NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, 545 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, ROCKCLIFFE PARK

 

NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION ET CLAUSES RESTRICTIVES, 545, CHEMIN SPRINGFIELD, ROCKCLIFFE PARK

 

 

obhac recommendations, as amended

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the construction of a new building at 545 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, according to plans submitted included as Document 1, conditional upon the placing of a restrictive covenant on the title of the two Montagu Place lots such that the total FSI of the entire current parcel of four lots remains the same, in accordance with the FSI requirements of the more restrictive of the new City of Ottawa bylaw and the old (existing) Village of Rockcliffe Park bylaw 2000-8.

 

(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.)

 

(The 90 day time period under the Ontario Heritage Act expires on February 25, 2009.)

 

recommandations modifiées du ccpbo

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil d’approuver la construction d’un nouvel immeuble au 545, chemin Springfield, District de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park, conformément aux plans présentés inclus dans le Document 1, moyennant l’imposition de clauses restrictives sur le titre de propriété des deux terrains de la place Montagu, de façon que le rapport plancher-sol total pour l’ensemble des quatre terrains demeure le même, conformément aux exigences en matière de rapport plancher-sol du nouveau règlement de la Ville d’Ottawa et du règlement 2000-8 de l’ancien Village de Rockcliffe Park, les exigences les plus restrictives étant retenues.

 

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)

 

(La période de 90 jours prévue dans la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario prend fin le 25 février 2010)

 

Documentation

 

1.       Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 25 January 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0019).

 

2.       LACAC Extract of Draft Minutes of 4 February 2010.


Report to/Rapport au :

 

Ottawa Built Heritage 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

 

25 January 2010/ le 25 janvier 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 : 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

 

Rideau Rockcliffe (13)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0019

 

 

SUBJECT:

New CONSTRUCTION AND Restrictive Covenants, 545 springfield road, rockcliffe park

 

 

OBJET :

NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION ET CLAUSES RESTRICTIVES, 545, CHEMIN springfield, rockcliffe park

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the construction of a new building at 545 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, according to plans submitted included as Document 1, conditional upon the placing of restrictive covenants on the adjacent properties to ensure the preservation of landscaped open space above the requirements of the Zoning By-laws.

 

(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.)

 

(The 90 day time period under the Ontario Heritage Act expires on February 25, 2009.)

 

 

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 d’approuver la construction d’un nouvel immeuble au 545, chemin Springfield, District de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park, conformément aux plans présentés inclus dans le Document 1, à condition que des clauses restrictives soient établies pour les propriétés adjacentes, d’assurer la préservation des espaces paysagers, au-delà des conditions des règlements municipaux de zonage.

 

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)

 

(La période de 90 jours prévue dans la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario prend fin le 25 février 2010)

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 20, 2009 Barry Hobin and Associates, Architects submitted an application under the Ontario Heritage Act seeking Council approval to demolish the house located at 545 Springfield Road and to construct a new house in its place.  On October 6, 2009 the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) considered a report on the matter and supported the staff recommendation to allow the demolition and new construction. The report was subsequently considered by Planning and Environment Committee, which also supported the staff recommendation.  On October 28, 2009, City Council approved the demolition of the property. Council also supported the replacement of the existing building with a new building, subject to a condition that recommended 

 

That Council:

Approve the application on the condition that revised plans are submitted to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management which provide for a building generally in accordance with the plans filed but that would not exceed the floor space index as provided for in Rockcliffe By-law 2008-8 [sic] and that construction shall take place in accordance with such revised plans.

 

Please see Document 1 for an image of the projected, as approved with conditions.

 

The applicant has appealed this condition to the Ontario Municipal Board, however, in the interests of avoiding a costly and time-consuming hearing, submitted a revised application on November 27, 2009 that proposes that a restrictive covenant be placed on the two lots located to the rear of the property owned by their clients that would increase the open space around 545 Springfield Road appear bigger and ensure that future development on the vacant lots will also be surrounded by generous landscaped open spaces.

