|
1. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 90
GUIGUES AVENUE IN THE LOWERTOWN WEST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DEMANDE VISANT À
TRANSFORMER LA PROPRIÉTÉ SITUÉE AU 225, CHEMIN CLOVERDALE, DANS LE DISTRICT
DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK, ET DÉSIGNÉE AUX TERMES DE
LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO
|
Committee recommendations as
amended
That Council:
1.
Approve the construction of a three-storey apartment building at 90
Guigues Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District according
to plans submitted by Sarah Fulford on March 22, 2010 and included as Documents
4 and 5.
2.
Issue the heritage permit with a
two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3.
Delegate authority for minor
design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management
Department.
4.
That the owner of 90 Guigues
Avenue provide repair of the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue prior to
construction of the new addition to 90 Guigues Avenue.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this
application under the Ontario Heritage
Act will expire on, June 20, 2010)
(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 modifÉes DU Comité
Que le Conseil :
1.
approuve la construction d’un immeuble
d’habitation de trois étages au 90, rue Guigues, dans le district de
conservation du patrimoine de la Basse-Ville Ouest, conformément aux plans qui
ont été soumis par Sarah Fulford le 22 mars 2010 et qui font
l’objet des documents 4 et 5;
2.
délivre le permis en matière de patrimoine qui
expirera deux ans après la date de délivrance;
3. délègue au directeur
général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance le pouvoir
d’apporter de légères modifications à la conception;
4. demande au propriétaire du 90,
avenue Guigues de réparer le mur du côté ouest du 104, avenue Guigues avant le
début des travaux de construction au 90, avenue Guigues.
(Note : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours
d’examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, prendra fin le 20 juin 2010.)
Note : 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.)
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability,
dated 20 April 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0090).
2. OBHAC
Extract of Draft Minutes of 6 May2010.
3. Extract of Draft Minutes, 25 May 2010.
Report to/Rapport au :
Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa
and / et
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
20 April 2010 / le
20 avril 2010
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 : Richard Kilstrom,
Acting Manager/Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban
Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de
la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0090
|
|
SUBJECT:
|
Application for new construction at 90 guigues AVENUE in the
lowertown west heritage conservation district
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE construction AU 90, RUE guigues, DANS LE DISTRICT
DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that
Council:
- Approve the
construction of a three-storey apartment building at 90 Guigues Avenue in
the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District according to plans
submitted by Sarah Fulford on March 22, 2010 and included as Documents 4
and 5.
- Issue the heritage
permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3.
Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager
of the Planning and Growth Management Department.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration
of this application under the Ontario
Heritage Act will expire on, June 20, 2010)
(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 le patrimoine bâti d'Ottawa recommande au Comité de
l'urbanisme et de l'environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil :
- D’approuver
la construction d’un immeuble d’habitation de trois étages au 90, rue Guigues,
dans le District de conservation du patrimoine de la Basse-Ville Ouest,
conformément aux plans qui ont été soumis par Sarah Fulford le 22 mars
2010 et qui font l’objet des documents 4 et 5.
- De
délivrer le permis en matière de patrimoine qui expirera deux ans après la
date de délivrance.
- De
déléguer au directeur général, Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de
la croissance, le pouvoir d’apporter de légères modifications à la
conception.
(Nota : Le délai
réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario,
prendra fin le 20 juin 2010.)
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
This report has been prepared because
the Ontario Heritage Act requires
that City Council approve all new construction within a heritage conservation
district following review by its municipal heritage committee. An application under the Ontario Heritage Act has been received for a new building to be
constructed beside the existing structure at 90 Guigues Avenue. That structure, also known as the
“Appartements Guigues,” is a Category Two building, located in the Lowertown
West Heritage Conservation District, created in 1994, By-law 1994-92
(see Documents 1 to 3)
The existing building was constructed in
the 1860s, as a two-and-a-half-storey, gable roofed, stone structure. From 1868 until 1873, it was used as the St.
