|
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 SITUÉE AU 73, RUE CRICHTON, DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA
PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO ET QUI SE TROUVE
DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH
|
Committee
recommendations
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 January 20, 2011 as show in Document 3;
2.
Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General
Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department;
3.
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 March 17, 2011)
(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 modification du 73,
rue Crichton, conformément aux plans soumis par James Colizza, James A. Colizza
Inc. tels que reçus le 20 janvier 2011 et présentés dans le document 3;
2.
délègue le pouvoir au directeur général
du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance en ce qui concerne
les modifications de design mineures;
3.
délivre le permis en matière de
patrimoine dont la date d’expiration est fixée à deux ans après la date
d’émission.
(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 17 mars 2011.)
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, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, dated 24 December 2010
(ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0136), as amended to reflect
revised plans submitted to the Ottawa Built
Heritage Advisory Committee on 20 January
2011.
2.
Extract of Draft Minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee meeting of 20 January 2011.
3.
Extract of Draft Planning Committee Minutes of 8
February 2011.
Report to/Rapport
au :
Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’Ottawa
and / et
Planning Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
24 December 2010 / le 24
décembre 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
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0036
|
|
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 :
|
Demande EN VUE DE MODIFIER la
propriété située au 73, rue Crichton, désignée en vertu de la partie V de la Loi
sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario et qui se trouve dans le district de
conservation du patrimoine de new edinburgh
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee
recommend that Planning 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 December 15, 2010 as show in Document 3;
2.
Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General
Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department;
3.
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 March 17, 2011)
(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
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 15 décembre 2010 et présentés dans le
document 3;
2.
de déléguer le pouvoir au directeur
général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance en ce qui
concerne les modifications de design mineures;
3.
de délivrer le permis en matière de
patrimoine dont la date d’expiration est fixée à deux ans après la date
d’émission.
(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
17 mars 2011.)
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 one 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 (Documents 1 and 2). The proposed alteration includes an
addition to the rear and side of the building. This report has been prepared
because any substantial alteration to a building designated under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act requires approval of City Council.
There was a previous application
to alter this property in early 2010 that was supported by the Planning and
Growth Management Department and Planning and Environment Committee but not
supported by the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) or City
Council. The applicant appealed this decision to the Ontario Municipal Board
but a hearing has not yet been held. The current application includes a number
of changes suggested by OBHAC during its review in March 2010.
DISCUSSION
73 Crichton Street is a Category
3 building located in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District (HCD),
which means the building contributes to the heritage character of the
streetscape. All buildings in the HCD are categorized between 1 and 4 with
Category 1 being the most significant buildings in the HCD and Category 4 being
the least significant. The Heritage Survey Form is included as Document 3. The
New Edinburgh HCD was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
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 and churches 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.
Constructed in the early 20th
century, 73 Crichton Street is half of a two-storey semi-detached brick house,
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 and the overall character of the New
Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
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:
3.3 i) Additions
Guidelines
- 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.
- 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.
- Every attempt should be made
to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the building.
- 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 includes
a new addition in the side and rear yard at 73 Crichton Street. The addition includes
a one storey (approximately seven metres) vestibule at the front and rises to
two storeys at the rear of the building. The addition is set back approximately
nine metres from the street and three metres from the front of the existing
house. Approximately nine metres from the front of the house, the addition
rises to two storeys (nine metres).
While not located entirely in the
rear yard, the new addition allows the historic building to remain the dominant
presence in the streetscape by setting the new addition back from the front of
the existing house and having a one storey structure that rises to two storeys at
the rear of the building. The door to the new addition addresses the street,
but is designed with significant glazing which will allow the door to read as a
window.
The proposed addition is
consistent with Guideline 2 as a contemporary addition to a historic building.
The form and massing of the building are sensitive and complementary to the
existing building. The use of a flat roof and rectilinear shapes is compatible
with the existing building. The new addition is subordinate to the existing
house by maintaining a lower roofline and a set back from the front of the
house. The materials are contemporary but subdued. They include zinc-coated
copper, concrete board, and metal siding in black and grey palette. The
architect has also tried to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the
house by maintaining the front façade of the house, allowing for the
possibility of restoration of missing elements, such as the porch, in the
future.
