4.             Application to alter 73 crichton street, a property designated under part v of the ontario heritage act and located in the new edinburgh heritage conservation district

 

DEmande en vue de modifier la propriété du 73, rue Crichton, désignée en vertu de la partie v de la loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario et située dans le district de conservation du patrimoine de new edinburgh

 

 

Committee recommendationS as amended

 

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the staff recommendation to:

 

1.                  Approve the application to alter 73 Crichton Street, in accordance with the plans submitted by James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc. as received on February 4, 2010 and shown in Document 3.

 

2.                  Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance

 

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on May 5, 2010)

 

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFÉES DU Comité

 

Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement approuve la recommandation du personnel de :

 

1.                  approuver la demande de modification du 73, rue Crichton, conformément aux plans soumis par James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc., tels que reçus le 4 février 2010 et présentés dans le document 3;

 

2.                  délivrer 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 5 mai 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-0054).

 

2.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee, 4 March 2010.

 

3.                  Extract of Draft Minutes, Planning and Environment Committee, 23 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 fèvrier 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

 

Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Ref N°: ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0054

 

 

SUBJECT:

Application to alter 73 crichton street, a property designated under part v of the ontario heritage act and located in the new edinburgh heritage conservation district

 

 

OBJET :

DEmance en vue de modifier la propriété du 73, rue Crichton, désignée en vertu de la partie v de la loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario et située dans le district de conservation du patrimoine de new edinburgh

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

 

1.      Approve the application to alter 73 Crichton Street, in accordance with the plans submitted by James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc. as received on February 4, 2010 and shown in Document 3.

 

2.      Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance

 

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on May 5, 2010.)

 

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil :

 

1.         d’approuver la demande de modification du 73, rue Crichton, conformément aux plans soumis par James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc., tels que reçus le 4 février 2010 et présentés dans le document 3;

 

2.         de délivrer 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 5 mai 2010.)

 

Nota : L’approbation de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne signifie pas pour autant qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)

 

BACKGROUND

 

The property under review, 73 Crichton Street is half of a two-storey, flat-roofed double house built circa 1905 in New Edinburgh. The property is located on the southwest side of Crichton Street (Document 1). The proposed alteration includes an addition to the rear and side of the property.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Recommendation 1:

 

73 Crichton Street is a Category 3 building located in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The New Edinburgh HCD was designated in 2000 for its cultural heritage value as a former village settled primarily by Thomas MacKay and those who worked in his mills at Rideau Falls. The vestiges of the village as a self-sufficient community are still visible in former storefronts, churches and the former Crichton Street School and contribute to the cultural heritage value of New Edinburgh. The New Edinburgh neighbourhood is characterized by an eclectic mix of building types dating from as early as the 1840s. See Document 7 for the complete Statement of Heritage Character.

 

73 Crichton Street is half of a two-storey semi-detached brick house built in the early 20th century and is reflective of a typical building type in the New Edinburgh HCD. The building has a flat roof and simple cornice and has been altered over time with new windows, the removal of the original two-storey porch and second storey doors. However, the general form, symmetry, scale and massing of the building remains and contributes to the streetscape of Crichton Street. Photos of the existing property can be found in Document 2.

 

The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study contains guidelines for the management of development in the district. The guidelines related to Additions to existing buildings are relevant in assessing this proposal:

 

2.3  i) Additions

 

Guidelines

 

  1. According to the City of Ottawa Zoning Bylaw 1998, additions are permitted if the proposed addition is “located entirely in the rear year…the height of the walls and the height and slope of the roof do not exceed those of the building; the side yard setback is at least 30cm greater than that of the building.” This is to ensure that the existing building remains the dominant presence in the streetscape.
  2. Additions should complement, not copy, the original building so that there is a clear distinction between the new part of the building and the old.
  3. Every attempt should be made to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the building.
  4. Smaller interventions, such as dormer windows and skylights should be on the rear slope of the roof, or on a new addition.

 

The complete New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan has been previously distributed to OBHAC members and is on file with the OBHAC coordinator (Document 8).

 

The proposed alteration to 73 Crichton Street includes development in the side and rear yard of the property. The addition consists of a one-storey entranceway vestibule in the side yard of the property with a three-storey addition at the rear of the house that rises 1.65 metres above the existing building.  The total area of the addition is 112.5 square metres. The existing street façade of the house will not be altered from its current appearance.  See Document 3 for elevations.

 

Guideline 1 above refers to the City’s Zoning Bylaw. The applicant will be applying for a minor variance for relief from the Heritage Overlay (Section 60) of the Zoning Bylaw. While it does not meet the regulations of the Heritage Overlay, the addition in the side yard is set back approximately three metres from the front of the existing house to preserve the predominance of the original house in the streetscape. The proposed addition at the rear of the property is setback approximately eight metres from the front façade and is 1.65 metres above the height of the original building. The impact at the street is minimal (see streetscape renderings provided by the architect, Document 4). At the rear of the property the addition will also be set back from the other side of the semi to reduce impact on the neighbour and the historic fabric of the building (see Document 5).

 

The proposed addition, consistent with Guideline 2 above is highly contemporary in style, and provides a clear differentiation between the new and the old. The proposed materials for the addition include zinc-coated copper, metal siding and concrete board. The proposed colour palette for the materials is black and grey. The new addition will feature extensive glazing using aluminium windows.  The use of a simple design that emphasizes the use of rectilinear shapes is complementary to the existing building.

