|
2. Application
for demolition and application for new construction at 545 springfield road,
a property located in the rockcliffe park heritage conservation district and
designated under part v of the ontario
heritage act DEMANDE DE DÉMOLITION ET DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE
CONSTRUCTION AU 545, CHEMIN SPRINGFILD, PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE
CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKLIFFE PARK ET DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE
L’ARTICLE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO |
Committee recommendationS
That Council:
1.
Approve the application to
demolish 545 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.
2. Approve the application for new construction at 545
Springfield Road, according to plans by Barry J. Hobin and Associates,
Architects, received on August 20, 2009 and included in Document 5.
RecommandationS DU Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve la demande de démolition du
545, chemin Springfield, district de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe
Park;
2. approuve la demande de nouvelle construction
au 545, chemin Springfield, conformément aux plans de Barry J. Hobin and
Associates, architectes, reçus le 20 août 2009 et inclus dans le document 5.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 2 September 2009 (ACS2008-ICS-PGM-0171).
2. LACAC
Extract of Draft Minutes of 1 October 2009.
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
21 September 2009/ 21
septembre 2009
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 : John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development
Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613)
580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the
application to demolish 545 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage
Conservation District.
2.
Approve the application for new construction at 545 Springfield
Road, according to plans by Barry J. Hobin and Associates, Architects, received
on August 20, 2009 and included in Document 5.
The 90-day time period
under the Ontario Heritage Act
expires on November 19, 2009.
(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 demande de démolition
du 545, chemin Springfield, district de conservation du patrimoine de
Rockcliffe Park;
2.
d’approuver la demande de nouvelle
construction au 545, chemin Springfield, conformément aux plans de Barry J.
Hobin and Associates, architectes, reçus le 20 août 2009 et inclus dans le
document 5.
(Le délai de 90 jours prévu par la Loi sur
le patrimoine de l’Ontario expire le 19 novembre 2009.)
(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 545 Springfield Road is located within 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). This report has been prepared because the consent of City Council is required before demolition and new construction can proceed within the District.
The subject property consists of two vacant lots and a bungalow, constructed in 1985. The house was not included on the list of significant buildings compiled by the former Rockcliffe Park LACAC.
DISCUSSION
The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study contains Management Guidelines that are intended to protect and enhance those elements in the Village that contribute to its heritage character as defined in the Study. 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 (4.iv 1, 4-5) relevant to this application stress that:
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.
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.
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.
Existing building
The existing building dates from the 1980s. It is a one-storey bungalow with a later front porch. Although attractive, the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association states that, “The existing house dates from the 1980s and does not have historical significance.” As far as architectural significance, it is not a noteworthy example of 1980s architecture and has no special significance as the example of a style or the work of an architect. It is the only house facing this block of Springfield Road, on the east and west sides of the street and like most buildings in the District, is well landscaped, making a pleasant contribution to the streetscape (see Documents 2 to 4).
New building
The building proposed for the site is a two-storey structure with a hipped roof, wide overhanging eaves executed in smooth and rough-cut stone (see Document 5). The front entrance is recessed to create a small courtyard entranceway, with two bays with extensive glazing facing Springfield Road. The large proportion of glass to stone wall continues on all sides, serving to lighten the mass of the building mass. There is a detached gazebo in the rear yard.
As proposed, the new construction at 545 Springfield Road will respect the character and cultural heritage value of this block. Its stone construction will complement the stone and stucco construction found throughout the heritage district, and its contemporary design will fit in well with, but not overpower, the eclectic mix of Georgian and Tudor houses found nearby and throughout the District. It will preserve generous open spaces on all elevations, in keeping with the stated goals for the District (see Document 5).
Landscape
The proposed building is the only building that faces Springfield Road in this block. It faces east across Springfield to the rear yard of Stornoway, the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition. The sides of 299 Hillcrest and 280 Thorold Roads face Springfield Road at the north and south ends of the block. This unusual block layout means that there is no immediate street context for the house.