Patrick’s Orphan Asylum, becoming a hotel in the 1870s and a private residence
in 1878, when noted genealogist Cypien Tanguay lived there. In 1925, the gable roof was removed, and a
third storey was added, transforming the building into a three-storey,
flat-roofed structure with a cornice. The former roofline is discernable on the
east and west facades of the building. It was at this point that the building
became “Appartements Guigues.” The
building has served this function ever since.
A bracketed, overhanging entrance
portico and rectangular and semi-circular windows distinguish the front façade
(see Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form, Document 4).
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
The Lowertown West Heritage Conservation
District Study anticipates that there will be change in the District as it
evolves. It contains “Guidelines” to
manage change in the district and to ensure that its heritage character
endures. The “Heritage Character Statement” for the area describes it as “…a rich collection of residential buildings
which demonstrate the early history of Lowertown and its gradual evolution
through time. This evolution through time is a crucial characteristic of the
area, and it requires a recognition of the heritage importance of both the
earliest buildings and later buildings” (for a full copy of the “Heritage
Character Statement, see Document 5). This evolutionary growth pattern has resulted
in streets that are densely packed, either with no driveways, or with access to
rear yards, or access provided by narrow driveways or carriageways and with
minimal side yard setbacks. This street
pattern, that also features houses of different styles, eras and forms, side by
side, is a distinguishing feature of the heritage conservation district.
The Lowertown
West Heritage Conservation District study “Guidelines” for infill construction
in the District follow. They are
intended to reflect the existing conditions and evolutionary nature of the
district. They address infill buildings
in two sections; Section 7.5.5 and 7.4.1, below.
7.5.5 Guidelines for Infill Buildings
Infill buildings may be either additions to existing structures or new
structures on vacant lots.
Recommendations:
1.
Infill buildings must respect the scale, set-backs,
architectural design and materials of neighbouring buildings.
2.
Small scale development, working within existing lot
divisions, should be encouraged.
3.
Contemporary design should contribute to and enhance
the continuing architectural evolution of the District. Infill buildings should
not attempt to appear older than they are.
4.
Infill buildings should contribute to the
streetscape as outlined in Section 7.4.-Streetscape Guidelines.
7.4.1 Residential Streets (East-West Streets)
A. Building Pattern:
The pattern of building development, the consistency of the building
setback line, the narrow pattern of lot divisions, and the consistent height of
the buildings within the residential area are fundamental characteristics which
give distinction and form to the streetscapes of the Lowertown neighbourhood.
Recommendations:
These recommendations apply to both new buildings as well as
additions and alterations to existing buildings on the street.
- Maintain the building front yard
setback line established by the existing neighbouring buildings on the
street.
- Maintain the general overall height
of buildings as established by the existing neighbouring buildings on the
street.
- When development takes place across
several property lines, encourage the articulation of the original lot
divisions in the façade of the new buildings so that the buildings read as
a combination of smaller elements.
Proposed Development
The proposed
development is a flat-roofed, three-storey, L-shaped, brick and stone
structure, separated from the existing “Appartements Guigues” by a gated
walkway opening to a central courtyard. The proposed building is 7.8 metres in
width, roughly the same width as the adjacent buildings on the street, and at
three storeys, is the same height as the heritage building on the lot. The
proposed building will have a cornice, echoing that feature of the existing
building. Similarly the windows will be
in the same plane, to reflect the position of the existing windows. There will
be a slightly projecting, two storey stone frontispiece on the front façade
that is roughly the same height of the red brick building to the east, thereby
continuing the rhythm of the street.
There will be a recessed single-width garage door leading to underground
parking adjacent to this feature. The main entrance of the apartment will open
from the central courtyard (for a description of the project, please see
“Heritage Planning Rationale, Document 6 and for Elevations and Perspectives,
Documents 7 and 8).