 

While this is a significant addition to the property, the architect has made efforts to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the existing building. The front façade will be maintained as is, allowing the opportunity for restoration of missing elements in the future.

 

A Cultural Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Mark Thompson Brandt Architect and Associates has been included as Document 6. The conclusion of the CHIS states,

 

… the key heritage consideration of this is whether or not the addition is of its time with its own unique presence, while being sympathetic to the existing building and subordinate to it…. On balance, the proposed intervention (especially with the minimal mitigation measures outlined, which could further the harmony with character of the context), would not be a harmful one to the accepted heritage resources’ values, and in some ways would actually enhance heritage resources.”

 

The proposed mitigation measures include: additional front yard landscaping to screen the addition, reconstructing the front porch, and alternative materials for the vestibule.

 

The addition is designed in a sensitive manner and will not impact the streetscape of Crichton Street or the heritage character of New Edinburgh as defined in the heritage district study. The setback of the addition and the additional height have been thoughtfully designed to reduce the impact on the historic streetscape. The design is creative, of its own time, and distinguishable from the original building. For these reasons, the Department supports this application for alteration under the Ontario Heritage Act.

 

Recommendation 2:

 

The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide any timelines for the expiry of heritage permits. A two-year expiry date is recommended to ensure that projects are completed in a timely fashion and according to the approved heritage permit. 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

CONSULTATION

 

Adjacent property owners have been notified by letter of the application and the dates of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee and Planning and Environment meetings.

 

The New Edinburgh Community Alliance is aware of the project.

 

Heritage Ottawa is aware of the project.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

 

Councillor Jacques Legendre is aware of the project and had the following comments, which were provided after the matter had been considered by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee:

 

Councillor’s Comments

As the representative on City Council for this part of Ottawa for over 15 years, I have learned to respect the advice provided by the New Edinburgh Heritage & Development Committee.  I believe that the points that they have raised in their submission recently to OBHAC were of sufficient importance to cause me to support their recommendation and that of OBHAC itself that proposed addition be refused. 

The points made to OBHAC by Professor H. Stovel, currently Coordinator of the Heritage Conservation Programme at Carleton University, also warrant PEC’s serious consideration.  He has challenged the credibility and independence of the required CHIS.  He has also brought into question the manner in which the staff report has applied both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines.  

It is a wonder that a proposal which so significantly exceeds several of the guidelines, guidelines intended to impose restrictions in order to preserve the very quality of the Heritage District, should have proceeded this far.  As you have been advised, the heritage overlay guidelines for additions in this area state categorically;

Despite the provisions of the underlying zone, an addition to a building in an area to which a heritage overlay applies is permitted only if:

·    the height of the walls and the height and slope of the roof of the addition do not exceed those of the building; (it does exceed the existing building)

·    the gross floor area of the addition does not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the building; (this limitation is exceeded by 95%!)

·    the side yard setback of the addition is at least 60 cm. greater than that of the wall of the building located closest to the side lot line, (the side yard setback proposed is not greater as required but actually less!)

·    it is located entirely within the rear yard, (it is not)

It is evident that the architect has designed an addition that would be acceptable if located in many areas of Ottawa not subject to heritage preservation rules.  The question then is not whether this is an attractive design, which it clearly is, but whether it meets the goals of the Heritage District, which it most certainly does not.  The proposal overwhelms the existing structure and would significantly skew a largely symmetric structure.  That the visibility of the resulting anomalies has been reduced as much as possible is hardly the most important question when deciding on whether or not the Heritage District is to be preserved.  I urge PEC to refuse the current proposed addition to 73 Crichton Street.

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

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

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

F2: Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood 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 90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1    Location Map

Document 2    Bird’s Eye View and Streetscape

Document 3    Elevations

Document 4    Perspectives and Rendering

Document 5    Site Plan

Document 6    Cultural Heritage Impact Statement

Document 7    Statement of Heritage Character for the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District

Document 8    New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study (Held on file with the City Clerk)

 

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 the application at 73 Crichton Street.

 

 


LOCATION MAP                                                                                                  DOCUMENT 1

 


EXISTING CONDITION                                                                                      DOCUMENT 2

 

Bird’s Eye View

 

 

View of 71-73 Crichton Street, looking west across Crichton Street.

 

View of the side yard where the proposed addition will be built.

 

 

View of rear of property from River Lane

 

 


ELEVATIONS                                                                                                       DOCUMENT 3

 

 

 

PERSPECTIVES AND COLOUR RENDERING                                            DOCUMENT 4

 

 

 


 


SITE PLAN                                                                                                             DOCUMENT 5

 

CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACT STATEMENT                                        DOCUMENT 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF HERITAGE CHARACTER                                                DOCUMENT 7

 

New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District

Statement of Heritage Character

 

 

New Edinburgh began as a small hamlet initially purchased by Thomas MacKay and settled primarily by those who worked in his mills at Rideau Falls. The Village of New Edinburgh was incorporated in 1867 and annexed to the City of Ottawa in 1887. The village’s proximity to Rideau Hall, a large country house built by MacKay in the 1830s and leased to the Governor General in 1867 increased the social prominence of New Edinburgh.