 

The Committee of Adjustment considered an application for variances to the Zoning By-law to allow the construction of the building on October 7, 2009 and granted the variances. The City of Ottawa has appealed that decision as it is not consistent with Council direction regarding the floor space index for the project. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

A new application under the Ontario Heritage Act has been submitted on this property. The applicant is proposing that a restrictive covenant be placed on two adjacent properties to the rear that face Montague Place and are under the same ownership as the subject property (Plan 4M55, Lots 7 and 8, see Location Maps, Documents 2 and 3 and Bird’s Eye View, Document 4). This restrictive covenant would increase the rear yard setback of any new development on these lots to 15.25 metres from 12 metres thereby increasing the distance between the proposed house at 545 Springfield Road and any future houses on Montague Place.  There is ample space on these two lots to respect the front yard setbacks of the current Zoning By-law if and when any development is undertaken there. In addition, if development were to take place on the vacant lots, there would be more open space around the house at 545 Springfield Road, reflecting the heritage character of the designated district, as defined in the “Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study.” The Study states that “The generosity of space around the homes, and the flowing of this space from one property to the next by continuous planting rather than hard fence lines, has maintained the estate qualities and park setting envisioned by Keefer” as part of this heritage character.  The “Guideline” written to preserve this quality of the District (IV.iii.4 Lot Division) states that “All lots should be large enough to provide generous open space around buildings, thus protecting the continuity and dominance of the soft landscape.” The placing of the proposed covenant will ensure that future development on this block will be characterized by generous spaces around the properties, as directed (see Document 5).

 

The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association reviewed the project and made recommendations in August 2009, subsequently implemented by the architect, regarding reducing the size of the building and increasing the amount of green space around it.  The association did not, however, support the final application, because although the above changes were implemented, the building did not meet the FSI requirements under the Zoning By-law for the site (see Document 6). The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association has comments on the revised application. Its comments are included as Document 7.

 

The Department believes that placing a covenant on 180.5 square metres of land to the rear of the subject property will have the effect of making the lot at 545 Springfield Road appear to be bigger, although the rear lot line will stay the same.  For this reason, staff supports the applicant’s initiative and has no objection to the issuance of a building permit conditional upon the completion of necessary work related to the restrictive covenant and its registration on title.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Adjacent property owners and residential tenants were notified 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.

 

The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association was notified of the proposal. Its comments are included as Document 7.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

 

Councillor Legendre’s Comments:

 

It seems to me that the RPRA’s comments in Document 7 are fully consistent with Council’s earlier decision.

 

That decision stated that Council:

“Approve the application on the condition that revised plans are submitted to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management which provide for a building generally in accordance with the plans filed but that would not exceed the floor space index as provided for in Rockcliffe By-law 2008-8 [sic] and that construction shall take place in accordance with such revised plans.”

 

It is not clear whether the recommendation in the report will preserve the FSI for the contiguous lots or would only ‘appear to do so’.  For that reason, I will be supportive of the RPRA’s language regarding the restrictive covenant, that is, that “a restrictive covenant be placed on the title of the two Montagu Place lots such that the total FSI of the entire current parcel of four lots remains the same, in accordance with the FSI requirements of the more restrictive of the new City of Ottawa bylaw and the old (existing) Village of Rockcliffe Park bylaw 2000-8.That is the language which preserves the intent of Council’s earlier decision. 

 

An alternative that would appear to achieve the same end would have been to sever sufficient land from the Montagu Place lots so that the proposed structure on Springfield would meet the FSI requirements.  This would have had the virtue of ensuring that any future development on the adjacent lots would not have a special ‘covenant’ but simply the standard FSI to be met.

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

 

There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

N/A

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

 

This application was processed within the 90-day timeframe under the Ontario Heritage Act. The 90 days expire on February 25, 2010,

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1    Plans for Replacement Building, as approved with conditions

Document 2    Location Map

Document 3    Location Map Showing Adjacent Lots

Document 4    Bird’s Eye View

Document 5    Site Plan Showing Easement and Setbacks

Document 6    Initial Rockcliffe Park Residents Association Comments

Document 7    Current Rockcliffe Park Residents Association Comments

 

DISPOSITION

 

City Clerk and Solicitor Department, 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 approve new construction at 545 Springfield Road subject to the placing of a restrictive covenant on the lands to the rear, located at Plan 4M55, Lots 7 and 8.