Minor variances
to the zoning by-law are required. The variances required are to allow an
additional building to be constructed on the lot and to vary side and rear yard
setbacks. In addition site plan approval will be required. It is anticipated
that these approvals will be sought sequentially.
The proposed
development conforms to the “Guidelines” contained within the heritage district
study, above. The building is the same height, has roughly the same setback from
the street, and is similar in width as its neighbours. Its design expression
echoes and is inspired by the “Appartements Guigues” next door. The narrow
recessed garage door creates a void on the street, similar to the laneways and
carriageways throughout the District.
The building’s understated contemporary design does not overwhelm the
neighbouring buildings and its materials are consistent with its neighbour to
the west.
Recommendation 2
The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide
any timelines for the expiry of heritage permits. A two-year expiry date is
recommended to ensure that projects are completed in a timely fashion and
according to the approved heritage permit.
Recommendation 3
Occasionally
minor changes to a building emerge during the design and construction phase.
This recommendation is included to allow for minor design changes faithful to
the character of the building as described in the “Heritage Permit, to be
approved internally, rather than by initiating another heritage approval process.
Conclusion
The Planning and
Growth Management Department supports this application as it conforms to the
Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District Guidelines and will complement
the existing character of the heritage conservation district. It is a
contemporary infill that is both respectful of the heritage conservation
district and of its own time.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners were notified of
this project by letter of the date of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee (OBHAC) and Planning and Environment Committee meetings and were
provided with comment sheets to be returned to OBHAC.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of this application.
The Lowertown West Community Association is
aware of this application.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
Georges Bedard,
the Ward Councillor, has no objection to the proposed project.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no legal/risk management implications
associated with this report.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
F2 - Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood from and the
limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly
with established communities.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no
financial implications associated with this report.
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 June 20, 2010.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Bird’s Eye View
Document 3 Street View
Document 4 Heritage Survey and Evaluation Form
Document 5 Heritage Character Statement, Lowertown West
Document 6 Extract from Heritage Planning Rationale
(CHIS)
Document 7 Elevations
Document 8 Perspectives
DISPOSITION
APPLICATION FOR New construction
AT 90 GUIGUES AVENUE IN THE LOWERTOWN WEST HERITAGE coNServation district
DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU 90, RUE GUIGUES, DANS LE DISTRICT DE
CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0090 Rideau-Vanier
(12)
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the application, which is for a new construction in
the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District. Ms. Coutts spoke to the property’s history
and provided numerous aerial views of the property to provide context to its
surrounding neighbours. She described
the character of the community, and addressed the District’s character
statement, an extract of which was included in the staff report.
Ms. Coutts told OBHAC that a building
permit for the site is still pending, and that the applicant intends to submit
other applications for site plans and minor variances.
The Department supports this application
because the proposed setbacks, scale and height, and materials, all respect the
guidelines for infill and the new construction integrates well into the
neighbourhood.
Members asked staff for clarification on the
proposed greenspace on the property, as well as proposed materials for each
component of the new construction. The
architect was also present to respond to inquiries, and provided additional
images of the proposed development and sample materials.
Brook Burdfield, resident on Guigues Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application,
and provided a handout (copy kept on file
in the City Clerk’s office pursuant to the City of Ottawa’s Records Retention
and Disposition Bylaw). Mr.
Burdfield believed the proposed development is inappropriate for its location,
as it is of an ultra-modern design in one of the City’s oldest
neighbourhoods. Mr. Burdfield also
reminded members that currently, the largest multi-unit dwelling on the block
contains 4 units, whereas this proposed development would contain 6 units. He felt this was too large a development for
the location and would adversely affect the surrounding properties, as well as
the District’s plans to apply to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
David Small, resident on Guigues Avenue, spoke in opposition to the
application. Though Mr. Small
appreciated the professionalism of both the owner and architect, he felt the
proposed development was inappropriate for the District, and believed it would lead
towards gentrifying the community. Mr.
