|
1. APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE
CENTRETOWN HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT 340 MCLEOD STREET DEMANDE EN VUE D’UNE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE
DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DU CENTRE-VILLE AU 340, RUE MCLEOD |
Committee recommendation as
amended
That Council approve the original staff
recommendations, as set out below:
1. Approve
the application for new construction on the vacant lot at 340 McLeod Street, in
accordance with the plans submitted by Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc.
received on February 2, 2011.
2. Issue
the Heritage Permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3. Delegate authority for minor design
changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management
Department.
(Note: Approval to Alter this property
under the Ontario Heritage Act must
not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building
permit.)
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for
consideration of this application under the Ontario
Heritage Act would have expired on May 3, 2011 but has been extended until
June 30, 2011 with the consent of the
applicant)
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve les recommandations originales
du personnel, lesquelles figurent ci-dessous :
1.
approuve la demande de nouvelle
construction sur le lot vacant situé au 340, rue McLeod conformément aux plans
soumis par Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc., et reçus le 22 février
2011;
2.
délivre le permis en matière de
patrimoine dont la date d'expiration est fixée à deux ans après la date
d'émission;
3.
délégue 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.
(Nota : L’approbation de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne
signifie pas pour autant qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un
permis de construire.)
(Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette
demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le
patrimoine de l’Ontario, aurait pris fin le 3 mai 2011, mais il a été
prolongé jusqu’au 30 juin 2011 avec le consentement du requérant.)
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, dated 14 April 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0090).
2.
Extract of draft minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage
Advisory Committee meeting of 5 May 2011
3. Extract
of Planning Committee Minutes of 24 May 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
14 April 2011 / le 14 avril 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager,
Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d’infrastructure et viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom,
Acting Manager/
Gestionnaire intérimaire,
Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services
urbains, Planning
and Growth Management/
Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that
Planning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve
the application for new construction on the vacant lot at 340 McLeod Street, in
accordance with the plans submitted by Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc.
received on February 2, 2011.
2. Issue
the Heritage Permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3. Delegate
authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and
Growth Management Department.
(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements
for the issuance of a building permit.)
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this
application under the Ontario Heritage
Act would have expired on May 3, 2011 but has been extended until June 30,
2011 with the consent of the applicant)
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 nouvelle
construction sur le lot vacant situé au 340, rue McLeod conformément aux plans
soumis par Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc., et reçus le 22 février
2011;
2.
de délivrer le permis en matière de
patrimoine dont la date d'expiration est fixée à deux ans après la date
d'émission;
3.
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.
(Nota : L’approbation
de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne signifie pas pour autant
qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)
(Nota : Le délai
réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, aurait
pris fin le 3 mai 2011, mais il a
été prolongé jusqu’au 30 juin 2011 avec le consentement du requérant.)
BACKGROUND
This report has been prepared because the Ontario Heritage Act requires that City Council approve all new construction in a heritage conservation district. The subject property is located in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, created in 1997 (see Location Map, Document 1, and Street View, Document 2). An application has been received for a new nine-storey condominium apartment building at 340 McLeod Street, on the site of a medical building for which permission to demolish was obtained under the Ontario Heritage Act on February 23, 2011. In addition, an application for new construction in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District (HCD) was approved for the westerly part of the site on October 13, 2011.
The Centretown HCD was designated in 1997 for its cultural heritage value as an “early residential suburb and as the temporary and permanent home of many of those who have governed and shaped the nation.” The Statement of Heritage Character” (Document 3) notes that Centretown is a primarily residential area that has experienced periods of redevelopment throughout its history particularly with the introduction of low-rise apartment buildings immediately prior to the First World War, and the development of numerous large high-rise buildings in the more recent past.
A site plan and a Zoning By-law amendment for this project are currently in process. The application for the Zoning By-law amendment will be considered by Planning Committee and City Council concurrently with the application for new construction that is the subject of this submission.