 

Vestiges of New Edinburgh’s status as a self-sufficient village still exist and contribute to its special character. Former storefronts, churches and a public school (now closed) attest that this was once a thriving community. Early inhabitants who worked for a local business had little reason ever to leave the area. Better transportation links to downtown Ottawa encouraged the middle classes to move here and commute downtown for work but the vibrant commercial core persisted into the 1950s.

 

A lively mix of building types dating from as early as the 1840s until the present characterizes New Edinburgh. Building types range from large Queen Anne-style structures, row-house, single family houses and doubles to small apartment buildings. The one-or two-and-a-half-storey, front gable-roofed structure is by far the most common housing type in the District.

 

Two green spaces, the Governor-General’s Grounds and Stanley Park, flank the neighbourhood. The green, tree-lined character that once typified the streets had disappeared because of Dutch elm disease and urban deforestation, but the remaining street trees, laneways and large landscaped back yards still create a pleasant green atmosphere.

 

New Edinburgh is a stable, sought after community. It has a clear sense of identity and purpose and has proved its strong community spirit in its battles to stop the Vanier Parkway Extension and to save its neighbourhood school.

 


Application to alter 73 crichton street, a property designated under part v of the ontario heritage act and located in the new edinburgh heritage conservation district.

DEmance en vue de modifier la propriété du 73, rue Crichton, désignée en vertu de la partie v de la loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario et située dans le district de conservation du patrimoine de new edinburgh

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0054                                                                      Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

 

Lesley Collins, Heritage Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the application.  She told members that this category 3 building in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District contributes to the overall heritage value of the district as a whole.  Though the proposed alteration is very contemporary in its design, staff felt that it complimented the existing structure, without dominating the building or significantly disrupting the streetscape.  The Department supports the application as the proposed plans call for an addition to the side and rear of the property, allows a significant setback from the current structure and the property line, and because it does not threaten the heritage fabric of the current structure, streetscape, or district as a whole.  Finally, Ms. Collins informed members that the applicant would seek relief from the heritage overlay at the COA.

 

Members asked if there have been previous examples of successful contemporary alterations to residential buildings in New Edinburgh.  Staff told members that there were few, as there have only been a small number of applications since the district was created in 2001.  Members also asked for clarification on the statement of heritage character of the district, to which staff highlighted the lively mix of housing types, the village feel, and the self-sufficiency of the district.

 

Members also had questions regarding the importance of the heritage overlay in this particular application.

 

Staff clarified for members that the main front entrance of the building would be moved to the side portion of the addition, as described in the plans and renderings.

 

Jim Colizza, Architect, spoke to the application, assuring members that the current plans meet all zoning regulations, except for the heritage overlay.  Mr. Colizza described in detail the design process that lead to the current plans submitted to OBHAC, noting that the proposed plans are balanced and compatible with the streetscape, and do not have a significant adverse impact on the district.  Mr. Colizza stressed that he had been working in close collaboration with City staff to ensure that the plans adhered to the district’s guidelines.

 

Mark Brandt, Mark Thompson Brandt & Associates, spoke in support of the application, as per the findings in the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS).  Mr. Brandt elaborated on the appendices to the CHIS that were not included in the staff report, which provide information on the context on which the CHIS was written.  Mr. Brandt stressed to members that the plans before OBHAC have been significantly revised from their first incarnation, and are much more sensitive to the district and streetscape.  He also urged members to evaluate this application as it fits within the context of the district as a whole, and that as such, he felt there was no significant negative impact on the district.

 

Members had a question on the use of the terms “overall balance and symmetry”.  Mr. Brandt responded that while the entire building, comprised of both single dwellings, may not be symmetrical, there remains a balance within the single family home, and within the larger streetscape.

 

Paul McConnell, New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) board member and co-chair of the New Edinburgh Heritage and Development Committee, spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr. McConnell said that while NECA does not often oppose development in the district, he felt this particular application was overly intrusive in its massing and height, and did not take the current zoning bylaw or heritage overlay in account at all in its design.  He also felt that the addition created an imbalance on the entire building.  Finally, Mr. McConnell cited a study entitled “Heritage Districts Work” which stated the positive impact of following heritage regulations and guidelines in heritage districts to maintain the benefits and contributions to the community that they provide.  Mr. McConnell feared that this application, if approved, would set an unhappy precedent in the district.

 

Vickie Brennan, immediate neighbour on Crichton Street, spoke in opposition to the application.  Ms. Brennan urged members to consider the entire building when determining the balance and compatibility of the proposed alteration.  She also had grave concerns with the impact this alteration will have on the simplicity of the building, with the height of the addition, and with its location on the side yard.

 

Johanne Senécal, immediate neighbour on Crichton Street, spoke in opposition to the application.  Ms. Senécal fully supported the comments made by Mr. McConnell and Ms. Brennan, and believed that the alteration will be highly visible from the street level, will have a significant impact on the district, and will be precedent-setting.

 

Joan Mason, New Edinburgh Community Alliance board member, spoke in opposition to the application.  Ms. Mason spoke to the shared responsibility of all residents of New Edinburg to adhere to the guidelines and recommendations of the heritage district, including zoning bylaws and heritage overlays.  Ms. Mason also believed the application would be precedent-setting if approved, and would jeopardize the heritage attributes of the district.  Finally Ms. Mason addressed the importance of heritage conservation districts in general, the City’s shortfalls in highlighting heritage conservation districts in Ottawa, and enlightened members to some of the initiatives being undertaken by NECA to highlight New Edinburgh’s heritage attributes.