 


ELEVATIONS                                                                                                       DOCUMENT 1

 

Elevation approved with conditions by City Council, October 28, 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOCATION MAP                                                                                                  DOCUMENT 2

 

     

 LOCATION MAP, LOTS TO BE AFFECTED BY EASEMENT                 DOCUMENT 3

 


BIRD’S EYE VIEW                                                                                               DOCUMENT 4

 

 


SITE PLAN SHOWING EASEMENT                                                                DOCUMENT 5

 

 

 

 

ROCKCLIFFE PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, COMMENTS           DOCUMENT 6

 

Comments on the design for 545 Springfield Road, September 2009

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROCKCLIFFE PARK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, COMMENTS           DOCUMENT 7

 

Comments on the revised application for 545 Springfield Road, January 2010

 

The RPRA's strong preference would be to have the proposed new construction fit within the FSI limit for its two lots.  We see no compelling reason to allow an increase to the FSI requirement.  Should the City choose to consider alternatives, the proposal of the applicant to increase the rear yard setbacks for the two lots facing Montagu Place in return for increased FSI at 545 Springfield Road is not a good compromise because it would not reduce the bulk of the future buildings and would, indeed, force them closer to the street.  The RPRA suggests that the following alternative would provide better planning:  A restrictive covenant be placed on the title of the two Montagu Place lots such that the total FSI of the entire current parcel of four lots remains the same, in accordance with the FSI requirements of the more restrictive of the new City of Ottawa bylaw and the old (existing) Village of Rockcliffe Park bylaw 2000-8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

1.         New construction and restrictive covenants, 545 springfield road, rockcliffe park

NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION ET CLAUSES RESTRICTIVES, 545, CHEMIN springfield, rockcliffe park

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0019                                                                  Rideau Rockcliffe (13)

 

Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner, provided background information on the item, which is an application for a new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.  Ms. Coutts reminded members that LACAC and PEC supported a previous application on the matter in October 2009, and that Council carried the item with a condition stating that the plans for the building be amended to adhere to the floor space index (FSI) that is recommended in the Rockcliffe By-law 2000-8.  Ms. Coutts told members that the applicant has appealed Council’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.  Additionally, the Committee of Adjustment granted the variances required for the previous application, but this decision has been appealed by the City of Ottawa to the Ontario Municipal Board.  Both hearings are pending.

 

Ms. Coutts told members that the applicant has submitted the new application before OBHAC as an alternative to the appeal process currently underway.  Ms. Coutts informed members that the design for the proposed development remained unchanged from the previous application, but a restrictive covenant was added on the two adjacent lots located to the rear of the property (also owned by the applicant) to increase the setback from the building to the rear lot line to 15 meters, to ensure adequate greenspace surrounding the proposed development.  She also spoke to the proposed design’s adherence to the Heritage Conservation District Study Guidelines, as well as its appropriate setbacks and height restrictions for the area.  Ms. Coutts told members that approving this easement at the rear of the property would limit the amount of space on which development could be built on the two lots adjacent to the proposed site.

 

Members asked if the FSI of the two adjacent lots would remain the same if the easements were granted for 545 Springfield.  Ms. Coutts said that the FSI for those lots would not be changed, and that any future development could be built to the maximum FSI allowable.  Members also had questions on the current FSI of the proposed site.  Ms. Coutts explained to members that the zoning bylaw for the area has recently changed and a new calculation for FSI is in place, but because the application that went previously before Committee and Council referred to the older by-law, and because that application is now under appeal to the OMB, both new and old calculations must be adhered to.  Ms. Coutts told members that they are 39.25% and 40.95%, respectively.

 

Barry Hobin, Architect, spoke in support of the application.  Mr. Hobin explained to members that the applicant has followed due process, and has worked diligently with staff and to adhere to the amendments imposed by Council.  He is satisfied that the easements proposed in this application address the concerns raised by Council and the residents of Rockcliffe Park and ensures adequate greenspace surrounding the proposed development, and any future development on the adjacent lots.