Small also opposed the removal of several mature trees in the rear portion of
the property, and opposed the height of the development.
Linda Discombe, resident on Guigues Avenue, spoke in opposition to the
application. She told members that the
current building on the property is the closest to the street and the highest
on the block. As such, though the owner
has submitted a proposal for a new construction that matches the setback and
height of the building on the property, it does not match the neighbouring
properties.
Chantal Patenaude, resident on Guigues
Avenue, spoke in
opposition to the application. As the
neighbour directly next to the proposed new construction, Ms. Patenaude had
reservations on the scale, setbacks, and height of the development. She told members of OBHAC that she fears the
sightlines from her veranda will be completely blocked by the large wall on the
west side of the proposed development.
The following correspondence
was received and is held on file in the City Clerk’s office pursuant to the
City of Ottawa’s Records Retention and Disposition Bylaw:
·
Letter dated 3 May 2010 from Craig Szelestowski
& Anne Wiltshire, opposing the application.
·
Comment Sheet dated 5 May 2010 from Jacqueline
Swain, opposing the application.
·
Letters dated 6 May 2010 from Chantal Patenaude,
opposing the application.
·
Letter dated 6 May 2010 from Nicole Faubert,
opposing the application.
The owner of the property responded to some
of the delegates’ concerns.
Members felt that this application was an
interesting infill, and met all the requirements outlined in the HCD’s
guidelines. Members had a discussion on
the west wall of the proposed new construction, and agreed that the wall’s
protrusion and massing was inappropriate given its close proximity to the
neighbouring building, and greatly affected the sightlines from both the west
and east views of the property.
The owner agreed to work with the
architect, City staff, and neighbours to address these concerns.
Moved by A. Fyfe,
That the Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend
that Council:
5.
Approve the construction of a three-storey
apartment building at 90 Guigues Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation
District according to plans submitted by Sarah Fulford on March 22, 2010 and
included as Documents 4 and 5.
6.
Issue the heritage permit with a two-year
expiry date from the date of issuance.
7.
Delegate authority for minor design changes
to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department.
(Note:
The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on,
June 20, 2010)
(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.)
CARRIED
DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE
CONSTRUCTION AU 90, RUE GUIGUES, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE
DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST
ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0090 Rideau Vanier (12)
The
following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held
on file with the City Clerk:
·
Letter dated 21 May 2010 from Chantal Patenaude,
and accompanying location photos
Sally
Coutts, heritage planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s
rationale for recommending approval. She
did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file
with the City Clerk.
In
response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Coutts explained that the
proposed construction at 90 Guigues would require variances to be granted by
the Committee of Adjustment. One
variance would be required because the development did not meet the minimum lot
size for a Planned Unit Development (PUD.)
The site would also require a variance as it did not meet the required
rear lot setback for a PUD, although the required amenity space was to be
supplied elsewhere on the lot rather than in the rear. Staff also requested a variance to the front
yard setback in order that the new construction matches the setback of the
existing building.
In
response to questions from Councillor Monette, Ms. Coutts confirmed that the
location of the proposed building was currently vacant and is used for
parking. She also confirmed that the
there would be five underground parking spaces on the development, which meets
the by-law requirements.
Committee
then heard from the following public delegations:
Craig
Szelestowski, spoke in opposition to the development as
presented. He explained that, while he
was in favour of increasing density in the Lowertown West neighbourhood, he had
concerns the specific application. He
suggested that the proposed development was incompatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood, and did not take the development of the community in a positive
direction. His specific concerns are
summarized below:
·
With respect to compatibility, Mr. Szelestowski
expressed concern that, although the guidelines speak to respecting the design
and materials of the neighbourhood, some of the materials proposed for the new
construction did not achieve this. For
example, the plans indicate one side of the building was to be metal cladding,
and there is a suggestion white brick would be used, which he suggested were
not materials compatible with the neighbourhood. Also, it is not yet clear what kind of stone
would be used, and if it will be compatible.
