►
Description
Special Joint Planning Committee and Built Heritage Sub-Committee - Friday, February 5, 2021 - video stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
C
A
D
C
A
A
Good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
special
joint
meeting
of
the
planning
committee
and
the
build
heritage
subcommittee
today,
we're
going
to
consider
proposed
alterations
and
a
revised
site
plan
application
needed
to
proceed
with
the
planned
addition
to
the
much-loved
chateau
laurier
at
one
rito
street.
It's
not
standard
practice
for
these
two
committees
to
meet
jointly.
In
fact,
this
is
the
first
time
it's
ever
happened,
but
chair
king
and
I
agreed
that
meeting
jointly
would
be
the
most
efficient
way
to
deal
with
this
matter.
A
It
allows
us
to
streamline
public
submissions,
avoiding
duplication
and
eliminating
the
need
for
speakers
to
attend
two
separate
meetings.
In
total.
There
will
be
three
separate
meetings
of
our
two
committees
today,
starting
with
a
joint
meeting
together.
That
will
give
us
all
a
chance
to
hear
from
public
delegations
on
both
the
heritage,
application
and
the
site
plan
application
site
plan.
Matters
are
not
something
that
the
subcommittee
would
usually
consider,
but
we
decided
it
makes
more
sense
for
the
joint
committee
to
hear
submissions
on
both
matters
together.
A
Otherwise,
delegations
would
need
to
present
site
plan
comments
and
heritage
comments
separately
over
separate
meetings
on
different
days.
So
we're
going
to
hear
the
public
delegations
together
then
we're
going
to
adjourn
and
have
a
separate
meeting
of
each
committee,
starting
with
the
built
heritage
subcommittee,
followed
by
the
planning
committee.
The
subcommittee
has
no
mandate
to
vote
on
the
site
plan
matter.
A
A
So
after
our
joint
meeting
adjourns,
the
subcommittee
will
reconvene,
as
I
said,
to
vote
on
the
heritage
reports
and
after
that
the
planning
committee
will
reconvene
to
vote
on
both
reports
in
a
few
minutes.
Staff
will
give
us
a
presentation
that
that
encompasses
both
reports
following
that
I'll
ask
committee
members
to
introduce
any
motions
or
directions
they
intend
to
move
that
way.
Other
members
and
staff
will
have
an
opportunity
to
review
and
clarify
your
motion
during
discussions
and
public
delegations
will
have
the
benefit
of
hearing
motions
prior
to
speaking.
A
Members
can
ask
questions
of
delegations
as
usual,
but
we
hold
questions
to
staff
until
the
committees
meet
separately
after
the
joint
meeting.
Once
all
delegations
have
finished,
we
will
adjourn
the
joint
meeting
and
a
special
meeting
of
bill's
heritage
subcommittee
will
be
called
to
order.
The
subcommittee
will
consider
the
heritage
permit
matter
only
and
can
pose
questions
to
staff
before
they
deliberate
dispose
of
the
matter
and
adjourn
15
minutes
after
that
subcommittee
meeting
adjourns
we'll
begin
a
special
meeting
of
the
planning
committee
to
consider
both
the
heritage
and
site
plan
applications.
A
Again,
the
committee
will
ask
questions
of
staff
deliberate
and
then
dispose
of
both
matters.
Recommendations
from
the
planning
committee
meeting
will
rise
to
council
on
february
the
24th.
Now
I'd
like
to
outline
a
few
logistical
details
before
we
proceed,
I'm
you
know
we're
we're
into
this
far
enough.
You
probably
don't
need
to
hear
this,
but
it's
for
the
record,
I'm
sure
all
committee
and
subcommittee
members
are
familiar
with
zoom
meetings
already,
but
I'll
go
through
this
for
our
public
delegations.
We
ask
everyone
to
keep
your
mic
muted
until
you're
called
on
to
speak.
A
You
can
use
the
raise
hand
button
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen
to
signal
that
you
want
to
speak
and
if
you
are,
if
there
are
members
of
council
or
the
subcommittee
or
staff
who
have
joined
the
meeting
by
phone,
simply
press
star
9
to
raise
your
hand,
our
committee
coordinators,
along
with
chair
king
and
I
will
watch
for
those
cues.
We
have
a
number
of
delegations
registered
to
speak
today
and
we've
received
numerous
written
submissions.