 

Roslyn Hill, spoke to the various attributes of the design, which are in keeping with the guidelines in the Heritage Conservation District Study.  She also suggested that the FSI is only one tool with which to evaluate the appropriateness of a design, and that setbacks, height restrictions, design elements and materials used are also to be considered.

 

Members asked Ms. Hill how much floor space would have to be removed from the current design to meet the FSI requirement for the lots, to which Ms. Hill stated that it would be a relatively small amount.  She countered that this reduction in floor space would not increase the heritage value of the proposed development.

 

Anthony Keith, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, spoke in opposition to the application, as stated in the written comments included in the report.  Mr. Keith reiterated the Association’s wish to see this development adhere to the set FSI requirements.  He fears the easement would force any future development on the lots facing Montagu Place to be built close to the road.  Mr. Keith stated the Association’s proposed recommendation to look at the total FSI for all four properties, and reduce the FSI on the two adjacent lots to accommodate the increased FSI of the proposed development at 545 Springfield.  Mr. Keith also stated the usefulness of an FSI when dealing with large lots such as the one in this application, because often setback and height restrictions do not adequately restrict the massing of proposed developments.

 

Members had questions regarding the legality of imposing such a covenant, and whether or not it would survive severance of the lots.  Staff ensured members that Legal staff would be present at the PEC meeting, and would be able to answer such questions.

 

Caroline Frewer, Resident of Rockcliffe Park, spoke in opposition to the application, referring to the written comments submitted previously from many neighbours who could not be in attendance.  Ms. Frewer feared that approving the recommendation proposed by staff would not only allow a development which exceeds the FSI for 545 Springfield, but would also set a precedent for any future development on the two lots facing Montagu Place.  Ms. Frewer also reminded members that this development is still in its planning stages and design plans could easily be amended to adhere to the current FSI requirements.

 

Members asked if Ms. Frewer supported the recommendation put forward by Mr. Keith, to which she replied that she wishes to see the FSI for all four lots remain as they are and be adhered to as they are.

 

Bill Price, Heritage Ottawa, spoke in support of the design of the proposed development, but in opposition to the recommendation proposed by staff.  Mr. Price told members that Heritage Ottawa supports the recommendation put forward by the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.

 

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:

·         Comments submitted on 2 February 2010 from various residents of Rockcliffe Park, in opposition to the application.

·         Comments submitted on 3 February 2010 from Lee Daws in opposition to the application.

 

Members had a lengthy debate on the purpose of FSI restrictions, as well as their appropriateness for this particular application.  Staff confirmed that the City of Ottawa is moving away from using FSI’s as determinant factors in development, for reasons outlined previously.  Staff also reminded members that while OBHAC determines the heritage attributes of applications, it is the Committee of Adjustment that assesses minor variances.

 

Some members feared that if a precedent is set to be more lenient on FSI restrictions, over time Rockcliffe Park could lose the heterogeneous quality of properties that is a physical attribute of the Heritage District.  Alternately, some members had concerns with amending the FSI of adjacent lots, which causes OBHAC to speculate on future developments that are not before OBHAC at this time.  Members also discussed the merits of Council’s previous recommendation, which urged the applicant to amend the design of the development to meet the current FSI requirements for the proposed site.

 

Moved by V. Sahni,

 

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the construction of a new building at 545 Springfield Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, according to plans submitted included as Document 1, conditional upon the placing of a restrictive covenant on the title of the two Montagu Place lots such that the total FSI of the entire current parcel of four lots remains the same, in accordance with the FSI requirements of the more restrictive of the new City of Ottawa bylaw and the old (existing) Village of Rockcliffe Park bylaw 2000-8.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

Members clarified that the intent of the amended recommendation would be to calculate an actual amount of floor space allowable on each of the adjacent lots that would maintain the current FSI percentage of the four lots combined.  Members understood that this would impose a reduced FSI on the two adjacent lots, and that this number would be applied to the two lots regardless of future and unforeseen severance of land.