The new design addresses a number
of concerns expressed by members of the community and OBHAC during the previous
application process in 2010. Some OBHAC and community members were concerned with
the height and mass of the building, the creation of a third entrance at the
front of the building, and the contemporary style of the addition. The third
storey of the addition was removed from the plan to address concerns about the
building being too high. The overall size of the addition has been reduced to
89.4 square metres or 75.2 per cent of the existing building. The original
proposal was 95 per cent of the original building.
The Department supports the
proposed addition to 73 Crichton Street because it is sensitively designed to
reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the streetscape and responds to
previous concerns raised through this process. The proposed addition will not
have a negative impact on the heritage character of New Edinburgh as outlined
in the Statement of Heritage Character because it is of its own time,
subordinate to the original building and provides a clear division between new
and old while still employing complementary form and scale.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
CONSULTATION
Heritage Ottawa is aware of the
application.
The New Edinburgh Community
Association is aware of the application.
Neighbours within 30m were notified
of the application and offered the opportunity to comment verbal or in writing
to OBHAC or Planning Committee.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
Councillor Clark supports this
application.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no legal/risk
management implications associated with this report. The applicant’s current
appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board remains ongoing unless it is withdrawn.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Objective
F 2: Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of
existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with
established communities.
The City wants to protect the
qualities and characteristics that define what is unique and special about each
community while accommodating new growth.
Review applications as part of
the development and infrastructure approval process for neighbourhood
compatibility and the preservation of unique identities of our communities and
villages
Objective E8: Operationalize the Ottawa 20/20 Arts &
Heritage Plan.
2.1.2 Identify and Protect Archaeological and Built
Heritage Resources, Streetscapes, Public and Symbolic Civic Places and Cultural
Landscapes
2.1.2.2 The City
will preserve distinct built heritage, streetscapes and cultural heritage
landscapes that serve as landmarks and symbols of local identity in both urban
and rural districts, as outlined in the Official Plan.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no
direct financial implications associated with this report.
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 Plan
Document 2 Existing Conditions
Document 3 Heritage Survey
Form
Document 4 Elevations
Document 5 Renderings
Document 6 Site Plan
Document 7 Cultural Heritage
Impact Statement
Document 8 Statement of
Heritage Character
Document 9 New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Study (distributed
separately and on file with the OBHAC Co-ordinator
DISPOSITION
December 17, 2010
City of Ottawa
Department of Planning & Growth
Management
110 Laurier Ave. West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1J1
Attention: Lesley Collins
Heritage Planner
RE: Heritage Planning Rationale -
Addition to 73 Crichton Street
Dear Ms. Collins:
Our clients, the owners of 73
Crichton Street, are proposing a two storey addition. 73 Crichton Street is
half of a two-storey semi-detached brick house built in 1905. The building,
typical of other buildings within the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation
District has a flat roof and simple cornice. The building façade was altered by
previous owners. Namely, new windows were installed, the original enclosed
two-storey porch and second storey doors were removed. The brick was also
sandblasted which has accelerated its wear and tear. However, the general form,
symmetry, scale and massing of the building remains and contributes to the
streetscape of Crichton Street.
Our clients needs have changed since
they initially purchased their home in 1998 and as such, the house is smaller
than average for a three person family. Our clients require additional space
for an extra bathroom, family room, and music room for their daughter as well
as storage space to compensate for unusable basement. The property itself is
unusual for the neighborhood in that it has a large side and backyard.
Moreover, while both sides of the semi detached homes are symmetrical in
nature, their respective location on the joint property is not. 73 Crichton
Street has a side yard of just over 4.7 metres while the adjoining property at
71 Crichton Street is limited to 0.3 metres of side yard.
Given the house orientation, located
on the southwest side of Crichton Street, the proposal is to include
development in the side and read yard of the property. The proposed addition
shall consist of a one-storey entranceway vestibule in the side yard of the
property with a two-storey addition at the rear of the house. The two storey
addition will be lower than the existing building. The total size of the
addition proposed is a 75 per cent increase in floor space.
The proposed addition will have a
favourable impact on the neighbourhood and complement the integrity of the
existing semi-detached home. It will contribute positively to the scale,
density, and very unique character of this heritage district. Through its use
of materials, setback from the street, composition and massing, this proposal
is sensitive to the neighbourhood context on many levels:
- The addition’s contemporary style
blends well with the streetscape’s rich variety of historic styles.
- The height is consistent with the
street’s current mixture of two and three storey buildings.