 

Herb Stovel, Director, Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University, spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr. Stovel spoke to his concerns with the CHIS, specifically with its independence and the lack of neutrality in its findings.  Mr. Stovel additionally had concerns with the staff report, and felt the proposed plans simply did not adhere to the guidelines of the district due to its large massing, height, and placement on the side yard.

 

Mr. Brandt responded to comments made regarding the CHIS, stating that this was a report written by and independent third party, and that information provided in the statement was done with the sole purpose of providing a comprehensive analysis of the proposed plans on the district.

 

David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa, spoke in opposition to the application.  Mr. Flemming noted the quality of the Heritage Conservation District guidelines for New Edinburgh, stating that they are concise, appropriate, and have community buy-in.  As such, Mr. Flemming believed that the proposed alteration does not adhere to the guidelines, for reasons previously mentioned (disregard for heritage overlay, height, massing, and impact on streetscape).  Mr. Flemming highlighted the community’s demonstrated loyalty to the guidelines, and the protection it offers the community.

 

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:

·         Email dated 26 February 2010 from Joan Mason, Director, New Edinburg Community Alliance, opposing the application

·         Email dated 27 February 2010 from Richard and Vickie Brennan, opposing the application

·         Letter dated 1 March 2010 from Sarah Anson-Cartwright, opposing the application

·         Letter dated 2 March 2010 from the New Edinburgh Community Alliance, opposing the application

·         Letter dated 3 March 2010 from Johanne Senécal and Cyrus Reporter, opposing the application

·         Letter dated 4 March 2010 from Herb Stovel, Director, Heritage Conservation Programme, Carleton University, opposing the application

 

Members had a lengthy discussion regarding the issues raised by staff, the architect, and public delegations.  While some members agreed that the size and placement of the proposed alteration contravened the district guidelines, other members applauded the sensitive use of a contemporary design infill, and the significant setback that allows the current structure to retain its dominance.

Finally, members had grave concerns with the relocation of the front entrance, which changed the building significantly by adding a third front entrance.  Members felt that was an unnecessary design element which did take away from the heritage fabric of the building and streetscape.  Members would have preferred to see the current front entrance retained for that purpose, and to see an attempt at rehabilitating the front veranda according to historical data available.

 

Moved by Member V. Sahni,

 

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee oppose the staff recommendation to the Planning and Environment Committee to:

 

1.         Approve the application to alter 73 Crichton Street, in accordance with the plans submitted by James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc. as received on February 4, 2010 and shown in Document 3.

 

2.         Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance

 

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on May 5, 2010)

 

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

 

                                                                                   CARRIED

 

Yeas (10): V. Angel, J. Baltz, R. Dalibard, J. Doutriaux, E. Eagen, C. Mulholland, V. Sahni, H. Schade, È. Wertheimer, S. Whamond.

 

Nays (3): A. Fyfe, P. Maheu, E. Zdansky.

 

 



APPLICATION TO ALTER 73 CRICHTON STREET, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART V OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT AND LOCATED IN THE NEW EDINBURGH HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

DEMANCE EN VUE DE MODIFIER LA PROPRIÉTÉ DU 73, RUE CRICHTON, DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO ET SITUÉE DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0054                                                  Rideau Rockcliffe (13)

 

The following written submissions were received in relation to this item and are held on file with the City Clerk: 


·                Letter dated 16 March 2010 from Gordon Filewych

·                Letter dated 16 March 2010 from Karen Marcus and Roland Collins

·                Letter dated 19 March 2010 from Daniel and Cheri Reddin

·                E-mail dated 22 March 2010 from David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa

·                Letter dated 22 March 2010 form Herb Stovel

·                Letter dated 22 March 2010 from Johanne Senécal and Cyrus Reporter, accompanied by site photographs

·                E-mail dated 22 March 2010 from Richard Brennan and Vickie Brennan

·                Letter from Ray and Mary-Ellen Boomgardt

·      Letter from Dr. Thomas Conway and Rita Fung

·      Letter from Lorie Boucher and John Thurston

·      Letter from Mike Robertson

·      Letter from Brian Stanley

·      Correspondence from Mark T. Brandt, MTBA Architect and Associates, including complete Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS), firm profile and biography.

·      Correspondence from the applicant, Jean-Louis Wallace, including copy of a petition signed by area residents in support of the application.


 

Lesley Collins, Heritage Planner, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation that provided an overview of the application to alter 73 Crichton Street, and staff’s rationale for recommending approval of that application.  A copy of Ms. Collins’ presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.  It was noted that, while staff had recommended approval of the application, the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) had subsequently opposed the application.

 

Councillor Hume asked staff to provide more detailed rationale for why the proposed addition had met the requirement that it not be the “dominant presence” in the streetscape. Ms. Collins noted that, as a result of staff’s suggestions, the applicant had set back the side portion of the addition by three metres to allow the existing historical building to remain the dominant feature of the streetscape.  In evaluating whether the addition was dominant, staff took several factors are taken into consideration, including the views along the street, the fact that the side addition is set back and the fact that it is lower than the rest of the addition.  She confirmed that one of the primary contributions this property makes to the overall cultural heritage value of this district is its contribution to the streetscape.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Collins confirmed that, if the owner wished to change the façade of the building in the future, he would have to make another application to alter, and any future applications would be assessed on their own individual merits.  She noted that the initial application for this site had included altering the façade, and staff could not support that alteration because the street-facing façade is the primary heritage value of the building.

