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
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
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend
that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1.
Approve the
removal of the 1950s portion of 460 King Edward Avenue, and
2.
Approve the
construction of a new building at 130 Daly Avenue, according to plans received
on May 21, 2009.
3.
Delegate
approval of minor design changes to the General Manager of Planning and Growth
Management.
(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 permit under the Ontario
Heritage Act expires on August 19, 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 :
1.
d’approuver l’enlèvement de la
partie datée des années 1950 de la propriété du 460, avenue King Edward;
2.
d’approuver la construction d’un
nouveau bâtiment sur la propriété située au 130, avenue Daly, conformément
aux plans reçus le 31 mai 2009;
3.
de déléguer la prise de décision
concernant l’approbation des modifications techniques mineures au directeur
général, Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance.
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 subject properties, 460 King Edward Avenue and 130 Daly Avenue, are located in the Sandy Hill West Heritage Conservation District. The proposed building will be situated at the corner of King Edward and Daly Avenues. On the site there is a stone single-family dwelling that is currently vacant. The removal of the north wing of this building will return it to a form more closely matching its original. The proposed apartment building to the north of the stone building will be separated from it by a small lawn and sidewalk leading to the back units. The property at 460 King Edward Avenue will be severed and sold for renovation after the wing is removed and the apartment building is complete.
This report has been prepared because an application has been submitted for partial demolition and new construction on the site and, according to the Ontario Heritage Act, the permission of City Council is required before the project can proceed. Site plan approval and design review are also required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
DISCUSSION
Recommendation 1
The building at 460 King Edward Avenue was constructed circa 1872 as a single family dwelling for Colonel Walker Powell, Adjutant General with the Militia. It was originally designed to face Daly Avenue but its orientation changed when it was converted into an apartment building in the 1920s, and a student residence in 1959, when the flat-roofed north wing was added. The addition has little significance and its demolition would not have a negative effect on the heritage character of the heritage conservation district.
Recommendation
2
The Sandy Hill Heritage Conservation District was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997. The study that lead to the designation identifies the District as “primarily residential in character” containing “examples of most pre-1940 residential building types …” The study further states that the intent of the district designation with regard to infill development is to encourage new design that does not represent “direct imitation of historic precedent, but good contemporary design which blends well with the existing quality of design and detailing.”
In addition to these general principles, the study also includes a set of “Guidelines” to be used in managing change in the District. The study guidelines include Section VI.4.3.4. “Infill Residential” that addresses new residential development on vacant lots (see Document 3). Generally, the Guidelines encourage development that respects the character not only of the whole district but also of the building’s immediate environment” and with regard to multi-unit development notes that for “multi-unit development, the side gable and flat roof forms have traditionally been used in the area and continue to be the most viable options.” Further direction is provided regarding design; “Materials and detailing should respect and reinforce the character of what exists, without direct imitation … Brick veneer, wood trim, strong cornice lines, carefully proportioned window and door placement, and porches and balconies are all elements that can be incorporated in new construction.”
The study also includes more general guidelines to encourage the preservation and enhancement of the streetscape as a public place within the District. These include Policy VI.5.2.2.3 “Scale of Development” that states “Any new residential development within Sandy Hill West should be in keeping with the traditional scale of residential development in the district. This recommendation would specifically exclude highrise development within the district, but would not exclude other forms of multi-unit housing depending on the specific design.” Policy VI.5.2.14.2 addresses front yard fencing; “New boundary fencing in front and side yards is appropriate in association with residential and commercial properties. Suitable materials include wood pickets, wrought iron, pipe rail, and metal picket fencing.”
The building proposed for 130 Daly Avenue is a four-storey red brick structure with a high basement. Rectangular in shape, its long side faces Daly Avenue and the shorter side faces King Edward (see elevations, Document 6, and perspectives, Document 7). Access to underground parking is provided off Daly Avenue. The north and south façade features five entrances with steps leading to them that provide access to lower floor apartments, while access to upper level apartments is provided through an entrance off King Edward Avenue. The base storey is white concrete designed to evoke the character of small-scale apartment buildings in the area and as is the simple decorative cornice.