- The property is one of a few homes on
Crichton Street that still has an undeveloped side yard and the use of this
space will fill a void within the current rhythm of Crichton Street.
- Through the massing, the applicants
are courteously minimizing the impact of the addition on their immediate
neighbours. By developing the side yard they are utilizing a dark/shaded area
and thereby minimizing any impact on the adjacent backyards and the public
laneway.
- The existing house is set back
further from the street than most homes on the block and the proposed addition
is set back even further, minimizing the visual impact on the streetscape.
This plain but handsome brick
semi-detached home is a common style of relatively unadorned residences found
throughout the City and within this heritage district. We believe that the new
addition to 73 Crichton Street will be a great improvement, and will serve to
enhance and feature the original 1905 building, as it follows the guidelines of
the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Guidelines.
Yours sincerely,
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
Demande EN VUE DE MODIFIER la propriété située
au 73, rue Crichton, désignée en vertu de la partie V de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario et qui se trouve dans le district de conservation
du patrimoine de new edinburgh
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0036 Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)
Lesley Collins, Heritage Planner,
provided background on the application, including images depicting the current
condition and streetscape and renderings and elevations of the proposed
alteration. She noted that this is a new application, not a modification of
the previous application in early 2010 that OBHAC and City Council rejected.
The applicant appealed that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board but a
hearing has not yet been held. The current application includes a number of changes
suggested by OBHAC during its review in March 2010.
Ms. Collins distributed copies of
revised elevations of the proposal, noting an error with the scale of the
renderings included in the staff report. She asked that OBHAC amend staff
recommendation to note plans submitted on January 20th (as opposed
to December 15th), should they choose to approve that
recommendation.
The proposed alteration includes
a new addition in the side and rear yard. The addition includes a one storey
vestibule at the front and rises to two storeys at the rear of the building.
The addition is set back approximately nine metres from the street and three
metres from the front of the existing house. Approximately nine metres from
the front of the house, the addition rises to two storeys (nine metres). While
not located entirely in the rear yard, the new addition allows the historic
building to remain the dominant presence in the streetscape by setting the new
addition back from the front of the existing house and having a one storey
structure that rises to two storeys at the rear of the building. The door to
the new addition addresses the street, but is designed with significant glazing
which will allow the door to read as a window.
Ms. Collins indicated that staff
supports the application because the proposed addition is sensitively designed
to reduce the impact on the historic fabric of the streetscape and responds to
previous concerns raised through this process. The proposed addition will not
have a negative impact on the heritage character of New Edinburgh as outlined
in the Statement of Heritage Character because it is of its own time,
subordinate to the original building and provides a clear division between new
and old while still employing complementary form and scale.
Jean-Louis Wallace,
owner of 73 Crichton Street, outlined the consultation he undertook since the
original application was rejected to prepare a new plan that he feels addresses
the concerns previously raised. In addition to consultation with the previous and
current ward Councillors, City heritage and planning staff, and his own architect,
planner, heritage advisor and legal counsel, he advised that door-to-door
consultation with more than 180 households in the heritage district resulted in
165 households signing a petition of support for the new plan.
Mr. Wallace suggested the new
proposal addresses the most substantive points raised by OBHAC last year, being
massing and height. He said this proposal complements the integrity of the
existing semi-detached home, adding that the third storey would be removed and
the massing reduced from 95% to 75% (in line with other renovations in the
immediate neighbourhood). He noted a side entry-way is proposed but the main
entrance into the house remains where it is today. He added that leaving the
front entry as is permits consideration at a later date to restore the
two-storey front entry porch, as City staff have suggested.
Mr. Wallace stated that he
consulted the New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) on January 17th,
who proposed the plans be revised to build the addition at the back of the
existing house and that they negotiate the size of the addition. He argued
that a projection in the side yard is preferable to an extension into the rear
yard because it minimizes the impact on the two neighbouring properties.
James Colizza, James A.
Colizza Architect Inc., commented on his involvement with this project over
the last two years. He suggested this file is more about urban design than
architectural design and he asked members to consider whether this plan
compromises the integrity of Crichton. He cited excerpts from the Statement of
Heritage Character and argued that this proposal fits in with the heritage
character of the neighbourhood. Mr. Colizza added that in developing the
plan they weighed public and private interests and the impact to neighbours,
and they feel this does not negatively impact in any way.