·
The proposal includes a garage door, and there are
no other garage doors on the street.
·
He expressed further concern that the large trees
in front of the lot would need to be removed, further emphasizing the
incongruence of the building and reducing the area’s green space
·
He expressed concern that the construction would
impact the business of the adjacent Bed and Breakfast at 104 Guigues Avenue by cutting
off its light and traffic to the development rendering its veranda unusable.
·
He noted that at a recent community association
meeting, he had had received feedback from the community association members
and the ward councillor that the proposed development was incompatible.
Councillor
Doucet, referencing guidelines that require a porch and a certain amount of
area devoted to the street presence, suggested the garage was too dominant a
presence. Ms. Coutts noted that there is
no heritage district conservation guideline addressing that issue and explained
staff’s assessment was that the design addressed the street in an adequate
fashion. She noted that the Heritage
Conservation District is approved by Council and staff considers those
guidelines ahead of the Guidelines for Infill Construction in the neighbourhood. On the issue of garage doors, she noted that
a traditional feature of the immediate neighbourhood was carriageway entrances.
On the staff felt the setback and design of the proposed underground garage
entrance was similar in character to those carriageway features, and thus felt
it was appropriate to have the garage door.
In
response to questions from Councillor Doucet regarding the light impact on the
adjacent property, Ms. Coutts explained that the development would block light
to one window on the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue, which lights the
stairway; however, the applicant had offered to pay for the installation of a
skylight so that the stairway would be lit.
Chantal Patenaude, owner of 104 Guigues Avenue, spoke in
opposition to the proposed construction.
She also provided a written submission and location photos of her
property, which were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk. Ms. Patenaude outlined the following reasons
for her opposition to the proposal:
·
The construction would be too close to her
house. She suggested the proximity of
the new construction to her western wall would block three windows, the rear
balcony, and the side of the front veranda and second floor balcony.
·
The proximity of the building would deny her access
to make repairs to the western wall, veranda and second floor balcony.
·
The wall that would protrude at the front of the
property would completely block the side of the front porch and second-story
balcony, block the view of the new building, and detract from the heritage
beauty of her home. She expressed the desire to have that wall indented.
·
The proposed construction would result in loss of
livelihood. As the operator of a Bed and
Breakfast at 104 Guigues, she suggested the new development would greatly
affect the number of tourists staying, both during and after construction.
·
The proposed design did not conform to the heritage
guidelines and, due to its height and setback, would not fit in with
surrounding buildings with the exception of the existing building on the
property.
·
She noted that all other buildings on the street
were narrow, deep homes with driveways, whereas this development would be built
to the limits of the lot, and this does not fit with the design of the street,
and it would be the only building without a front entrance and front porch.
·
Although modern in design, the building could still
retain some architectural details from the past to make it less bulky, more
charming, and help it blend in with the neighbourhood. She cited the nearby Montmartre infill
development at 124 Guigues Avenue as an example of compatible development.
·
She also expressed concerns with respect to noise
and traffic.
In
response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Patenaude explained the
location of the three windows on the west wall of her property, one at the
front of the house, illuminating the entrance, hallway and stairwell ant the
other two located in the kitchen, providing light and ventilation. Councillor Hunter expressed surprise that windows
were permitted on the side of 104 Guigues, given that it was built at the
property line.
In
response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Coutts explained that there
would be 0.3 metres between the new construction and 104 Guigues Ave at the
closest point, moving farther apart towards the back of the properties. She noted that the applicant had offered to
completely repair the western wall of 104 Guigues Ave. prior to the
construction. She indicated, while there
was currently no legal agreement to that effect, it could be added as a
condition of approval.
Anne
Wiltshire, spoke in opposition to the proposed construction. She suggested that, while the proposal could
technically meet the guidelines, in the context of the neighbourhood it would
be out of place. She noted there were
examples of good development that had taken place in the preceding years,
citing the Montmartre development as one example. She noted that this very old section of
Ottawa was quite small, and suggested its look, feel and character was worth
preserving for future generations.