A
Our
coordinators
will
distribute
submissions
to
all
members
of
council
as
soon
as
they
are
able
to
prior
to
the
council
meeting
on
february
24th
as
we
proceed
with
the
delegations
I'll
announce
the
next
three
to
five
speakers.
We
don't
have
very
many
delegations
today,
so
I'm
not
going
to
do
that
other
than
maybe
as
a
courtesy
for
those
signed
up
to
speak.
A
613-580-2424
extension
20113
I'll
remind
you
that
our
our
meetings
are
live
streamed
and
archived
on
youtube.
So
if
you
are
a-
and
so
if
you
enable
your
camera,
when
speaking,
you
will
be
visible
to
meeting
participants
and
you'll
also
show
up
on
youtube.
When
I
call
on
a
delegation
to
speak,
please
unmute
your
mic
and
begin.
If
you
have
provided
a
presentation
to
the
committee
coordinator,
please
tell
her
to
advance.
The
slides
is
necessary
while
you
speak.
A
Delegations
have
five
minutes
to
make
comments
and
the
coordinator
will
do
her
best
or
his
best
to
give
a
one-minute
warning
as
the
clock
counts
down
once
your
five
minutes
are
up.
I
will
ask
members
whether
they
have
any
questions
for
you.
When
questions
are
finished,
the
coordinator
will
place
the
delegation
back
in
the
zoom
lobby
on
mute
where
they
can
watch
the
rest
of
the
meeting
if
they
so
wish.
I
should
also
point
out
that
this
meeting
is
set
up
with
french
and
english
language
interpreters
at
the
bottom
of
your
zoom
window.
A
A
G
C
A
B
Yes,
I
too
consulted
with
the
integrity
commissioner
and
co-chairs
harder
and
king.
I
do
not
have
a
conflict
of
interest
to
declare,
however,
since
transparency
is
fundamental
to
the
public
trust
in
the
city's
process.
As
a
public
member
of
the
military
subcommittee,
I'd
like
to
declare
like
caroline
that
since
ottawa
city
council
in
june
2019
approved
the
former
larco
proposal,
I
was
actively
involved
with
the
public
campaign
to
challenge
the
approved
design.
B
I
was
also
actively
involved
in
assisting
heritage
ottawa
in
its
negotiations
with
larco
to
abandon
the
approved
design
and
prepare
a
revised
design
that
will
be
presented
to
the
committees
today.
As
the
former
chair
of
the
built
here
subcommittee
during
the
previous
term
of
council,
I
look
forward
to
today's
presentations.
Thank
you.
H
H
H
My
employer,
the
national
capital
commission
is
the
neighboring
landowner
and
an
approval
authority
over
the
proposed
new
edition,
and
there
is
a
second
declaration,
a
declaration
of
interest
in
accordance
with
sections.
Five
and
six
of
the
municipal
conflict
of
interest
act.
Rso
1990
cm
50
by
jennifer
hassell
declare
a
potential
deemed
indirect
pecuniary
interest
on
item
one
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
agenda
20
or
the
special
meeting
of
february
5th
2021
application
to
alter
the
chateau
laurier
juan
rido
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
H
My
employer,
the
national
capital
commission,
is
the
neighboring
landowner
and
and
approval
authority
over
the
proposed
new
addition.
My
understanding
is
that
member
hassell
will
read
these
declarations
of
interest
into
the
record
at
the
next
meeting
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
when
she
attends.
Thank
you
chair.
A
Over
the
past
few
years,
we've
seen
that
people
have
strong
opinions
about
the
proposed
edition.
A
contemporary
design
is
clearly
not
everyone's
cup
of
tea,
but
no
major
addition
is
likely
to
please
everyone.
Ultimately,
it
is
a
contemporary
design
that
the
owners
of
the
chateau
have
opted
for.
That's
the
submission
before
us
and
the
city
has
an
obligation
to
review
it
on
its
own
merits.
For
that
reason,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
briefly
summarize
that
we're
here
to
what
we're
here
to
consider
today
and,
more
importantly,
what
is
not
up
for
debate.
A
The
proposed
edition
needs
two
approvals
from
the
city,
a
heritage
permit
and
a
site
plan
control
approval.
The
chateau
is
a
designated
heritage
building
under
the
ontario
heritage
act,
which
means
the
owner
needs
a
heritage
permit
before
they
can
alter
the
existing
building
to
recommend
approving
that
permit.
We
need
to
be
convinced.