Richard
Brennan, owner of 71 Crichton Street, stated that although he has sold his
house and will be moving from the area soon he would like to see the heritage
character of the neighbourhood protected. He opposed the application,
suggesting the proposed alterations contravene City zoning by-laws and
provisions of the Heritage Overlay. He pointed to the addition of a front
entrance door in the one storey section as his primary concern, suggesting that
any resemblance to an Edwardian Double would be lost, as the creation of a
third front entrance gives the building the appearance of a row house. He said
the proposed alterations would destroy the heritage character of the building
and its balanced symmetry. Mr. Brennan, in conjunction with his wife Vickie,
submitted written comments on 19 January 2011. A copy is held on file with the
City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and
Disposition Bylaw.
Johanne
Senécal, owner of 79 Crichton, spoke in opposition to the application. She
suggested it does not respect the City’s zoning bylaws and contravenes the
Heritage Overlay intent and provisions and the Heritage Conservation District
(HCD) Plan. She said the addition would eat up the side yard and would change
the façade by creating a modern structure between two historic dwellings. A
copy of the written comments submitted by Ms. Senécal on January 19, 2011 is
held on file with the City Clerk
and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition
Bylaw.
Katherine
Arkay, Co-Chair, New Edinburgh Heritage
& Development Committee, New Edinburgh Community Alliance
(NECA), stated opposition to the application. She acknowledged that the
applicant had submitted a revised plan in response to concerns about the
previous proposal but stressed that the current plan should only be judged on
its degree of compliance with the Heritage
Conservation District Guidelines. She said the proposed alteration to 73
Crichton is not compatible with the New Edinburgh HCD goals and guidelines or
the Heritage Overlay and that it would have a very negative impact on the
heritage character of the existing building, on the neighbouring properties,
and on the streetscape. She was quite concerned that it would set an example
that could compromise the nature and viability of the HCD and the integrity of
the Guidelines. A copy of the detailed comments submitted by Ms. Arkay on
behalf of NECA, dated 19 January 2011, is held on file with the City
Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and
Disposition Bylaw.
David
Flemming, President, Heritage Ottawa, spoke in opposition to the
application. He recognized the extent of consultation with the community but
said the current proposal falls short for the HCD. He remarked that side
entrances and side additions are not featured in other homes on Crichton and
that the setback of the proposed addition does not mitigate the impact of a
side addition on the existing streetscape. He recommended that OBHAC reject
the application and uphold the HCD Guidelines for the area. A copy of written
comments submitted on January 20, 2011 by Mr. Flemming on behalf of
Heritage Ottawa is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch
pursuant to the City’s Records Retention and Disposition Bylaw.
Joan
Mason expressed opposition to the application and echoed Mr. Flemming’s
comments. She spoke to the importance of educating and raising awareness about
the HCD and its guidelines and to making it ‘untouchable’ in the future. She
remarked that people move into the area knowing about the guidelines and they
should respect them, including those pertaining to setbacks and side yards. She
suggested that the 165 households that had signed a petition in support of
Mr. Wallace’s application did so without full details of the proposal, not
knowing that minor variances and relief from the Heritage Overlay would be
required.
In
addition to the submissions noted above, the OBHAC received the following
correspondence, copies of which are held on file:
- Letters
in support of the application from:
Ø Diana
Marley-Clarke, dated 14 January 2011
Ø Diane
Thibeault, dated 17 January 2011
Ø James K. Hill,
dated 18 January 2011
Ø Alexandra Reid
and Isabelle Hyndman-Reid, received on 19 January 2011
Ø Gordon Filewych,
received on 19 January 2011
Ø Ray and Mary
Ellen Boomgaardt, received (via email from the applicant) on 19 January 2011
Ø Ray and Mary
Ellen Boomgaardt, received on 20 January 2011.
- Letter
in opposition to the application from:
Ø
Shalindhi Perera, dated 12 January 2011.
With the exception of the Chair,
the committee expressed its support of the application, suggesting that it
meets the intent and spirit of the HCD guidelines for the area and noting that
HCDs sometimes need to move forward. Members felt that this proposal is well
done, would allow the existing house to remain the dominant presence on the
streetscape, and would not negatively impact the heritage character of the
area. Chair Mulholland expressed his appreciation for the applicant’s efforts
and commented that this proposal is less intrusive on the street than the
previous plan, but he was concerned about the negative impact of the side door.
The committee considered the
staff recommendation, as amended by the revised elevations submitted by the
applicant.
