4.
Horticulture
Building – Conservation review Board Recommendations
édifice
de l’horticulture – recommandations de la commission des biens culturels |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1. Receive and consider recommendations of the Conservation Review Board in its report (Document 1) on Council’s November 22, 2010 decision to relocate the Horticulture Building; and
2. Confirm the November 22, 2010 decision to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the Horticulture Building’s relocation as part of the Lansdowne Revitalization.
Que le Conseil:
1. prenne connaissance et d’examiner
les recommandations de la Commission des biens culturels figurant dans son
rapport (document 1), portant sur sa décision du 22 novembre 2010 relative au
déplacement proposé de l’édifice de l’horticulture;
2. confirme sa décision du 22 novembre
2010 d’abroger le Règlement 8‑94, de manière à permettre le déplacement
de cet l’édifice dans le cadre du projet de revitalisation du parc Lansdowne.
Report to/Rapport au :
Finance and Economic Development Committee
and Council / et au Conseil
05 August 2011 / le 05 août 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
and / et au
M. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor /
Greffier municipal et chef des contentieux
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : John Smit,
Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets
d'aménagement-Services urbains
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424, 13866 John Smit@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
Horticulture Building – Conservation review Board Recommendations |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
édifice de
l’horticulture – recommandations de la commission des biens culturels |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That Finance and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Receive and consider recommendations of the Conservation Review Board in its report (Document 1) on Council’s November 22, 2010 decision to relocate the Horticulture Building; and
2. Confirm the November 22, 2010 decision to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the Horticulture Building’s relocation as part of the Lansdowne Revitalization.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des finances et du développement
économique recommande au Conseil municipal :
1. de prendre
connaissance et d’examiner les recommandations de la Commission des biens
culturels figurant dans son rapport (document 1), portant sur sa décision du 22
novembre 2010 relative au déplacement proposé de l’édifice de l’horticulture;
2. de confirmer sa
décision du 22 novembre 2010 d’abroger le Règlement 8‑94, de manière à
permettre le déplacement de cet l’édifice dans le cadre du projet de
revitalisation du parc Lansdowne.
In accordance with Council’s June 28, 2010 decision to implement the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP), in September 2010 the City of Ottawa Real Estate Services Branch submitted an application under Section 32 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) to repeal By-law 8-94 (a by‑law designating the Horticultrue Building under Part IV of the OHA) to allow for the relocation of the building. This application was processed and brought to the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC) at its regularly scheduled public meeting of November 4, 2010 for consideration and recommedation to Council. At the meeting, the Committee received a presentation from staff recommending approval of the application and six public delgations and three letters in opposition. OBHAC recommended Council not approve the repeal of By-law 8-94, that the building remain designated, and that it be left in its current location as part of the Lansdowne revitalization. Council, on November 19, 2010, sitting as Committee of the Whole, gave consideration to the OBHAC recommendation along with the Integrated Site Plan for the Lansdowne Revitalization. On that date, Council received 34 public delegations expressing comments on the proposed relocation of the Horticulture Building and Site Plan for the Lansdowne Revitalization. The Committee of the Whole then resolved into Council and on November 22, 2010 gave approval to the staff recommendation to repeal By-law 8-94 and relocate the building.
As required under the OHA, notice of intent to repeal By-law 8-94 was published in daily newspapers on December 3, 2010, and two appeals were filed within the prescribed filing limitation period. These appeals by Heritage Ottawa and Mr. Jean- Claude Dubé were forwarded to the Conservation Review Board (CRB) as required by the OHA for the CRB to hold a hearing and make recommendations for Council’s consideration prior to Council rendering a final decision on the matter of repealing By-law 8-94.
It is important to note the Conservation Review Board is a provincial agency charged with matters related to the protection of properties with cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act. Its recommendations do not bind Council. Its recommendations are put forward by the CRB for Council consideration.
Pursuant to Subsection 32(19) of the OHA, after considering the CRB’s report, Council, without a further hearing has two options: (a) refuse the application made by the City’s Real Estate Services Branch; or (b) consent to the application and thereby pass a by-law repealing By‑law 8‑94 in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 32(19)(b). Pursuant to the OHA, Council’s decision will be final and will not subject to further review.
The CRB hearing was held from April 18, 2011 to April 21, 2011 with evidence presented by the City and by the appellants. The nature of the evidence presented and the recommendations of the CRB are set out in Document 1. The CRB’s jursidiction, as it states in its report at page 2, is as follows:
“The Parties were reminded that the Review Board’s jurisdiction under the Act is to consider arguments in the context of the proposed repeal of all or part of a bylaw passed under s.29 of the Act. Although relevant arguments can be broad, a reasonable expectation is that there is reference to Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06, which considers criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of a property; and to the content of the s.29 designating bylaw (City of Ottawa Bylaw 8-94) governing the subject property.