 

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

 

David Sacks, New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA), spoke in opposition to the application, and in support of the recommendations of OBHAC.  Firstly, Mr. Sacks spoke to the impacts of the application on the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District, arguing its approval would set a bad precedent for development within the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District. He stated his understanding that the Heritage provisions of the City’s Zoning by-law provides that additions be located in the rear yard, and form the shape of the letter “I,” and should not be build to the side; however, the proposed addition is to be built in the shape of the letter “L,” and sits largely in the side yard.  He argued the addition was in violation of the heritage zoning by-law because it sits in the side yard, is too close to the neighbour, and is too large.  He also suggested the addition was too tall in the back, though even without that additional height it would still be in violation of the spirit and letter of the by-law by virtue of its basic design. 

 

Mr Sacks suggested that if the design of this addition were to be approved by Committee, it would set the standard for the heritage conservation district, and would be replicated by other homeowners. He suggested this represented a very dangerous precedent.  Mr. Sacks noted staff had emphasized that the modern addition was in contrast to the heritage building.  He suggested that it was dangerous to suggest the function of the heritage conservation district is to provide a visual foil to a large, modern extension, and predicted that once enough similar additions had been built that rationale would come to seem foolish. 

 

Mr. Sack proposed that, in addition to the concerns with regards to this particular Heritage Conservation District, there were wider implications relating to the rule of law.  He proposed this matter raised the question of how much power the law has versus how much power staff has, arguing the heritage by-law provisions should not be taken lightly.  He questioned the utility of having rules and by-laws if staff routinely recommends circumvention of those rules.  He did not feel staff should have ever recommended this application go forward.  He also noted that there was no intensification rationale in this case, as it would remain a single family dwelling. He suggested approval would send a message to homeowners that the City’s by-laws are not necessarily to be taken seriously.  He concluded by encouraging Committee to vote against the proposal.

 

Councillor Doucet noted he lived in a house similar to this one, and suggested he would not be eager if his neighbour erected a similar addition.  Ms. Collins noted that all of the neighbours within 30 metres were notified and correspondence from those neighbours was received by the Committee.  She confirmed her belief, based on the correspondence she had seen, that the adjacent neighbour was not in support of the extension.  Councillor Hume noted that correspondence had been received both in favour and in opposition to the proposal.  

 

In response to questions from the Chair, Ms. Collins explained her understanding that the proposal would require minor variances for relief from the Heritage Overlay provisions of the Zoning By-law, as well as a variance for the reduced side yard setback; both of these matters would be considered by the Committee of Adjustment.  The Chair noted the issue was before Planning and Environment Committee due to the fact that it is located within the heritage conservation district.

 

Councillor Holmes noted she had never seen an addition of this nature in the conservation districts in her ward, noting most the extensions she had seen were behind the house such that they could not be seen from the street, and such that the façade remains the same.  In response to the Councillor’s questions, Ms Collins confirmed that there are other examples of similar additions in other heritage conservation districts.  She cited the example of the Strathcona on the Parc project located on Laurier Avenue East in the Sandy Hill Heritage Conservation District, where and extension was built to connect two Queen Anne heritage houses, with this extension set back from the dwellings to ensure they remain dominant in the streetscape.

 

Councillor Feltmate noted that the staff presentation had referenced “guidelines” while the delegation had mentioned a “by-law.”  She inquired as to which provisions were in the by-law, and which were merely guidelines.  Ms. Collins explained that in this case there were two issues at play: the first is the Heritage Overlay, which forms part of the city’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law and will be dealt with at the Committee of Adjustment.  There is also the By-law associated with the designation of the Heritage Conservation District.  She explained that the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District was designated by a By-law, and there is an associated New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study and Heritage Conservation District Plan, from which staff quoted guidelines. However, the study and plan do not form part of the designation by-law, as the study pre-dates the 2005 Ontario Heritage Act. As such, they are only considered guidelines.  Ms. Collins further confirmed that the guidelines could be brought into the by-law, and in the future staff intends to update all of the heritage conservation district studies to fulfill the requirements of the 2005 Ontario Heritage Act.  The current plans would not completely meet the standard required by the Act.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Moser explained that staff are indeed aware of the issue of the conservation district studies, and are trying to put together a work plan over the next few years to bring them up to the standards of the Act; however, there are sixteen plans to do, and with limited resources this will not be done quickly.

 

Chair Hume requested that Mr. Moser send Committee a memo identifying what he considers to be the top priorities for updating the heritage conservation district studies, what resources would be needed to implement those priority studies.  It should identify if there are resources to undertake any of them this year, or what would need to be included in the 2011 budget to undertake them.  Mr. Moser indicated that he would do this.

 

Jay Baltz, Chair of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) wished to thank Committee members for bringing up the question of the heritage conservation district studies, suggesting OBHAC was fairly handicapped by the fact that most are not up to date with the 2005 Ontario Heritage Act.  He noted that, as with this case, the Committee is often left with a balance of opinion rather than being able to measure against some clear guidelines.  He indicated OBHAC would support putting the updating of these plans on the department’s work plan.