The proposed new building will cover roughly the same footprint as the existing, with some previously built-upon areas to the rear open and others to be built upon. Overall, the difference between the footprint of the old and new is very small. The existing trees along the lot lines will remain. The current garage entrance is located to the south of the house; this will be removed, and landscaped and access to the garage will be moved to the north side of the new house. It will be below grade and the basement level garage will be accessed from a paved court. The garage access and parking area will be largely inconspicuous from the street as a large existing mature oak tree and a new low berm of coniferous trees will be planted to screen the parking area. The rear yard will feature a combination of lawns and terraces, gently falling to a pool. The existing circular driveway will be narrowed and additional landscaping will be included (see Document 6).
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) heritage sub-committee initially met to review the elevations and landscape plan for this property and communicated its opinion of the project to the applicant and staff (see Document 7). The current plan addresses concerns of the RPRA as follows: the footprint of the building and overall mass has been reduced primarily facing Springfield Road on the south side; the green space around the building has been increased through the reduced parking area on the north side, through the narrowing of the driveway by one metre and the realignment of the driveway with additional landscaping to screen the parking area from the street. The RPRA reviewed the amended drawings and its comments were received on September 14, 2009. Although the applicant amended the designs to address concerns shared by staff and the RPRA, that group is still not satisfied with the amended design because a minor variance to the former Rockcliffe Zoning By-law will be required before development can proceed (see Document 8).
Conclusion
The Department acknowledges the RPRA’s continued opposition to the proposed project, however, it supports the application for demolition and new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District as the proposed new building at 545 Springfield Road, with its contemporary design and creative landscaping will be a positive addition to the Village and this block of Springfield Road and will enhance the heritage character of the area. Furthermore, the applicant reduced the width of the building on the lot and improved the landscape plan at the request of the Department. As a result of these changes, the Department believes that the building is an appropriate intervention to the heritage conservation district and is consistent with the approved Management Guidelines for the District.
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners and residential tenants 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.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association heritage sub-committee reviewed the elevations and landscape plan for this property. The RPRA’s comments are included as Documents 7 and 8. These comments were addressed through a reduction in the size of the building and the improvement of the landscape plan to allow for additional soft landscaping and less pavement as noted in the discussion above.
Councillor’s
Comments
The
RPRA’s opposition to this proposal is based on the plans as they existed on
August 7, 2009. The staff report says
that, as a result of the RPRA’s comments regarding footprint & massing as
well as green space, the criticisms have been addressed in various ways. I have asked representatives of the RPRA if
the changes do in fact introduce changes sufficient to remove their opposition
to the proposal. Unfortunately, no
answer is possible because no one at the RPRA (and its development review
sub-committee) appears to have seen the modifications in question.
As the representative on City Council for this part of Ottawa for almost 15 years, I have learned to respect the advice provided by this sub-committee of knowledgeable volunteers from the former Village of Rockcliffe Park. I believe that the points that were raised in their letter of August 7th were of sufficient importance to cause me to support their recommendation that demolition be refused.
The only circumstances which would cause me to change that view would be information regarding the adequacy of the changes introduced since that date. I can only hope that the City would, in future, share any changes that result from constructive criticisms with those having made the effort to offer such advice in a timely manner. This would allow for their views on the final proposal to be reflected in the published report.
Response
A follow up meeting was held between the RPRA and the architect on September 7, 2009 and new comments were received on September 14, 2009 (Document 8). In that document, the RPRA maintains its opposition to the application.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
If this application is refused and the matter appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board, it is anticipated that a two to three day hearing would
result. The estimated cost to the City
would be $20,000 to $25,000.
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 time period expires on November 19, 2009.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Bird’s eye view
Document 3 Aerial photograph
Document 4 Photos of Existing House
Document 5 Elevations of proposed new construction
Document 6 Proposed landscaping plan
Document 7 First letter received from Rockcliffe Park Resident’s Association
Document 8 Second letter received from the Rockcliffe Park Resident’s Association
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Branch, Legislative Services to notify the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision to permit the demolition and new construction at 545 Springfield Road.
FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN DOCUMENT
6
Comments of the Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association on the proposed demolition at 545 Springfield Road
The
Management Guidelines tests for recommending approval of demolition in
the Rockcliffe Park heritage conservation district are:
“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.”