Issues of physical maintenance, repairs, relocation, or any proposed work are to be considered in the context of cultural heritage value or interest (and embedded issues such as heritage integrity and authenticity).
The Review Board does not have the jurisdiction to report on whether the proposed revitalization of Lansdowne Park does or does not have merit, except in the context of the impact on the subject property.
It is outside the Board’s jurisdiction to address, for example, any financial partnerships or current planning applications, site plan, issues of zoning, or similar matters that are under the Planning Act. These matters are between the applicants and the municipality, and on appeal, the Ontario Municipal Board.”
In its report, the CRB based on its mandate established under the OHA, provided a three-part recommendation for Council’s consideration as follows:
An extensive process was undertaken to develop the Lansdowne Partnership Plan with full consideration given to many matters in order to meet planning, design, heritage and business plan objectives. A key for the LPP is for the revitalization to reflect Lansdowne’s history as a significant public site that figured prominently in the evolution and growth of the of the city from its roots as a lumber and agricultural community to the country’s capital and a major world city. This is being achieved by having the development program build on the site’s past and provide connections to its past through its use, buildings and design as a key public site for multiple activities and events. The site’s two designated heritage buildings, the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Horticulture Building, along with the site’s relationship with the Rideau Canal, a national historic site and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, figure prominently in achieving this objective in the context of the overall revitalization program. The Aberdeen Pavilion is to be retained as a public building and will be the visual and contextual centerpiece of the revitalized Lansdowne with a new urban park established along the site’s canal edge to re-establish the historical relationship that Lansdowne had with the Canal. The relocation of the Horticulture Building to a mirror image location from the west side of the Aberdeen Pavilion to the east side of the Pavilion would enhance the prominence of this building and placed it where, along with the Aberdeen Pavilion and the Canal, it will define a historical context for the urban park. The relocation of the Horticulture Building will also provide for it to be retained as a public-use building as it has historically been. Relocation will also give the building a synergistic relationship with the urban park while providing for integration of the park with the mixed use area to be developed as a dynamic public area with a mix of retail and residential uses that will integrate Lansdowne with the fabric of the adjacent Glebe Community and Bank Street commercial corridor.
Part One of CRB Recommendation
Adopting the recommendation of the CRB to not repeal By-law 8-94, and thereby not allow for the relocation of the Horticulture Building, would not allow the planned revitalization program to be realized and would require Council to reconsider its June 2010 approval of the LPP. The effect of this would be that the partnership agreement framework with Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) that Council approved as part of the LPP would not be able to be finalized and the planned revitalization would not be able to proceed. A number of options, including leaving the Horticulture Building where it currently stands, were carefully considered before arriving at the determination that relocation represented the best option in the context of the overall revitalization program. This determination was made because relocation is the best means of having the building conserved in a way that has meaning in the revitalization program. Relocation also allows the building to be presented in a way that it contributes to reflecting and telling the story of the history of Lansdowne. The report approved by Council on November 22, 2010 provided extensive rationale for the proposed relocation. This rationale remains relevant in assessing this recommendation of the CRB.
It is further noted that Council’s decision to have the Horticulture Building relocated requires a Conservation Strategy Report to be developed that will set out how the building’s defining heritage elements will be conserved and how the building would be modified to support a new public focused use. This report will ensure the building would again be a key feature of the fabric of Lansdowne. This report would also require a study and details on how the building will be relocated in one piece to conserve its heritage defining elements. As such, while the location of the building will change, the fabric of the building will be retained in whole including those elements that contribute to its cultural heritage value.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommend Part One of the CRB Recommendation not be adopted by Council.
Part Two of CRB Recommendation
Council in giving notice to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the relocation of the Horticulture Building also directed that the building be re-designated under the OHA once relocated. The re‑designation will involve developing a new statement of reason that would fully reflect the elements of the cultural hertitage value of the building identified during the course of the CRB hearing. This will be set out in the Conservation Strategy Report that will be finalized following Council’s decision on Recommendation Two of this report.
For the reasons stated above, staff agree with Part Two of the CRB’s recommendations and will incorporate elements of the cultural hertitage value of the building identified during the course of the CRB hearing in the by-law re-designating the building after it has been moved.
Part Three of CRB Recommendation
With respect to the final recommendation of the CRB that Council, if it does not accept the recommendation of the CRB to leave the building in place, proceed with the proposed relocation by way of an application under Section 34 of the OHA, it is noted that the end effect of proceeding in this fashion is identical to what Council has already approved – specifically approval would be provided to have the building relocated as planned. However, the implications of proceeding as recommended by the CRB is that a new process would be initiated which would be a duplication of the process already undertaken by Council. Designation under Section 34, however, would not be subject to any third party appeal, unlike the process that was followed by Council.