DISCUSSION
The subject property is adjacent to a parking lot for which a development, Central 2, has been approved. It contains a 1960s building for which permission to demolish under the Ontario Heritage Act has already been obtained. The property has been purchased by the developer who is building Central 1and 2, retail/condominium projects; Central 1 has incorporated the façade of the Metropolitan Bible Chapel, across McLeod Street to the north and Central 2 will face Bank Street and be located on the south side of McLeod Street. For Central 3, the developer is proposing a project for this site that will abut Central 2 at the rear, and be a residential building. The current application only deals with this section of the building as permission for the Bank Street portion has been obtained. The building will be an “L”-shaped structure, and will be nine storeys in height, with the two top storeys clad in glass to distinguish them from the lower seven storeys that are of brick and glass. At grade, the front façade will be located close to the property line, and will be divided into five bays by simple brick piers separated by glass panels. The units at grade facing McLeod Street will open directly to the street. The building is residential and will be articulated to break up the mass of the façade; it will feature balconies and the extension of the red brick piers, while the north will be a glass box. The expression of the building will be contemporary in character and be similar in inspiration to Central 1 across McLeod Street and Central 2 (for elevations, see Document 4).
Urban Design Review Panel Comments
The subject property was considered by the Urban Design Review Panel (UDRP) on March 3, 2011. The UDRP comments were generally favourable and commended the project for its contribution to the area. The full UDRP comments are included as Document 5.
Recommendation 1
The Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study contains Guidelines, approved by Council, for the management of change in the heritage conservation district. The basic principle informing the Guidelines for new construction is:
All infill should be of contemporary design, distinguishable as being of its own time. However, it must be sympathetic to the heritage character of the area, and designed to enhance these existing properties, rather than calling attention to itself.
Section VII.5.6 of the Guidelines also includes recommendations regarding infill development.
Recommendations
1. All infill should be contemporary design, distinguishable as being of its time. However, it must be sympathetic to the heritage character of the area, and designed to enhance these existing properties rather than calling attention to itself.
2. The form of new infill should reflect the character of existing buildings on adjoining and facing properties. The buildings should normally be three or four storeys in height, with massing and setbacks matching earlier rather than later patterns still evident in the immediate area.
3. Single family homes, rowhouses, and townhouse developments should reflect the rhythm of early lot development, with gables, balconies, or other features providing an appropriate scale. Small multiple-unit residential developments should reflect the U-shaped and H-shaped patterns of earlier examples, with emphasis on the entrances.
4. Brick veneer should be the primary finish material in most areas, to maintain continuity with existing buildings. Trim materials would commonly be wood and metal; the details at cornices, eaves, and entrances should be substantial and well detailed. Colours should be rich and sympathetic to existing patterns. Lighting should be discreet and can be used to highlight architectural features.
The Guidelines stress the importance of eliminating vacant lots, particularly those used for parking, because of the negative effects such lots have on streetscape continuity and neighbourhood character. Part of this project is located on a former parking lot. The Guidelines point out that “Large parking lots are also without precedent, and call attention to destruction of the built fabric of the district” (section VII.4.11) and “Many of them [surface parking lots] are visual eyesores and detract significantly from the continuity of the streetscape” (Sections VII.5.7). Finally, Section VII.5.5 says:
5. Because of the relatively high number of
demolitions, many streetscapes are now interrupted by vacant lots. It is
important to encourage infill development, and to promote design which is
sympathetic to existing building types and which re-establishes streetscape
continuity.
Although it is acknowledged
that the proposed building is not consistent with all of the Guidelines, because
it is higher and bulkier than they prescribed, and also has a bigger footprint
than is recommended, staff believes that the elimination of an unsightly
surface parking lot facing Bank Street, the District’s main street, the
re-establishment of streetscape continuity in a manner consistent with the
Guidelines and the construction of more residential units in the District that
re-establish its historic character, outweighs other concerns and will
strengthen the heritage conservation district.
Furthermore, this section of the heritage conservation district is
mixed, featuring a gas station at the corner of Gladstone Avenue and Bank
Street, a new sports store and a new condominium, thus there is little
immediate historic context for the building to address (see Document 6 for
aerial views of the vicinity). For these
reasons, the Department supports the proposed development.
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 permits.
Recommendation
3
Occasionally, minor changes
to a building emerge during the working drawing phase. This recommendation is included to allow the
Planning and Growth Management Department to approve these changes without taking
the project back to OBHAC, Planning Committee and City Council for review.
Cultural Heritage Impact
Statement
The Official Plan requires
that a Cultural Heritage Impact Statement (CHIS) be prepared by a heritage
professional for projects of this type.