The building will be extensively landscaped and feature foundation plantings, larger trees and a metal fence in the front yard. It is set back about five metres from the sidewalk. This setback is similar to other apartment buildings in the District, which are often set as close as the front lot line. The setback increases at the east end of the building to create a transition between it and the adjacent house.
The south side of Daly Avenue to the west of the building features two buildings designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Varin Row, 106-110 Daly Avenue and 112 Daly Avenue and included in the District designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. There are two structures between these structures, and the proposed development; one a three-storey gambrel-roofed structure (Category 3) and the other a much altered, mansard roofed building (Category 3). The proposed building and the existing structures on the south side of Daly Avenue are further separated by an existing driveway and the transition created by the one-storey wing in the east side of the mansard roofed-building at 124 Daly Avenue. The proposed building because of its position anchoring a corner and the buffer between it and the existing houses on Daly Avenue does not have a negative impact on the cultural heritage value of the street in this location.
Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement
A Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) was submitted as part of the application. Extracts of the Statement are attached and the complete document is on file with the City Clerk. The purpose of this document is to provide an additional analysis of the proposal. It is not used to inform the decision of staff, but rather to provide another viewpoint and further suggestions to mitigate the impact of the development. The CHIS concluded that “The proposed building represents good contemporary design that is distinct from the historical precedents that surround it.” It added three recommendations; one that encourage the use of appropriate levels of lighting, a second that addressed signage and a third that stressed the importance of the landscape plan to the overall success of the project (Document 9).
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
The PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. It contains policies related to buildings with cultural heritage value, stressing that development on lands adjacent to protected heritage property may only proceed if the proposed development has been evaluated and “it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.”
The removal of the north wing of 460 King Edward Avenue will return it to a form more closely matching its original. The proposed apartment building to the north of the stone building will be separated from it by a small lawn and sidewalk leading to the back units. The distance between the two structures is similar to other buildings in the district and does not have a negative impact upon it.
Recommendation 3
Some minor aspects of the proposed design, such as window detailing, the treatment of the front entrance and site/landscape plan may evolve in consultation with staff during the site plan and design review phases of this project, prior to the issuance of a construction permit. Delegation of the approval of changes of this type to the General Manager would allow them to be approved without returning to Committee and Council.
CONCLUSION
The Department supports the application for new construction in the Sandy Hill West Heritage Conservation District because the building is clearly contemporary in design. In addition, its height of four storeys with a high basement is consistent with other low-rise apartment building in the area; its use of materials complements the brick and stone found elsewhere in Sandy Hill West; it does not overwhelm the character of the street as a place in the historic district and it will animate a previously vacant lot. Overall, it is consistent with the City Council-approved Guidelines for the District.
Design review for the building
has been undertaken. Comments from the Design Review panel are included as
Document 10 to assist the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
(LACAC) when it makes its recommendation to Planning and Environment Committee
and City Council.
CONSULTATION
The Ward Councillor, Georges Bédard, was consulted on this
project and at his suggestion, the fence was added. In addition, he said,
“My concerns
with this new construction are with the box-like structure that is being
proposed. It does not quite respect the heritage character of the area,
especially with the more immediate environment.
Many buildings in the vicinity do not have flat roofs, especially the
ones directly beside and across the street of the new development. The street is characterized by slanted roofs,
bay windows and arched frames and other such varying structures.
Can the design not be broken up in some way to be made more visually
interesting? Perhaps this less "box-like" motif could be picked up in
the design of the windows or balconies. Daly Avenue is a historic street that
once housed Fathers of Canadian Confederation such as Sir Alexander Campbell.
Some of the structures have been standing since the early 19th century. Let's
ensure that anything new that is built will be enjoyed with equal longevity.”
Action Sandy Hill is aware of this project.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of this project.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed
within the 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act. The
90-day period expires on August 19, 2009.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Bird’s Eye View
Document 3 Guidelines
Document 4 Current conditions
Document 5 Landscape Plan
Document 6 Elevations
Document 7 Perspectives
Document 8 Streetscape
Document 9 Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS)
Document 10 Design Comments
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Legal Services Branch, Legislative Services to notify the property owner (Bill Holzman, HCI, 1076 Castle Hill Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 2A8) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision permission to permit the demolition of a wing at 460 King Edward Avenue and the construction of a new building at 130 Daly Avenue.