Furthermore, under this CRB recommendation, the designation would not be removed until after the building is relocated at which time a modified designation by-law would be required to reflect the new location. This recommendation would require the same process relating to moving the building. There would remain the need for a Conservation Strategy report to be developed and approved and for a study and report providing the details of the manner in which the move would be affected. Both of these were directed by Council on November 22, 2010 as conditions to be met before the By-law can be repealed and the building moved. Following this recommendation of the CRB, therefore, will not change the final outcome, but rather would add a further process and related time constraints while providing no additional substantive value to what Council has already approved.
Finally, under the process followed by Council, there was the added benefit of a more wholesome public process with an opportunity for a public hearing to be held at the CRB. Such a hearing was held and Council now has the benefit of giving consideration to additional recommendations. As noted earlier, proceeding under Section 34 of the OHA would not provide for such a hearing. There was value under the process originally followed by Council in that additional reasons for inclusion in the statement of reason for designation were identified that will be included in the new statement of reason to be part of the by-law to be enacted following relocation for the re-designation of the Horticulture building.
For the reasons noted above, staff recommend Part Three of the CRB Recommendation not be adopted by Council.
Summary
The CRB hearing provided additional public input into this process, and the CRB report provided for Council’s consideration helps increase understanding of the various heritage aspects relating to Horticulture building. However, as indicated by the CRB, its jurisdiction is limited to heritage considerations and principally OHA Regulation 9/06.
Based on the reasons stated above and for the reasons set out in the report approved by Council for the relocation of the Horticulture Building on November 22, 2010, it is recommended that Council, after considering the CRB’s report, confirm its approval to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the relocation of the Horticulture Building as part of the implementation of the LPP and to have the building re-designated under the OHA once the move is completed. The statement of reason for re-designation will include those elements of the cultural heritage value of the building identified during the course of the CRB hearing that are not part of the current statement of reason set out in By-law 8-94.
Following Council’s confirmation of its November 22, 2010 decision through its approval of Recommendation Two of this report, the Conservation Strategy report and report on the details of the move that have been prepared in draft will be finalized. Following this, these reports will be sent for approval to the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management. Upon his approval, a by-law to repeal By-law 8-94 will be bought forward to Council. The Conservation Strategy Report will set out the new statement of reason for designation that will be part of the re-designation by-law to be brought to Council once the move has been completed.
N/A
This report is procedural in nature and is not subject to public consultation. The report has been prepared to provide for Council consideration of recommendations by the Conservation Review Board on a matter that was the subject of a legislated public process where a Council decision was appealed under the OHA for review and recommendation back to Council prior to Council finalizing its decision on the matter. Notwithstanding the procedural nature of this report, this matter will be considered by the Finance and Economic Development Committee, and therefore there will be an opportunity for public delegations to speak to this report prior to Council rendering its final decision.
The Ward Councillor is aware of the report and recommendations of the CRB and has been made aware of this report.
There are no legal implications associated with this report.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
There are no Environmental Implications associated with this report as it is procedural in nature.
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 E 8: Operationalize the Ottawa 20/20 Arts & Heritage Plan.
Identify and Protect Archaeological and Built Heritage Resources, Streetscapes, Public and Symbolic Civic Places and Cultural Landscapes.
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.
Document 1 Report and recommendations of the Conservation Review Board.
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to bring forward to Council for its enactment a by-law to repeal By-law 8-94 upon approval by the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management of the Conservation Strategy Report and a report on the details of the proposed move as provided for in Council’s decision on November 22, 2010 giving approval to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the relocation of the Horticulture Building.
That the Planning and Growth Management Department bring forward a report through OBHAC and Planning Committee to Council to re-designate the Horticulture Building once it is relocated and rehabilitated with the statement of reason for designation including those elements identified at the CRB.
Horticulture Building – Conservation review Board Recommendations
ÉDIFICE DE
L’HORTICULTURE – RECOMMANDATIONS DE LA COMMISSION DES BIENS CULTURELS
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0152 CAPITAL (17)
That Finance and Economic Development Committee recommend Council:
1. Receive and consider recommendations of the Conservation Review Board in its report (Document 1) on Council’s November 22, 2010 decision to relocate the Horticulture Building; and
2. Confirm the November 22, 2010 decision to repeal By-law 8-94 to allow for the Horticulture Building’s relocation as part of the Lansdowne Revitalization.
Mr. John Smit, Manager, Development Review (Urban), provided Committee with a brief verbal presentation.
Following the staff presentation, Committee heard from the following public delegations:
· John Martin, Coordinator, Lansdowne Park Conservancy
· Jean-Claude Dubé
· David B. Flemming, Past President, Heritage Ottawa
Any written submissions provided by the delegations are held on file with the City Clerk.
The report recommendation was then put to Committee and CARRIED as presented.