Moved by Elizabeth Zdansky:
That the Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee recommend that Planning 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 January 20, 2010;
2.
Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General
Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department;
3.
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 March 17, 2011.)
(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
as amended
NAYS (1): C. Mulholland
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 SITUÉE AU 73, RUE CRICHTON, DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA
PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO ET QUI SE TROUVE DANS
LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE NEW EDINBURGH
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0036 rideau-rockcliffe (13)
Committee received the following
correspondence with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City
Clerk.
·
Letters dated 19 January and 6 February 2011 from the New
Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA)
·
Letters dated 7 February and 20 January 2011 from David Flemming,
Heritage Ottawa
·
Letter dated 17 January 2011 from Ali Asgari
·
Letter dated 14 January 2011 from Ray and Mary-Ellen Boomgaardt
·
Letter dated 19 January 2011 and e-mail dated 7 February 2011
from Vickie and Richard Brennan
·
Letter dated 3 February 2011 from Tom Conway
·
Letter dated January 14 2011 from Pierre Couture
·
Letter dated 20 January 2011 from Gordon Filewych
·
E-mail dated 18 January 2011 from James Hill
·
Letter dated 4 February 2011 from Christine Lavergne
·
Letter dated 15 January 2011 from Diana Marley-Clarke
·
Comments dated 12 January 2011 from Shalindhi Perera
·
Letters dated 14 January 2011 from Alexandra Reid and Isabelle
Hyndman-Reid.
·
Letter dated 2 February 2011 from Ray Rush
·
Letter dated 19 January 2011 from Johanne Senécal
·
E-mail dated 7 February 2011 from Eric Smith
·
Comments dated 17 January 2011 from Diane Thibault
Lesley Collins,
Heritage Planner, provided an overview of the proposal to alter 73 Crichton
Street, and staff’s rationale for recommending approval. A copy of the staff
PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. It was noted that
the applicant’s previous proposal had been before Planning Committee before, in
March 2010; at that time the Committee had recommended approval, but Council
had ultimately rejected it. It was further noted that the Ottawa Built
Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) had recommended approval of the revised
proposal and application to alter.
In response to
questions from Councillor Hume with respect to the New Edinburgh Heritage
Conservation District (HCD) guidelines, Ms. Collins noted that the 2005 Ontario
Heritage Act requires that any new HCD have guidelines as part of the
By-law; however, as this district pre-dates 2005, they are only guidelines and
not enforceable rules. She noted that Staff assesses proposals in the HCD on a
case-by-case basis. Although it does not meet the letter of the guidelines, as
the extension is not entirely in the rear, Staff feels the proposal meets the
intent of the HCD guidelines, as the existing building remains the dominant
feature of the streetscape. She agreed that the large side yard allowed for the
impact of the addition to be lessened.
Committee then
heard from the following public delegations:
Katherine
Arkay, New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) spoke in opposition to the
application. She also provided detailed written submissions on behalf of the
association, which are held on file with the City Clerk. She explained that
NECA did not support the proposed alteration of 73 Crichton Street for the
reasons outlined in their written submissions. She highlighted the following
points:
·
She stated that the proposed alterations are incompatible with
the New Edinburgh HCD goals and guidelines, and do not comply with the heritage
overlay in the Zoning By-law .
·
She noted the relevant portions of the HCD plan and guidelines,
as well as the heritage overlay, as outlined in the written submission.
·
She suggested that the size and location of the proposed addition
would have significant negative impacts on the heritage character of the
existing building, neighbouring buildings and streetscape.
·
She argued that the proposal did not conform with the heritage
overlay in several ways: while the by-law requires additions to be located
entirely in the rear yard, a significant portion of the proposed addition would
be in the side yard.
·
She noted that there are some constraints from living within an
HCD, but also benefits and noted that there had been few disputes.
·
She hoped that they could come to a compromise that met the needs
of the applicant and the community.
·
She suggested the proposal would set a bad precedent for other
incompatible proposals.
·
She suggested the issue was not the design of the building, nor
was it a personal issue; rather it was about the violation of the clearly
defined guidelines for the HCD.
In response to
questions from Councillor Harder with respect to the prevalence of side yards
in the area, Ms. Arkay indicated that there were not many in the area, while
there was a side yard on this property and potential to build in it.