 

Mr. Baltz noted OBHAC had not supported the staff recommendations on this application.  He suggested had been a difficult discussion for the Committee, and maintained they wanted more minor adjustments to the plan rather than a wholesale re-doing of the project.  He provided the following details of the discussion that had taken place at OBHAC, and the rationale behind that Committee’s recommendation:

·         OBHAC took into account that this part of Crichton Street is far from uniform, and would accommodate various built forms provided the general intent of the heritage district guidelines was maintained.

·         OBHAC did not express concerns about the modern character of the proposed addition, in keeping with accepted heritage conservation practices, and the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan.  He suggested that, in general, it is a well-designed modern addition by a well-known and well-respected architect.

·         The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan, while it does not contain much specific direction on infill additions, has several guidelines that influenced OBHAC’s decision on the matter.

·         The guidelines make it clear that renovations that substantially alter the character of an original building are not desirable, and though such remodeling has occurred, it is not encouraged.

·         Although the façade is remaining intact, on balance, OBHAC felt several aspects of the propose addition to be far too fundamental and visible alterations to the building fabric to conform to this guideline.  Particularly, the scale of the proposed addition, its projection above the roofline, its prominent glass front door, its impact on symmetry.

·         The projection above the roofline was mitigated by its setback, so that was a minor factor.  The prominent glass door and shifting of the functional front door to the side addition.  The large, expansive glass, which when lit up at night, would draw all attention to the new addition, even though it is setback. 

·         Although the heritage overlay is part of the zoning bylaw and not directly subject to this approval process, the Heritage Conservation Plan guidelines specifically mentions the heritage overlay provisions of the zoning bylaw for this area, stating that “Additions are permitted if the proposed addition is located entirely in the rear yard….the height of the walls and the height and slope of the roof do not exceed those of the building,” and adds that the purpose of this is to ensure that the existing building remains the dominant presence in the streetscape.

·         OBHAC believed, on balance, that the District Plan clearly required that the buildings dominate over proposed modern additions, and did not feel that would be the case with this addition.

·         He noted that the Plan also indicates every attempt should be made to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the building.  OBHAC felt that, on balance, this could have been better handled to more completely reduce the impact. 

·         OBHAC also recognized that this is a family trying to enlarge a house so they can live there and remain part of the neighbourhood and did not wish to see the work and expense that has gone in to be wasted. 

·         OBHAC understands that such small dwellings must often be expanded to meet modern requirements and this type of adaptive re-use should be generally supported in heritage conservation districts. 

·         OBHAC encourages that the design be modified to reduce the visibility of the third floor addition from the street, retain the existing front door as the main entrance, and de-emphasize the front of the addition, and consider other modifications that would retain the well-designed modern character of the proposed addition, while creating better balance in mass and height with the original section and the other half of the semi detached dwelling.

·         OBHAC also suggested considering adding back a front porch similar to the original,  that which could further redirect the focus to the front façade of the original structure,

 

A copy of Mr. Baltz’s detailed written comments is held on file with the City Clerk

 

David Flemming, Heritage Ottawa, began by echoing the statements made by the previous delegation in support more resources for heritage in Ottawa. He suggested some of the issues that had required so much discussion at the meeting might have been resolved if there had been more human and financial resources in the heritage planning section. He reiterated that Heritage Ottawa had emphasized this need for more resources in past presentations to Committee and submissions made during the budget process.

 

The following points summarize his presentation in opposition to the proposed alteration of 73 Crichton Street:

·         Heritage Ottawa supports the recommendation of OBHAC to oppose the staff recommendation to the Planning and Environment Committee regarding the application to alter 73 Crichton Street.

·         The proposal has some merit as an addition to an existing dwelling and while it may be appropriate in some other parts of the City, it is not appropriate for the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.

·         The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study contains well- thought-out guidelines which were developed in close consultation between City staff and community representatives. This has resulted in community support for most applications for redevelopment. This one is an obvious exception.

·         Not only does it exceed the guidelines contained in the study, it exceeds the letter and spirit of the guidelines regarding height, gross floor area and side yard setback contained in the Heritage Overlay of the Zoning By-law.

·         These shortcomings are acknowledged in the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement, and the rationale provided for mitigation of these shortcomings does not overcome their impact on the property and the District.

·         Approval of this application would provide a significant precedent which could lead to further deterioration of the heritage characteristics of the District.

 

He concluded by urging Committee to support the OBHAC recommendation and the guidelines for development in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.  A copy of Mr. Flemming’s written comments were circulated and are held on file.

 

Chair Hume noted that many members of Committee worked hard to augment any resources to planning and development during the budget process.  He noted that the training budget had been $15 000 for the entire planning department, which had been augmented this year.

 

Vickie Brennan, spoke in opposition to the proposed alteration to 73 Crichton.  She noted that she and her husband owned 71 Crichton, the other half of the double residence. She noted that they had purchased their home with the understanding that it was protected by the Heritage Conservation district and Heritage Overlays in the Zoning Bylaws, and that the Community would be safe from the adverse impact of development.

