|
2. Demolition and new construction under the Ontario heritage act in the rockcliffe PArk heritage conservation district at 32 birch street
DÉMOLITION ET NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AUX TERMES DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO, AU 32 RUE BIRCH, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK
|
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1. Approve the application to demolish the existing building at 32 Birch Street and to construct a new building in its place, in accordance with plans submitted by David Mailing, David Mailing and Associates, Architects, received on December 16, 2009.
2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department.
3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
(Note: The statutory timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on April 30, 2010. The time period was extended with the written permission of the applicant.)
(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 COMITÉ
Que le Conseil :
1. approuve la demande de démolition de l'immeuble situé au 32, rue Birch, et d’approuver la construction d’un nouvel immeuble sur ce site, conformément aux plans soumis par David Mailing, David Mailing and Associates, Architects, et reçus le 16 Décembre 16, 2009.
2. délégue les pouvoirs au directeur général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance en ce qui a trait aux changements conceptuels mineurs.
3. délivre le permis en matière de patrimoine qui expirera deux ans après la date de délivrance
(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 30 avril 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.)
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager's report Planning, Transit and the Environment dated 19 February 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0038).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee, 4 March 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
19 February 2010 / le 19 février 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
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the application to demolish the existing building at 32 Birch Street and to construct a new building in its place, in accordance with plans submitted by David Mailing, David Mailing and Associates, Architects, received on December 16, 2009.
2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department.
3. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
(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.
(Note: The statutory timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on April 30, 2010. The time period was extended with the written permission of the applicant.)
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 :
1. d’approuver la demande de démolition de l'immeuble situé au 32, rue Birch, et d’approuver la construction d’un nouvel immeuble sur ce site, conformément aux plans soumis par David Mailing, David Mailing and Associates, Architects, et reçus le 16 Décembre 16, 2009.
2. de déléguer les pouvoirs au directeur général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance en ce qui a trait aux changements conceptuels mineurs.
3. de délivrer le permis en matière de patrimoine qui expirera deux ans après la date de délivrance
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.)
(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 30 avril 2010.)
BACKGROUND
The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997. The Heritage Conservation District Study contains Management Guidelines that are intended to protect and enhance those elements in the Village that contribute to its heritage character as defined in the Study. The Guidelines are not prescriptive; rather, they outline the principles to be applied to future development, based on past experience. They are intended to guide the evolution of the Village as a picturesque landscape of buildings set in informal grounds, and where the soft landscape in particular ties together, and makes sense of, the irregular road layout, the diverse lot arrangements, and the eclectic mix of building styles. The Guidelines (4.iv 1, 4-5) relevant to this application stress that:
Any application to demolish an existing building should be reviewed, with consideration of its historical and architectural significance, its contribution to its streetscape, and the appropriateness of the proposed redevelopment. Demolition should be recommended for approval only where the existing building is of little significance and the proposed redevelopment is sympathetic to the surrounding environment.
Any application to construct a new building or addition should be reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance the heritage character of the Village. New construction should be recommended for approval only where the siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment.
New buildings and additions should be of their own time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape. They should also be sited and designed so as to retain the existing topography. The use of natural materials should be encouraged.
DISCUSSION
The subject property is located in the area of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District to the east of McKay Lake (see Location Map, Document 1 and Aerial Photographs, Document 2) This section of the Heritage Conservation District shares some landscape characteristics with the parts of the west of the lake, as it features large, well–treed lots, often irregular in shape and has a wide variety of house sizes and building types, however, the housing stock is much newer, as virtually all of which were constructed in the post-war period.
Existing building
The existing building dates from the 1950s or 1960s. It is a one-storey blue bungalow with a carport. It has not been noted to have any significance by the former Village of Rockcliffe Park or the City of Ottawa. It is set on an irregularly shaped lot, similar in size to its neighbours, and is part of an eclectic mix of post-war buildings in this sector of the heritage conservation district, most of which have little significance (Document 3) The east side of Birch Street is not in the Heritage Conservation District.
New building
The building proposed or the site is a two-storey structure with a high hipped roof and wide overhanging eaves executed in stucco and rough-cut stone, inspired by the Arts and Crafts style. The front façade is roughly divided into three bays and features a small entrance porch, and a shallow gabled pavilion, clad in stone. The hipped roof slopes down to a two-car garage on the north side of the structure. The materials will be a mix of stucco and natural stone, with aluminum clad wooden windows (Document 4)
Landscape
The existing lot is well treed and features a large cedar hedge on the north property line. The current driveway that leads to the carport on the south side of the house will be removed and a new driveway created to the north. Most of the existing vegetation will remain, and the character of the property will be enhanced through new gardens and plantings (Document 5)
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) heritage sub-committee reviewed the proposal twice. At the first meeting, the committee expressed concern about the size and massing of the building, its roofline and its compatibility with the street in the Heritage Conservation District. In response to these concerns, the architect undertook to:
- Reduce the overall foot print of both levels by ±400 square feet (each room contributing modestly),
- Relocate Bedroom 4, previously over the garage, to the basement,
- Reconfigure the second floor to accommodate the laundry room,
- Reposition windows, etc. as required,
- Reconfigure north garage wall (and stairs to basement) to be square to the building,
Elevations:
- Reduce the mass of all elevations modestly, as a result of the diminished size; relocate windows, etc.,
- Modify/reduce the roof over the garage as a result of both the removal of the bedroom and the north wall modification,
- Delete the decorative gable at the top of the main hip roof
As a result of these changes, the RPRA expressed its support for the project. Please see Documents 6 and 7. There are no variances required for this project.