130 Daly Avenue
Design Review Panel Comments
The following is a
response by the Design Review Panel to the 130 Daly Avenue design
submission. In general the Panel
supports the scale and form of the proposed development and believes it is
appropriate for this heritage district.
The Panel has a number of concerns and offers the following comments for
consideration.
General Information
1. There
is a general lack of information for the Panel to provide comments on a number
of aspects of the project. The perspectives are from a distant vantage point
and don’t convey a sense of how the project relates to the sidewalk, they also
show more lavish planting than is indicated on the landscape drawings. The
perspectives and elevations generally lack much context and don’t show much of
the neighbouring properties. There are no floor plans, but it appears that the
floor at grade is all parking and not visible from the street. Additional plans are needed to understand the
parking garage relationship to street. It is not clear if the first row of
windows above grade look into units or the garage. This level of detail would be useful to know
in assessing the submission.
2. The
Site Servicing and Grading Plan is of little use and more information is needed
to assess it.
Built Form
3. The
building’s urban design seems to work at mid-distance (75 m). However,
the Panel is not sure if it will work well at close distance (< 10 m).
The most critical aspect in this neighbourhood is the sidewalk experience
of the pedestrian. Generally the houses and other buildings in the
neighbourhood are varied and have fine detail that draws the eye as you walk.
The proposed stone base and brick façade, with the articulated parapet,
is a great feature, however, the windows seem plain. The balconies and railings
would be a great opportunity for some visual delight but the details on them
were not provided. The exterior lighting and signage is not identified.
4. The
entrances / front porches lack detail and appear functional in nature. They likely wouldn’t
work as exterior sitting places and will generally be uninhabited. The ground floor porch
should encourage interaction with the street and not just be a way to get to
the front door. The
neighbourhood has many good sized porches. They are set back just the
right distance to allow some (but not force) interaction with neighbours.
The height, placement, and size of the proposed entries works against
this social interaction. Using brick piers at the corners of the ground floor
porches could help make them larger.
5. Some attempts are made to integrate the
proposed development with the surrounding area, with the expression of a
heavier stone like base and red brick façade treatment. However, the elevation
detailing from the first floor balcony down to grade could better integrate
with the historical context. The heavier base material usually aligns itself
with the ground floor not the windowsill. The ground floor windows are
typically higher, with more detail than the upper windows. The general
scale is right, although much of the physical expression along Daly is of
traditional porches.
6. There
is no attempt to provide public art. This is a lost opportunity to, at modest
cost, contribute something delightful to the public realm.
7. There is a
concern with the Daly / King Edward corner treatment. With the Daly row
house entrances beginning west of the corner and the condo entrance being
situated further down the block, the building appears to back onto the King
Edward / Daly corner. Although the building's base treatment will make the
experience for the pedestrian more interesting, it is still a blank unanimated
edge / corner condition. It appears from the perspectives that the
building is not fronting onto King Edward but rather has a side door
relationship to the higher order street.
Landscape
8. The
landscape design seems meager especially along King Edward, Daly and at the
corner. One row of shrubs and few ornamental trees in a lawn is
considered substandard for a site of this prominence. The landscaping
should take its cue from Daly, where there are lots of intimate scale details and
plenty of lush front yard gardens. The corner landscape at Daly and King Edward
should have a richer garden treatment. The gardens along Daly, beyond the site,
are typically filled with perennials and are far more urban than what is
proposed.
9. Street trees
should be added along Daly in the boulevard, consistent with the treatment to
the west. Street trees also need to be incorporated along King
Edward. Street trees such as maples and
oaks should be planted, not small ornamental trees.
10. A high
quality paver should be considered in the boulevard on King Edward.
Public Art
11. Perhaps an
opportunity for public art is appropriate at the corner of Daly and King
Edward. This would provide some
recognition of the corner condition.
Conclusion
The Panel’s
conclusion is that this is a nice, but ordinary, project that could offer much
more to the public realm. The sidewalk experience appears to have not been
considered. A series of sequential perspectives from the vantage point of
a pedestrian would demonstrate this.