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)
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
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.
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.
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report
N/A
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
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
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.
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
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.
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.