Recommendation 1
The proposed building will replace a building of little significance, uses a mixture of stucco and stone typical of the Village, and is a contemporary interpretation of the Arts and Craft style, a common design idiom within the district. The Department has no objection to the proposed plans because the architect went to considerable lengths to meet not only the heritage conservation district “Guidelines” but also the concerns of the RPRA to ensure that the heritage character of the District was protected (see Statement of Heritage Character, Document 7).
The new landscape plan is consistent with the “Soft and Hard Landscape” Guidelines contained within the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District that state that the retention of “existing mature trees and other significant plant material and hard landscape features should be encouraged.” The Landscape Plan, as presented, does this and the Department has no objection to it.
Recommendation 2
This recommendation is included to anticipate potential minor changes to the proposed building and landscaping as items such as plant and building materials etc. become clearer in the period leading up to the issuance of a building permit.
Recommendation 3
The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide timelines for the expiration of heritage permits. A two-year expiry period is recommended to ensure that projects are completed in a timely fashion and according to the approved heritage permit.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners and residential tenants were notified by letter of the date of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) and Planning and Environment Committee meetings and were provided with comment sheets to be returned to LACAC.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of this application.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association’s comments are included as Document 6.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
Councillor Legendre is in full agreement with this proposal. He also commends the applicants’ willingness to engage in meaningful consultation with the RPRA - which resulted in a positive outcome for all parties.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form. And limits of existing hard surfaces, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed within the time period (extended with permission of the applicant) prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Aerial photograph
Document 3 Streetscapes
Document 4 Elevations
Document 5 Landscape Plan
Document 6 Comments, Rockcliffe Park Residents Association
Document 7 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
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 demolish 32 Birch Street and build a new building in its place.
34 Birch Avenue:
David Mailing showed his plans for 34 Birch Ave. to the RPRA Development Review Subcommittee on November 30. Members expressed concern at the size and height of the roof because it was not compatible with the existing houses on that side of Birch – the heritage district streetscape. Members recommended plain asphalt shingles rather than the faux-shake design proposed, and the use of real stone where the plans call for artificial stone. Because the design substantially exceeded the FSI limit, members strongly recommended reducing the design to fit within that limit. Mr. Mailing agreed to take these suggestions to his client.
On December 10, Mr. Mailing responded positively to the subcommittee's comments with new drawings. Here is his description of the revisions:
"Floor Plans:
- Reduce the overall foot print of both levels by ±400sf (each room contributing modestly),
- Relocate Bedroom 4, previously over the garage, to the basement,
- Reconfigure the second floor to accommodate the laundry room,
- Re-position windows, etc. as required,
- Reconfigure north garage wall (and stairs to basement) to be square to the building,
Elevations:
- Reduce the mass of all elevations modestly, as a result of the diminished size; relocate windows, etc.,
- Modify/reduce the roof over the garage as a result of both the removal of the bedroom and the north wall modification,
- Delete the decorative gable at the top of the main hip roof,
As mentioned in a previous email, the owners are also happy to consider Mr. Smallwood’s suggestions for roofing and cladding. "
These adjustments bring the design within the FSI limit. In order to accommodate continuing concern about roof height, Mr. Mailing has proposed to lower the slope from 12/12 to 10/12. The subcommittee would like to see the slope reduced even further, if possible, understanding that this can be done without affecting interior space. Reducing the slope will reduce the impact of the roof so as to fit better in the streetscape.
STATEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE DOCUMENT 7
i) Description
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is a planned residential community first laid out in 1864 by Thomas Keefer. It was created as a partial subdivision of the large estate belonging to his father-in-law, Thomas McKay. Development occurred slowly, but in 1908 a Police Village was created, and by 1926 the Village of Rockcliffe Park had been incorporated. The boundaries established in 1908 have remained intact, and the present Village of Rockcliffe Park is a distinctive community of private homes and related institutional properties within a park setting, still true to the spirit of Keefer’s original vision.
ii.) Reasons for Designation:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is proposed for designation as a heritage district because of:
- The significance of its original design intentions;
- The continuity in its evolution;
- The richness of its current urban condition;
- Its relationship with its wide setting, and
- The importance of its historical associations.
