by smaller houses, with open front yards. The existing house is a low stone structure, constructed in the 1940s, with later additions (see Photographs, Document 4). The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) Development Review Sub-committee undertook some research and architectural analysis on the structure prior to the development of plans for a replacement building. Its initial comment on the proposal was:

The RPRA Development Review Sub-committee has reviewed the proposal to demolish the house at 80 MacKinnon Road using the criteria of Recommendation 1 of the Buildings' section of Rockcliffe's Management Guidelines (see above). The house does have some historical and architectural merit, and makes a very positive contribution to the streetscape of MacKinnon Road in terms of scale and context. It sits very well in its garden, offering a continuity of landscape along the street. We are therefore concerned about its possible replacement and would only support demolition if the proposed redevelopment makes a contribution that is at least as positive to the streetscape.

This information was conveyed to the designer and arrangements were made for the RPRA Development Sub-committee to meet with him to provide input on the proposed structure and to determine whether or not its contribution to the streetscape was “at least as positive” as the existing building. After the meeting took place, the sub-committee forwarded the following advice/ comments on the project to the designer and to staff.

(1) Move the house back. It is set substantially further forward than the existing house. The front should be no closer to the road than the average of the two adjacent houses.

(2) The footprint is some 30% larger than the existing house. Because of the greatly increased mass and the extensive roof, the choice of high quality exterior materials and associated detailing therefore become critical factors in the acceptability of the design. For example, the soffits and fascias should be of wood. The roof should be of cedar shingles.

The design appears generally appropriate to the street and, with implementation of the recommendations above, it could be considered a reasonable replacement for the existing attractive house.

The applicant moved the house back from its original location, however, the provisions of former Rockcliffe By-law would have required a 7.3-metre setback (the average of the two adjacent houses) and the applicant has provided a 6.07-metre setback. The original proposed setback was 4.6 metres.

The applicant will use wood or a wood composite for the soffits and fascias and is exploring options for the shingles.

The house, after comments from the RPRA Development Sub-committee were incorporated into its design, is a one and a half storey, stucco and stone bungalow with a large hipped roof with cross gables lighting the second floor loft area, and a basement garage. The front façade will feature an open gable roofed entrance porch sheltering a glass-panelled front door with sidelights and a transom. The steel clad windows will be divided in a two thirds/one third pattern, the fascia and soffits will be wooden and stucco and natural stone will be the cladding material. The house, although clearly contemporary, evokes the Arts and Craft bungalow type, popular in the early decades of the 20^th century (see Document 4, Elevations).

When the design development phase was completed, including the changes above, the application under the Ontario Heritage Act was submitted to the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department. Staff further refined the plans when they were received by requesting the removal of a hedge across the front of the property in order to reinforce the open character of the street to the west. The proposed landscaping of the property after the removal of the front yard hedge will feature a side driveway leading down to the basement garage, a new front walk, foundation plantings and new evergreen trees in the rear yard. The side lots lines will feature a fence and hedge. The proposed landscaping will be consistent with the quality of other properties on the street (for a site plan and a landscape plan, see Document 5).

The Department supports this application because of the care taken to preserve and enhance the character of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District through the construction of a building that respects the cultural heritage value of the area (for a view of the existing and proposed streetscape, see Document 6).

CONSULTATION

The Rockcliffe Park Development Review Sub-committee met with the applicant as part of the consultation process. Its comments were incorporated into the design.

Adjacent property owners as well as area community associations were notified by letter of the date of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) 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.

The Ward Councillor, Jacques Legendre, is aware of this project.

Heritage Ottawa is aware of this application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

This application was completed within the 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act (the 90-day period for this application will expire on December 24, 2008).

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Aerial photograph

Document 3 Existing Building

Document 4 Elevations

Document 5 Site Plan/ Landscape Plan

Document 6 Streetscape

DISPOSITION

City Clerk’s Branch to notify the agent (James Bell, David Mailing, Architect, Associates, 1347 Stittsville Main Street, Suite One, Ottawa, Ontario, K2S 1C6) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3^rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision to approve the demolition of 80 MacKinnon Road and its replacement by the proposed building by James Bell, David Mailing, Architect.

APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH AND APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 80 MACKINNON ROAD, A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION ET DEMANDE D’AMÉNAGEMENT VISANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ DU 80, CHEMIN MACKINNON, SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK, DÉSIGNÉ AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0212 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Deferred on 28 October 2008 / Reporté le 28 octobre 2008

Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk. In response to questions from members, Ms. Coutts clarified the following points:

· The Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) recommended approval of the application.

· Minor variances with regard to setback, Floor Space Index (FSI) and lot coverage are no longer required for the project with the passage of the new comprehensive zoning by-law and minor changes.

· Many homes on the street have been altered or enlarged. The street has an interesting development pattern, as parts were developed in the 1920s and others later on.

· The project is a redevelopment. It does not involve multiple units or infill. Secondary dwelling units are not permitted in Rockcliffe Park.

James Bell and Lloyd Phillips, agents for the applicant, expressed support for the staff recommendations and confirmed minor variances are not required.