Joan Mason,
resident of Queen Victoria Street, spoke in opposition to the application. She
noted that she was also President of NECA. She noted the HCD plan and
guidelines inform residents on what is permitted. She suggested that if the
applicant had worked within the guidelines, his extension would have already
been built. She suggested their opposition was not about resisting change, but
rather about non-compliance. She stated that if Committee were to respect the
existing plan, they must reject the application.
In response to
questions from Chair Hume as to the precisely how the proposal violated the
intent of the guidelines, Ms. Mason noted that the extension would be more
dominant when lit up at night, and would change the character of the building.
She further noted that the responsibility was to preserve the look and ambience
of the area, and this development was not complimentary or sympathetic to
that. She suggested it was exceedingly different and not going over well in
the community.
Jean-Louis
Wallace, owner and applicant, spoke in support of the application. A copy
of his presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted that he had
been a resident of New Edinburgh for 16 years and the owner of 73 Crichton for
13 years. He noted that they required a larger home to accommodate their
growing family, noting space was limited and the basement unusable.
He noted that he had met with NECA to find a balance between the needs of all
parties, but found this difficult because NECA was recommending revising the
plans to put the addition in the rear, and then renegotiate with NECA on the
size of that addition. He noted that the immediate neighbours at 71 Crichton
were new owners, and although he had not had the chance to discuss with them,
they were aware of the proposal. He noted that had attempted to discuss with
his neighbours at 79 Crichton on numerous occasions by numerous means, but
those neighbours had refused any offers to meet. He circulated a map
indicating which of the homes in the area were opposed to or supportive of the
proposal. He stated that 165 households within the HCD had indicated their
support for the proposal, and a petition of the neighbourhood had shown 95 per
cent of neighbours had no opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Wallace
explained that he had met with heritage planners, incorporating their comments,
and taking into consideration the comments made by OBHAC on the previous
proposal. He noted that OBHAC had approved their new application. He noted
that he had also sought input from the previous ward Councillor and the current
ward Councillor. After nine months of consultation, the proposal was modified,
removing the third story, reducing the massing by 20 per cent, reconfiguring
the entryway and leaving the main entrance at the current location. He
suggested the proposed projection into the side yard was preferable to a rear
extension, as it would minimize the impact on the rear gardens and green space,
the two neighbouring properties and the properties on Queen Victoria Street.
In conclusion, he thanked Committee and asked them to recommend approval of the
application.
James
Colizza, Architect, spoke in support of the application. A copy of his
detailed PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted
that they had been working on the project for two years, and it had been
expensive for the owners. He reviewed the approach they had taken to the
project, emphasizing the need to balance private and public needs. He reviewed
the nature and purpose of an HCD, highlighting that the building was not
individually designated and its heritage value was as a contribution to the
larger district and streetscape. He spoke to the impact the proposed alteration
at 73 Crichton would have on the overall streetscape of both Crichton Street
and River Lane (at the rear of the property) with the aid of streetscape photos
and renderings. He suggested that the proposed addition fit in to the overall
streetscapes.
Mr. Colizza
spoke to the design rationale for the proposed side yard extension and compared
this with the type of rear-yard addition that would be allowed as-of right
under the by-law. He suggested the current proposal fit better with the
existing house and would have less impact on the neighbours. He reviewed the
steps that had been taken to mitigate the public face of the addition,
including the setbacks. He noted that the proposed addition would have very
little street presence, and would not be visible from most angles on Crichton
Street. In conclusion, he suggested the proposal fit in to the varied
streetscape of Crichton Street, was sensitive to its context, and would have no
adverse impact on the spirit and intent of the HCD.
In response to
questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Colizza explained the difference between the
current and previous proposals for the site. He explained that the height was
reduced, and approximately 250 square feet of space was removed; however, the
view plane from the font of the property did not change. As to why the
applicants did not appealed Council’s decision on the first proposal, Mr.
Colizza indicated that they had wanted to make an effort to be neighbourly.
Councillor
Harder wondered whether the large backyards and views along the rear lane were
considered part of the character of the area and therefore worth preserving.
She suggested a development in the rear yard would not be compatible with
this.. Mr. Colizza agreed. The Councillor suggested that the heritage
guidelines should reflect more than just the front streetscape.
Having concluded
the public hearing on this item, Committee then approved the report
recommendation as presented.
The Ottawa
Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Planning 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 January 20, 2011;
2.
Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General
Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department;
3.
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 March 17, 2011)
(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