iii.) Original Design Intentions
The Village of Rockcliffe Park is a rare and significant approach to estate layout and landscape design adapted in Canada from 18th Century English precedents. McKay had adopted this approach in his initial development of the estate, and the original McKay villa and grounds survive as Rideau Hall, the estate of the Governor General of Canada, on the western boundary of the village. When, in 1864, Keefer advertised his Park and Villa lots for private residences, he focused on the picturesque qualities of the scenery, and the importance of curving roads, extensive plantings, and naturalistic settings as key features in any future development. Lots were sold as components of the larger Estate, implying a cohesive landscape approach- purchasers were enjoined from erected anything that would be “inconsistent with the maintenance of the Estate as a park for private residences.” Tree planning on road fronts was an immediate requirement on purchase, and commercial and industrial uses were explicitly banned. This type of ‘suburban’ or borderland development is also a reflection of a particularly North American response to rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 19th Century, with its emphasis on healthy living in a rural or country setting.
iv.) Continuity in Evolution
The Village of Rockcliffe Park today is a remarkably consistent reflection of the ideas set out by Keefer. Although development of the residential lots has taken place very gradually, the ideas of Estate management, of smaller lots as part of a larger whole, of picturesque design, of residential focus, have survived as controlling aspects of the Village’s form and character. This has been in part somewhat fortuitous and unconscious- the cumulative effect of precedent and example. The early estates such as the MacKay villa and Rockcliffe were followed quickly by Birkenfels and Crichton Lodge, which in turn inspired smaller estates on Buena Vista, Mariposa, and Acacia and later Crescent Road. These types of properties continue to establish a Rockcliffe image, which is continually translated by architects and designers into individual variations on the theme. The strong landscape setting is able to embrace a rich diversity of lot and building sizes and configurations.
However, the continuity has also been provided by an active effort by overseers and residents. In the early years, Thomas Keefer and his associates developed special arrangements to control public and private initiatives as Trustees of the MacKay Estate. Later this effort fell to the overseers of the Police Village and then the councillors of the incorporated Village. Considerable energy has been spent by every successive generation to manage development and change, through formal and informal reviews and by a variety of by-laws, planning directives, and special designations. In most communities such initiatives have focused on economic development and minimum property standards; in Rockcliffe there is an extraordinary effort to maintain the scenic qualities, the park setting, the natural features and plantings, the careful informality of streets and services. This continuity of vision is very rare in a community where development has occurred on such a relatively large scale over such a long time period.
v) Current urban condition:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park has combined public and private initiatives to create an unusually rich urban landscape. The deliberately curved roads, without curbs or sidewalks, and the careful planting of the public spaces and corridors, together with the careful siting and strong landscaping of the individual properties, create the apparently casual and informal style so integral to the picturesque tradition. The preservation and enhancement of topographical features including the lake and pond, the dramatic Ottawa River shoreline, the internal ridges and slopes, and the various outcroppings, has reinforced the design intentions. The architectural design of the residences and associated institutional facilities is similarly deliberate and careful, but in the casual elegance and asymmetry of the various English country revival styles which predominate throughout the Village. 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. This informal elegance has been a consistent theme throughout the long process of development from the mid-19th Century to the present. There are relatively few examples of the strict neo-classicism that would suggest a more geometric ordering of the landscape.
There is also a set of community practices, intangible rituals that are both public and private, which continue to make sense of this environment- individual and collective outdoor activities, pedestrian and vehicular movement, areas of congregation and encounter, areas of dispersal and isolation. The urban landscape is also sustained by a variety of ongoing planning regulations, reflected most particularly in the current Official Plan and related zoning by-law.
vi.) Relationship with its wider setting:
The Village of Rockcliffe Park has an important and integral association with its larger setting, as a result of patterns of historical development. With the Rideau Hall estate there is a symbiosis that dates back to Keefer’s original vision of the village set within the larger grounds of this original villa. With Rockcliffe Park, there is a deliberate relationship again defined by Keefer, who saw the park as a natural extension and highlighting of the village’s picturesque setting. This relationship was further strengthened with the expansion of the park to the east, and with the addition of the Rockeries. Beechwood Cemetery has also served as a compatible landscape boundary to the southeast from the earliest period of settlement through to the present. These various border areas create important gateways to the village, and help establish its particular character. The views to and from the Ottawa River, the Beechwood escarpment, and the other park areas are integral to the picturesque quality of the Village. These extensions also form an integral part of the Village’s environmental ecosystem. It is unusual to have the internal character of a neighbourhood so strongly reinforced by adjacent land uses; it once again reflects the foresight of the original planners.
vii.) Historical Associations
The most important historical associations of the village as a whole are with the MacKay/Keefer family, major players in the economic, social, cultural and political development of Ottawa. The village today is a testament to the ideas and initiatives of various key members of this extended family, and their influence in shaping this key piece of Canadian landscape. Additional associations have occurred more randomly throughout the history of the village, as people of regional, national, and international significance have resided here and made this community their home base. Such associations are in some ways more private than public, and are an aspect of the village that is preserved more in the intangible continuities and oral traditions of village life than in the stones and mortar of monuments and plaques.
There are also specific associations with individuals who, whatever their prominence elsewhere, have made special contributions within the Village at a public and private level. These people have been part of an unusual form of self-governance, which has blurred the lines between formal and informal participation in the affairs of the Village.