CHISs are intended to provide another professional heritage opinion on
projects in addition to that of staff.
The CHIS prepared for this project (see Document 7 for an extract, entire document on file and available from City Clerk) analysed the project in terms of the policy planning framework for the District and the Centretown Guidelines.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners have been notified by letter of the application and the dates of the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee and Planning Committee meetings.
The Centretown Citizens Community Association has been informed of the project.
Heritage Ottawa is aware of this project.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
Councillor Holmes is
aware of this application.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:
There are no legal/risk management implications associated with this report
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
F1 Become leading edge in community and urban design including housing creation for those in the city living on low incomes and residents at large.
F2 Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
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 extended time period agreed upon by the City and applicant under the Ontario Heritage Act that now expires on June 30, 2011.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Streetview
Document 3 Statement of Heritage character
Document 4 Elevations
Document 5 Urban Design Review Panel Comments
Document 6 Vicinity of Subject Property – Aerial Views
Document 7 Extract from Cultural Heritage Impact Statement
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 new construction.
ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT
4
340
MCLEOD STREET | Formal Review
Robert
Martin declared a conflict of interest, as he was hired to work on a heritage
report for this development; however, Robert Martin, the Panel and the
applicant agreed that this conflict would not cloud his judgment and that he
could still continue to participate in the recommendation period.
General
Comments
The
Panel thanks the applicant for responding comprehensively to the comments given
at the pre-consultation meeting. Furthermore, the Panel appreciates that the
applicant is dealing head on with the issue of providing residential units at
grade in Ottawa. They feel this sets a good precedent.
The
Panel appreciates the resolution at the top of the building (the “lantern”
portion) and the detailing of the lower units.
The
Panel notes that this is a good example of how density can be brought into the
City at a scale that is compatible with and sympathetic to the neighbourhood.
Landscape
The
Panel supports the common amenity terrace area at the back that will be shared
by other property owners.
The
Panel reminds the applicant that Ottawa’s climate is harsher than Toronto’s and
therefore, detailing of the rear terraces needs to consider climatic
conditions.
The
Panel expressed concern that the wire within the living wall, which faces
south, may burn the plants because it will get hot from the sun. Traditionally,
supports for plants are wooden and do not get that hot. If the applicant would
prefer the metal aesthetic, perhaps they could consider covering the wire with
plastic to keep the plants alive for longer or consider using a hardy species
of plant.
The
Panel gives congratulations to the innovative way that the applicant has
developed the front terraces, in such a way that there is both privacy and
public benefit.
The
Panel is concerned about the aesthetics of the timber fences along McLeod
Street and suggests that the applicant look into using woods other than Cedar
for this feature. Alternate woods will make long term maintenance much easier.
The
Panel asks whether the privacy screens between the terraces could be shortened
from 3m to 2m or 2 ½ m so that they are less obtrusive.
Streetscape
The
Panel appreciates that the applicant is trying to breakdown the rhythm of the
streetscape with a covered portal on the corner.
The
Panel notes the opportunities for uses such as a daycare, gallery or shops to
occupy the ground floor of the MacLeod Street frontage over time.
4. Assessment of Site Alteration Impacts
Assessment of site alteration impacts is
made both by measuring the impact of the proposed new development on the
significance and heritage attributes of the designated District defined in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study within the framework of the applicable
conservation principles for infill
designed in the Study document and within the Ontario Heritage
Tool Kit manuals.
The key recommendation of the study for
infill development is retention of the dominant commercial character of Bank
Street, via contemporary design that is sympathetic to heritage
character. Taking the above, together with
the other points made in Section 2 above
(Identification
of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource), the
following impacts of the proposed development at Bank and McLeod Street may be
noted:
The proposed development has the following
negative impacts:
•
The design does not respect the guideline
for two to four storey height for infill in keeping
with the
prevalent massing of heritage resources within the District,
•
The upper floors are not ‘opaque with
smaller openings in a simple rhythm’, but rather
form a
consistent, homogenous contemporary expression of generous glazing at all
levels,
•
Cornices or parapet caps at roof level are
not employed, leaving a more planar
appearance,
•
There is little distinction of ground
floor from upper stories via cornices, signage band or
horizontal
banding, and
•
The massing and large scale of development
of the three phases constitutes a large,
somewhat
homogenous block.