 

She suggested the proposed alteration would destroy the heritage fabric of the double residence and the district as a whole.  She suggested the proposal was at odds with the Zoning By-law and heritage overlay, particularly with regard to location, height and increase in square footage. She suggested the impact on her home would be significant, as it would be attached to an anomaly.  She was not aware of any other doubles with three front entrance doors, as this would have. 

 

She also expressed that there were environmental concerns with regards to impacts on the foundation, including structural issues related to the size of the addition and the roof terrace; the possibility of rainwater diversion causing basement leaks; change in wind direction; loss of light and privacy, and concerns with the durability of the building’s sewer hook-up, located in her basement.

 

Ms. Brennan expressed that the rules should be observed or the historical importance of New Edinburgh would be lost.  She asked Committee take their concerns into consideration and deny the application.  A detailed written submission from Ms. Brennan and Richard Brennan was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Joan Mason, read from a statement prepared by Johanne Senécal and Cyrus Reporter, owners of 79 Crichton, which is the immediate neighbour to the east of 73 Crichton.  As they were unable to attend, they had asked Ms. Mason to read their comments in opposition to the application.  Written comments and supporting photographs were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk.

 

The following points were outlined in the submission

·         The owners of 79 Crichton believe that this is a major alteration to the semi detached building that would significantly impact the heritage fabric of the neighbouring homes and of the general streetscape of this designated heritage district.  They also believe that the proposed alterations are major ones in various aspects and significantly at odds with current zoning by-laws and not in line with the City’s OP.

·         With respect to height, the proposed alteration would exceed the height of the existing building and create a third floor, with a roof and deck in its rear portion.

·         With respect to shading and privacy, the proposed deck would be overlooking her yard and patio area as well as neighbouring yards.

·         With respect to the oversize of the proposed gross floor area would be 95 per cent of the existing building and would completely extend into the side yard between our dwellings. It would allow for a decreased easterly side yard of 1.2 metres, which would result in the disappearance of green space and the creation of a narrow lane way between the two dwellings, very likely to cause wind and snow tunnels as well additional water pressure on the foundations of 79 Crichton due to the relocation of down spouts.

·         The addition and disappearance of the side yard would result with total obstruction of view and a significant decreased lighting from the only two windows on the west side of 79 Crichton.

·         The owners of 79 Crichton bought their home in the neighbourhood for its historic roots and values. When they first purchased their home, they built a rear addition which was well received by their neighbours. She indicated that they worked with City of Ottawa and zoning by-laws of the time. She submitted that this project is extreme and does not respect the intent of the City’s OP.

 

Speaking on her own behalf as a nearby neighbour, Ms. Mason indicated that she also opposed the application.

 

Jean-Louis Wallace, applicant/owner, indicated that he and his family had been residents of New Edinburgh for more than 15 years and the owners and residents of 73 Crichton for 12 years.  In his presentation, Mr. Wallace made the following points:

·           Upon purchasing their home, there was no heritage overlay, and one of the attractions of the house was that the unusually generous fourteen foot side yard and large back yard allowed for future expansion to meet their growing family’s needs.

·           The basement is not useable due to bedrock three feet below grade; therefore, it offers no room for expansion.  There is no garage, and are not proposing one as part of the proposal.

·           In designing the addition, they wanted to minimize the impact on the back yard, and building further into the back yard would have greater impacts on the attached neighbours by blocking sunlight. 

·           They believe the addition has high architectural merit, and balances their needs with the concerns of the neighbours. 

·           It was noted there is a ten-metre tall linden tree that would camouflage the proposed addition.

·           Much thought has gone into the application process, and they hired a reputable architect familiar with New Edinburgh, and a reputable professional to undertake the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS).

·           He suggested that, having met with the heritage development committee of NECA, there is no consideration by that group of the homeowner’s needs or willingness to move from their position.

·           They met with City heritage planners and have incorporated their comments into revised plans.

·           They met with Councillor Legendre, who is supporting the position of the Community Association.

·           They attempted to meet with adjacent neighbours, who initially supported the concept of the addition, but subsequently opposed the proposal.  He expressed his frustration with his dealings with the neighbours, who had no response to their requests to meet and discuss the plans and address their concerns. 

·           Based on his door-to-door canvassing of 70 residences, only one expressed concerns, indicating approximately 95 per cent of households canvassed are supportive of the proposal.  He noted noting that canvassing was limited to those living within the Heritage Conservation District.

 

Mr. Wallace concluded by stating that his family wished to remain in the neighbourhood and expressed his hope that the Committee would appreciate their concerns and their wish to build an addition to meet the family’s needs.  Mr. Wallace’s PowerPoint Presentation, as well as numerous written supporting written submissions, are held on file with the City Clerk. These include a copy of a petition from residents in support of the application, and the results of his canvassing of the neighbourhood.

 

James Colizza, architect, spoke in support of the application. He began by taking the Committee through the design process in order that they understand why the addition was designed the way it was.  He highlighted that the area was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, not Part V. As such, it is a matter where the impacts of what the applicant is proposing are not evaluated primarily based on architectural impacts, rather primarily based on the contribution to the streetscape. He explained that the streetscape, as it currently exists, is one of varied forms, different shapes, color, tenure, etc. This diversity is the character of this street into which the new construction needs to blend. 