Barbara
Fulford spoke in support of the proposed construction. She noted that she was the mother of the
applicant, and had been the original purchaser of 90 Guigues Avenue in
1988. She noted the building had been in
poor condition the time of purchase, and her family had put a great deal of
money into fixing it up. She provided
some background of the history of the property, and noted that the
gentrification of Guigues Ave. had begun at the time of their purchase. She emphasized that the applicant was not a
“fly by night” developer. She suggested
the applicant was genuinely interested in environmental considerations and the
concerns of the neighbours, and were taking those concerns into consideration
and addressing them as best she could.
Ms.
Coutts clarified that staff had received a memo from the ward Councillor,
Councillor Bédard, indicting his support of the project. She also indicated that the Community
association was formally circulated on the application and had never replied to
staff.
Sarah
Fulford, owner and applicant, spoke in support of the proposed construction.
She did so with the aid of a Power Point presentation, which is held on file
with the City Clerk. The following
summarizes the points raised in her presentation:
·
Her family had owned the building since 1988, and
had a commitment to heritage.
·
The site of the proposed building is currently
gravel parking lot
·
She had approached the heritage committee to ensure
the heritage guidelines were being interpreted correctly.
·
She had hired Moriyama and Teshima, reputable
Canadian architects responsible for the building such as the Canadian War
Museum, Ottawa City Hall and the Aga Khan building on Sussex Drive.
·
While not everyone understood the contemporary
style of the building, it had clean lines and proportion, with interest gained
from different levels of construction.
·
She reviewed the architects’ proposed concept plan,
layout, and massing, via the PowerPoint.
Features of the concept plan included a courtyard, echoing the
courtyards in the Byward Market area, underground parking, gardens, apartments
with views, high ceilings, high-efficiency, and accessible units. Vines and
trees would be encouraged, which will soften some of the lines, and would be a
green roof, giving natural air conditioning and insulation.
·
In addition to contemporary trends in architecture,
the proposal includes contemporary trends in high-efficiency technology, noting
such technologies only pay off if one retains the building for many years. She noted six apartments are required in
order to finance the project
·
She sympathized with the neighbour at 104 Guigues
with regards to the proximity to the property line, but suggested little
benefit in moving the building slightly further away. She suggested that the three-foot setback
required by the by-law would not give much more benefit and use over what is
proposed.
·
She reiterated the offer to fix the west wall of
104 Guigues so that it would be in good shape before construction, mitigating
concerns about repairs. She noted that they were friends, though on the
opposite sides of the issue.
·
She acknowledged that the existing building was the
exception, but suggested it was also the nicest building on the street, and the
first build.
·
She suggested that the porches and balconies
provided street life to the development.
In
response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Fulford confirmed that she
had offered to install a skylight in 104 Guigues Avenue to preserve light in
the front stairway that would be blocked by the new construction. She noted that, even if she were to build the
required distance from the property line, the light to that particular window
would still be obstructed.
Having
concluded all public delegations, Committee then considered the report
recommendations.
Moved by
Councillor D. Holmes:
That the owner of 90 Guigues Avenue provide
repair of the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue prior to construction of the new
addition to 90 Guigues Avenue.
CARRIED
Committee
then approved the recommendations of staff and the Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee, as amended.
That the Ottawa Built
Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee
recommend that Council:
8.
Approve the construction of a three-storey apartment building at 90
Guigues Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District according
to plans submitted by Sarah Fulford on March 22, 2010 and included as Documents
4 and 5.
9.
Issue the heritage permit with a
two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
10.
Delegate authority for minor
design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management
Department.
11.
That the
owner of 90 Guigues Avenue provide repair of the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue
prior to construction of the new addition to 90 Guigues Avenue.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this
application under the Ontario Heritage
Act will expire on, June 20, 2010)
(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.)
CARRIED, as amended