The proposed development has the following
positive impacts:
•
The design replaces a surface parking lot
and nondescript medical building and re-establishes residential vocabulary
along McLeod Street.
•
Although the design does not respect the
four-storey height limit, the stepping and stepped back massing serves to
lessen the impact on the streetscape. Additionally, the design is in keeping
with already approved phases of the development across the street to the north
and to the west. These two buildings will serve to define a hard edge along the
eastern side of Bank Street.
•
The design maintains softer landscaped
edges and residential entrances along McLeod
Street. The
planned traffic-calming road bulb-outs and City street landscaping will enhance
this area and the transitions.
•
The contemporary design is consistent with
other four storey and taller residential
developments
within the block and surrounding area and is of much higher design caliber.
•
The contemporary infill within the
surrounding heritage District is not beside nor does it
face any
heritage properties and therefore does not overwhelm adjacent heritage
character.
•
Although there are no intermediate
cornices in the traditional sense, there is an
intermediate
recess that allows a successful differentiation between the six-storey
residential
level and the residential levels above.
•
There is no shadow impact to existing
heritage properties.
•
5. Summary
Statement and Conservation Recommendations
• The proposed mixed-use commercial and residential design proposal,
by virtue of its massing, streetscape revitalization, harmony with an earlier
phase incorporating a heritage façade and reestablishment of the Bank Street
commercial corridor for this section of Bank Street, is in conformity with the
accepted principles of infill (as presented in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit
provisions for infill), and is equally in general conformity with the
requirements of the Centretown
Heritage Conservation District Study. The
design proposal offers positive impacts on the McLeod Street precinct, and the
immediate environs of the subject property.
•
The identified negative aspects are not
felt to detract from the suitability and viability of the design proposal, are
limited in nature and reflect the reality of phased development, consistent
with previously reviewed and approved designs.
•
Please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned should you have any questions or wish to discuss any aspect of this
assessment.
•
•
Robert Martin OAA,
MRAIC, CAHP, LEED AP
•
|
Ottawa built heritage Advisory
Committee Minutes
6 5 may 2011 |
|
Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti
d’ottawa Procès-verbal
6 le
5 mai 2011 |
APPLICATION
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE CENTRETOWN HERITAGE cONSERVATION DISTRICT AT 340
MCLEOD STREET
demande en vue d’une nouvelle construction dans le
district de conservation du patrimoine du centre-ville au 340, rue mcleod
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0090 somerset (14)
REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory
Committee approve that Planning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the application for new
construction on the vacant lot at 340 McLeod Street, in accordance with the
plans submitted by Natalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc. received on February
2, 2011.
2. Issue the Heritage Permit with a
two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
3. Delegate authority for minor design
changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management
Department.
(Note:
Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be
construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)
(Note:
The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the
Ontario Heritage Act would have expired on May 3, 2011 but has been extended
until June 30, 2011 with the consent of the applicant).
Committee received
the following written submission with respect to this matter, a copy of which
is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the
City’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law:
·
Email dated 26 April 2011 from Charles Akben-Marchand,
President, Centretown Citizens Community Association listing both
positive aspects of the proposal as well as concerns about height and setback.
Sally Coutts, Heritage Planner provided a presentation outlining the details of the above-noted application. A copy is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor’s branch pursuant to the City of Ottawa’s Records Retention and Disposition By-law.
Nathalie Hughes, FoTenn Consultants Inc. and Robert Martin, heritage architect were present to provide additional details about the proposed site plan and landscape plan, and to answer committee’s questions on the proposal.
Charles Akben-Marchand, President, Centretown Citizens Community Association supported the replacement of the existing industrial building with a residential one but expressed significant concerns about the height and side yard setback of the proposed building in terms of the interaction with the seniors’ apartments to the immediate east. He suggested it will reduce light to several properties in the neighbourhood, impacts the heritage character of the street and affects redevelopment potential for adjacent sites. A copy of Mr. Akben-Marchand’s email prior to the meeting is held on file, as noted above.
Moved by Virendra Sahni:
That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee approve that Planning
Committee recommend that Council reject the report recommendation.
CARRIED
YEAS (5): V. Sahni, E. Zdansky, J. Doutriaux, E. Eagen, C. Mulholland
NAYS (3): A. Fyfe, P. Maheu, S. Whamond