The
addition
does
not
compromise
its
heritage
value,
neither
its
landmark
character
nor
its
architectural
style.
A
In
short,
it's
a
question
of
whether
the
edition
is
compatible
with
the
chateau.
This
is
not
about
whether
we
agree
that
a
contemporary
design
is
the
best
option
for
the
addition,
that's
a
question
for
the
applicant
and
they
already
made
that
choice.
They
want
a
contemporary
addition
and
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
planning
act.
Give
them
the
right
to
submit
the
design
of
their
choosing.
We
can
refuse
an
application,
but
only
if
there's
a
valid
reason.
A
Our
authority
ends
well
short
of
requiring
the
owner
to
submit
a
traditional,
a
traditionalistic
design,
simply
because
a
modern
one
is
not
to
everybody's
taste.
I
know
some
will
never
be
happy
with
the
modern
design,
but
if
we
don't
limit
our
decision
to
what's
in
order,
any
resulting
appeal
to
the
local
planning
appeals
tribunal
would
undoubtedly
go
against
the
city.
I
ask
you
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
deliberate.
A
The
second
item
before
us
is
the
site
plan.
Control
application
site
plan
is
simply
the
process
the
city
uses
to
ensure
land
development
is
safe
and
functional.
We're
not
considering
a
zoning
amendment
here.
There
are
no
changes
needed
to
permit
a
building
of
the
size
proposed,
we're
not
improving
height
increases
or
smaller
setbacks.
For
that
reason,
I
don't
anticipate
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
site
plan.
A
Application
simply
put
council
already
approved
a
site
plan
for
the
previous
design,
and
the
new
design
really
does
not
change
that
approved
the
site
plan
significantly
at
least
not
at
ground
level,
where
the
public
will
interact
with
it.
The
new
design
and
site
landscaping
will
make
a
strong
contribution
to
the
public
realm.
A
It
still
has
the
same
connectivity
with
majors
hill
park,
improving
publicly
accessible
areas
and
making
better
pedestrian
connections
across
the
property
between
the
market
and
the
canal.
Ultimately,
this
application
is
backed
before
us,
because
the
owner
worked
with
heritage
ottawa
to
develop
a
design
that
they
believed
is
more
compatible
with
the
existing
building.
That's
what
we'll
focus
on
city
heritage
staff
and
heritage
ottawa
have
now
both
weighed
in
on
this
expressing
support
with
their
combined
expertise.
I'm
encouraged
that
the
redesign
does
seem
to
do
what
is
set
out
to
lessen
the
impact
on
the
shadow.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair,
herder
and
good
morning.
Everyone
I
too
am
encouraged
and
in
particular
by
the
collaboration
between
the
owners
and
architects
at
the
chateau
laurier
and
our
friends
at
heritage
ottawa.
It's
always
heartening
to
see
when
parties
can
build
consensus,
especially
around
a
contentious
file,
as
this
one
has
been.
H
H
since
becoming
chair
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee.
However,
I
have
clearly
needed
to
take
a
much
deeper
dive
into
the
history
of
this
file
and
what
a
fascinating
story
it
has
been
between
new
and
revised
designs.
This
is,
I
think,
the
sixth
design
that
has
come
up
for
discussion
and
not
always
at
committee.
The
story
has
played
out
in
social
media
and
through
city-led
public
consultations
as
well
and,
of
course,
meetings
of
the
built
heritage,
subcommittee,
planning,
committee
and
council.
H
I'm
sure
the
owners
of
the
chateau
would
have
liked
to
move
faster
in
getting
the
addition
built,
but
I
give
them
credit
for
the
patients
that
they've
shown.
I
respect
the
effort
they
have
put
into
listening
and
incorporating
public
feedback,
given
their
commitment
to
a
contemporary
design.
It's
not
always
easy
to
see
how
to
incorporate
feedback
when
it's
coming
from
parties
calling
for
a
more
traditional
design,
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
each
successive
design
has
managed
to
find
additional
ways
to
minimize
the
impact
of
the
addition
on
the
historic
building.
H
Each
design
has
been
a
little
bit
more
complementary
to
the
chateau,
even
as
it
remains
contemporary
in
style.
I'm
especially
grateful
to
the
work
of
our
heritage
planners.
I
appreciate
that
they
have
been
able
to
so
clearly
articulate
the
ways
they
feel
the
proposed
addition
remains
subordinate
to
the
historic
building.