Iola Price, Vice-President, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA), spoke in opposition to the application. She addressed the issue of minor variances, noting that 26 per cent of the gross floor area was dropped by not finishing most of the basement. She commented that the proposed replacement building is too large. She requested that the scale be reduced, the building set back further, and the application denied or deferred until such time as the ownership of the parcel at the rear is settled. A copy of her full submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

Chair Hume clarified that the RPRA opposes the application, although it meets the tests of the zoning by-law. Ms. Price indicated it only meets the test with the inclusion of the parcel not yet purchased and by not finishing part of the basement. She reiterated that it is too large.

Andrew Robinson, on behalf of residents of MacKinnon Road, submitted a petition and submission, which are held on file. He indicated all residents on the street, with the exception of 100 MacKinnon, signed the petition. He stated that the street is narrow and comprised of relatively modest homes, set back from the street. Most of the homes were constructed during the early part of the 20^th century with the first built in 1874 and designed by Keifer. There are no sidewalks on MacKinnon, which maintains the village character of Rockcliffe Park. He suggested that the proposed home does not meet the heritage character of the street. He spoke fondly of the original home, which he characterized as a charming, non-typical post war construction with interesting fenestration. He noted the placement of the replacement home on the lot and its protruding front porch would ruin sightlines. He suggested the only solutions are to maintain the present house or limit the scale of a replacement building to respect the street and set it back no less than the current situation. Finally, he commented on the lack of clarity with regard to minor variances and the ownership of the rear parcel.

In response to a question from the Chair, Ms. Coutts explained that the average set back of the two adjacent properties is 7.3 metres. The proposed building would be set back 6.11 metres from the facing wall to the front property line. Mr. Robinson reiterated that the proposed building has a front porch that protrudes an additional two or three metres from the building. Chair Hume retorted that a porch could be added to the existing building while remaining compliant with the provisions of the new by-law.

Deborah Weinstein expressed her opposition to the proposal as a resident of MacKinnon Road, which she described as quaint. She specifically addressed issues of trust, transparency and honesty. She noted the applicant is a successful real estate developer, who knows how to play the system. In this regard, she touched on the decision not to finish part of the basement to avoid a minor variance application. She also contended that residents did not receive notice of the LACAC meeting. Ms. Weinstein’s email of November 13, 2008 is held on file with the City Clerk.

Don Sylvester, the rear neighbour, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated it involved the construction of a large home on a modest lot. He suggested the applicant is manipulating the system by only finishing part of the basement to avoid the rules. He surmised the basement would be completed at some point. He added that the application does not pass the test of reason.

Chair Hume confirmed the location of Mr. Sylvester’s home. He noted that as part of the building permit process, inspections are carried out to ensure construction is occurring respecting development approval. An order can be imposed to ensure compliance.

John Piazza, representing the owner of 60 Mackinnon Road, indicated his client would be negatively impacted by the proposal. He noted the view from her side porch would be impacted. He advised that an application to purchase the rear parcel would be before the Court on December 11. He stated his client would be opposing the sale. He suggested the solution would be to re-design the project and set the home back further. He provided photographs of the streetscape and his client’s home in relation to the subject site (held on file with the City Clerk).

Councillor Legendre indicated that this is a difficult file in which he was involved late in the process. He noted that the setback has been moved back, although not as far as previously required by the former Rockcliffe by-law. He indicated the issue of the ownership of the rear parcel must be resolved, noting he supports the sale to the applicant. He presented a motion, which was moved by Councillor Desroches, to address this point.

Chair Hume confirmed that portions of the rear lane were previously sold to the owners of 39 Buena Vista and 407 MacKinnon.

Mr. Marc indicated that the City’s process with regard to the lane is subject to delegated authority and would be concluded at the staff level.

In response to a question from Councillor Harder, Councillor Legendre confirmed the lane was never opened and the former owner was permitted to erect a fence in the unopened lane, despite not owning the parcel.

Mr. Bell indicated the proponent supports Councillor Legendre’s amendment without waiving the ability to deal with the purchase of a portion of the unopened lane in Court. He advised the purchase is only required because the applicant agreed to set the home further back at the request of the RPRA.

Replying to questions from Councillor Monette, Ms. Coutts confirmed the basement was not included in the calculation of the FSI under the former Rockcliffe zoning by-law.

Grant Lindsay, Manager of Development Approvals Central/West, also clarified that eaves were included in the FSI calculation under the old by-law; however, Mr. Bell added that they were included in the lot coverage calculation.

Moved by S. Desroches:

THAT the approval in Recommendation 1 be conditional on the closing and purchase of the lane being processed through the standard City process.

CARRIED

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the demolition of 80 MacKinnon Road and the application for new construction at 80 MacKinnon Road, a property designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with drawings by James Bell, David Mailing Architect Associates Inc. received on October 16, 2008, conditional on the closing and purchase of the lane being processed through the standard City process.

2. Delegate approval of any subsequent design changes of a minor nature to the Director of Planning.

CARRIED as amended