 

Mr. Colizza indicated that the present design, which hugs the existing building and slips between the current resident and the neighbouring house, was the design that made the most sense both from a functional design perspective, and the design that minimized the impact on the neighbours in terms of privacy and shadowing.  He suggested the type of addition currently allowed in the by law – a two story addition located entirely in the rear of the building – would have greater privacy impacts and shadowing on the neighbours, and made little sense from a space planning perspective.

 

He noted they took into consideration the impact on the current streetscape, and pulled the building back at the front by 12 feet and made the front only one storey in order to mitigate the impact.  The back portion of the addition is primarily two stories. The higher three-story portion was placed at the back and centre of the building which allowed for the least amount of impact on privacy and shadowing, and is 73 feet back from the street.

 

In summation, Mr. Colizza proposed that the addition would not have an adverse impact on the spirit and intent of the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District designation. He believed the addition would sit comfortably within the varied streetscape of Crichton Street and its design is sensitive and respects its context. A copy of Mr. Colizza’s PowerPoint presentation, which includes various visual renderings of the subject property and streetscape, is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Mark Brandt, architect, indicated that he was the author of the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS), noting his firm was fully independent of the design team. A copy of the CHIS along with other supporting documents is held on file with the City Clerk.  Mr. Brandt indicated the CHIS uses a number of documents, one of which is the Heritage Conservation District Study.  He reiterated that the aspect of the study that talks about streetscape is the key element for evaluation in this particular proposal, as the building in question is a Level Three building.

 

Mr. Brandt explained that, after looking at all of the evidence, including the set back from the street, the lack of intrusion into the front façade and the front yard, and the fact that there was no significant impact on the building façade, he found that there was not a significant negative impact on the streetscape. He noted that from some angles, the addition would not be seen.  He indicated the unique large rear yard and side yard were also key elements in his study, as they make for a better opportunity for this type of proposal to fit into the heritage conservation district.  Mr. Brandt indicated there have been many people over the previous 100 years adding additions to their small home in New Edinburgh, and Crichton is one of the most diverse streets within the district.

 

In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Colizza explained there is a basement in the existing house but it is only five feet high.  With regards to the possibility of moving the addition to the rear, he suggested moving back on the site would impact the functionality of the space, and impact the neighbours even more because the further back the addition, the greater the shadows and privacy issues.

 

Councillor Feltmate inquired about whether the applicant had considered eliminating the proposed third level, to which Mr. Colizza explained that they had looked at doing this.  The intended room on this level originally was going to be in the basement until they discovered bedrock three feet down. The additional space is something the applicant felt was needed, and the addition of the third floor was how the request could be accommodated. It was placed in the middle of the building so that it had the least impact.

 

In response to questions regarding the house being the dominant figure in the streetscape, Mr. Brandt explained when something of this nature is being considered a matrix of factors are looked at. He pointed out that documents depicting elevations from both the building architect and the computer-generated ones in the staff report clearly show the setback, perspective views, view cones, form and scale of the addition, noting these are from an eye level view point.  Mr. Brandt further explained looking at the existing Category Three building, it is essentially a very rectilinear, blocky volume; as the addition is also rectilinear and blocky, the two fit well together.  Mr. Brandt indicated that there was still the opportunity to rebuild the original double porch that existed on this building at one time, which would be a mitigation measure that could further help the existing building to dominate the streetscape. However, he maintained that even without the double porch, it was clear to him that the existing build remains dominant.

 

Following the public delegations, the Chair opened the floor for members of Committee to speak to OBHACs and staff’s recommendations.

 

Councillor Doucet began by saying that Crichton Street is a diverse street, and that he likes streets being different as they are visually appealing. He also indicated he liked the design of the addition, stating that a glass addition would give a lighter feel; however, he felt he could not vote in favour of the addition for a number of reasons. One reason was he felt he should support the laws that are in place, as there is little point of having laws in place if there are only going to be broken.  He did want going against the laws to set a precedent.  The Councillor felt Committee needed to think about what the Heritage Overlay means.  He suggested the discussion over whether the overlay means you can control this type of development, whether the overlay should be changed, was not something that could be resolved at this level or over this issue.  He felt the safest course of action on this application would be to reject it and have the applicant go back and modify his proposal  

 

Chair Hume expressed his understanding that there was no right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal board on this matter; though the applicants could seek a report from the Conservation Board.  He stated that if planning was just about absolutes it would make things easier for everyone.  He suggested the entire planning framework was based on a homeowner being able to apply to alter their property, to meet their changing circumstances as a property owner, and emphasized the owners had the right to apply.  The Chair further commented that this matter was about the City’s policies, procedures, OP, and how Committee relies on City staff’s interpretation and judgment to make an informed decision.  He felt the intelligent and informed decision in this case would be to accept the application.  He suggested the application represents exactly what the City wants a property owner to do, namely their decision to go through the appropriate procedures to alter their property in order to stay in the community and fulfill their needs as a home and property owner.

 

Councillor Bellemare moved the original staff recommendation as a replacement motion.

 

Moved by M. Bellemare:

 

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the original staff recommendation to:

 

1.                   Approve the application to alter 73 Crichton Street, in accordance with the plans submitted by James Colizza, James A. Colizza Inc. as received on February 4, 2010 and shown in Document 3.

2.                   Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance

 

                                                                                                           CARRIED

 

YEAS (5):  Councillors M. Bellemare, B. Monette, P. Feltmate; P. Hume, S. Qadri

NAYS (1):  Councillor C. Doucet