Historical significance
The existing house dates
from the 1980s and does not have historical significance.
Architectural
significance
Its architectural significance
is that it is a well-proportioned bungalow of its period with a good front
entrance and a garage tucked out of sight.
Contribution to its
streetscape
Its low height contributes
to the distinctive open-space character of the Montagu–Thorold–Springfield
block. (See Humphrey Carver’s The
Cultural Landscape of Rockcliffe Park Village pp.37-38 for the heritage
value of this open space.)
Appropriateness of the
proposed redevelopment
The height of the proposed
house would be roughly the same as the heights of the two adjacent houses, 299
Hillcrest & 280 Thorold. It would
occupy much the same footprint as the existing house but extend southward. Its two-storey width facing Springfield
would be twice that of the Springfield side of 299 Hillcrest. This would be a huge mass for this street
and twice the size of the largest house on its block, 299 Hillcrest. The apparent size would be somewhat
mitigated by its shape of two wings facing the road with the central section
well recessed. Most of the large lot is
to have hard surfaces, which is not appropriate in this heritage district.
The very large mass facing
Springfield is out of scale for its streetscape and block, and therefore the
proposed redevelopment is not appropriate.
This proposal would extend
a disturbing development in the Village of replacing existing houses with ones
that are substantially larger, and of building on or paving most of the green
space of lots. We deplore this trend
because it diminishes a core concept of the community’s development since 1864,
the concept of houses in a park, houses set in generous gardens, a village
where the landscape setting of buildings is more important than their
individual designs. This concept is a
core reason for the designation of Rockcliffe as a heritage conservation
district.
Is the existing building
of little significance?
While lacking historical
significance, we think it does have architectural value as a good quality
bungalow of its period, but it is not an architectural feature of the community. Its most important contribution is a
landscape one, the low height in a block that has an open-space character.
Is the proposed
replacement building ‘sympathetic to the surrounding environment’?
Its clean modern exterior
treatment, large eaves and low roof line, would fit well on its street. It would add a good contemporary design to
the village’s eclectic inventory. But
the out-of-scale mass of the building facing Springfield would not be
sympathetic to the surrounding environment.
Conclusion
To recommend demolition, it
is necessary to show two conditions:
1.
the
existing house has little significance and
2.
the proposed
replacement is sympathetic to the surrounding environment.
While the significance of
the existing building is slight, the Springfield mass of the proposed
replacement is inappropriately large for its surroundings. Therefore the RPRA recommends against
demolition.
A similar design with
reduced mass facing Springfield could well be an appropriate replacement.
Brian Dickson
President
cc Jacques Legendre (by
email)
cc RPRA Board (by email)
cc Heritage and Site Plan
Committee (by email)
cc Barry Hobin (by email)
Comments on the revised design for 545
Springfield Road
The Development Review Subcommittee of the Rockcliffe Park
Residents Association met with architect Barry Hobin on September 9 to be
briefed on revisions to his design, revisions made in response to the letter
from the RPRA President of 7 August that expressed opposition to the large size
of the proposed building and to the amount of hard surface in the landscape
plan.
The north – south dimension of the proposed house has been
reduced by 10 to 12 feet, reducing the mass of the façade facing
Springfield. The north – south
dimension is now only slightly greater than that of the existing house.
The paved area for vehicles on the north side has been
reduced, providing more green space between the paved area and the north
property line.
The Subcommittee applauds these revisions but cannot
support the revised design as it still does not conform to the zoning by-law.
The floor space index ratio (FSI) substantially exceeds the maximum permitted
under the definition of FSI of the former Village Zoning By-law 2000-8. This definition, which supports and
reinforces the character of the heritage district, remains in effect because of
an appeal by the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association to the OMB. Should demolition of the existing house be
approved, the new building would be constructed on an empty site and therefore
there is no compelling reason why the building cannot conform to the FSI limit.
Should the currently proposed structure be further reduced
so that no variance to the FSI is required, the Subcommittee could recommend
approval of the demolition of the existing house and approval of the design for
a replacement.
Development Review Subcommittee
Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
14 September 2009