H
It's
not
always
straightforward
to
see
how
the
design
respects
the
heritage
of
the
hotel.
Without
detracting,
I
value
staff
effort
to
demonstrate
the
ways
in
which
the
design
draws
inspiration
from
the
chateau,
and
I
look
forward
to
their
upcoming
presentation
to
get
into
some
of
the
specific
examples.
H
H
We
only
consider
matters
under
the
ontario
heritage
act
and
site
plan
control
is
a
matter
under
the
heritage
act,
site
plans
need
to
be
approved
by
staff
or
by
the
planning
committee.
I
just
remind
members
of
the
subcommittee
that,
while
we're
here
to
hear
delegations
today
that
might
refer
to
site
plan,
we
need
to
limit
our
comments
and
questions
to
the
heritage
permit
with
that
on.
The
record
I'll
turn
it
back
to
chair
harder
to
introduce
the
staff
presentation.
A
I
Good
morning,
chair
harder
chair,
king
and
members
of
built
heritage
subcommittee
and
planning
committee,
my
name
is
alison
hamlin.
I'm
the
file
lead
on
the
site
plan
application.
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
leslie
collins
program
manager
of
heritage
planning.
We
are
offering
staff
recommendations
on
larco
investment's
proposed
rear
edition
to
the
chateau
laurier
hotel.
C
I
Larko
investments
is
proposing
a
rear
addition
to
the
chateau
laurier
hotel
they're,
proposing
a
new
design
from
the
versions
that
these
committees
have
seen
previously
before
you
today
is
a
new
heritage
application
and
a
revision
to
the
site
plan
approval
that
was
given
in
2019
with
respect
to
the
site
plan
staff
are
recommending
that
the
previously
approved
conditions
remain
the
same,
and
that
planning
committee
approve
the
plans
and
studies
reflecting
this
new
architecture
next
slide.
Please
next
slide,
please!
Oh
that's
good!
Thank
you.
I
I
I
The
current
proposal
will
be
discussed
in
greater
detail
by
lesley
next
slide
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
approvals
process
and
how
we
are
here
with
the
revision
today.
So
the
seven
story
design
was
approved
in
2019,
there
were
minor
variances
required,
as
this
version
did
not
fully
meet
the
city's
zoning
bylaw.
I
I
I
I
I
Vehicular
access
to
the
new
loading
area
and
the
underground
parking
garage
will
be
from
mckenzie
avenue,
and
there
will
also
continue
to
be
access
to
the
parking
area
from
the
existing
driveway
from
rideau
street
windows
and
doors
are
proposed
on
all
sides
of
the
addition.
A
new
exterior
walkway
is
proposed
along
the
north
property
line.
I
I
So
in
conclusion,
staff
have
considered
this
proposal
and
find
that
it
conforms
to
the
city's
official
plan
and
the
central
area
secondary
plan.
It
protects
views
of
parliament
and
other
national
symbols.
The
proposal
is
consistent
with
city
guidelines,
including
the
tall
building
design
guidelines
and
bird
safe
guidelines.
I
I
The
addition
will
consist
of
high
quality
materials
and
landscaping.
There
will
be
public
realm
enhancements,
including
improved
pedestrian
connections
and
greater
animation
at
grade
heritage
staff
also
support
the
proposal,
so,
in
conclusion,
planning
staff
are
recommending
that
planning
committee
approve
this
application.
J
J
J
Oh,
thank
you.
The
chateau
laurier
is
designated
as
an
excellent
excellent
example
of
the
chateau-esque
style
used
for
railway
hotels
across
canada,
initially
by
the
canadian
pacific
railway
and
later
by
the
grand
trunk
railway.
The
building
is
within
a
dramatic
setting
overlooking
the
ottawa
locks
and
adjacent
to
parliament
hill
and
features
many
architectural
details
typical
of
the
style.
J
J
The
history
of
the
building
and
its
identified
heritage,
values
and
attributes
are
included
in
more
detail
in
the
staff
report
and
more
particularly
in
the
statement
of
significance
attached
as
document
5..
These
values
and
attributes
form
the
foundation
for
evaluating
impacts
on
the
edition
of
the
addition.
Next
slide,
please
I'll
now
go
through
the
elevations
of
the
proposed
edition.
J
J
J
J
The
new
addition
will
create
a
courtyard
space
between
the
glazed
link
and
the
north
wall
of
the
ballroom,
which
will
be
used
to
provide
flexible
space
for
events
occurring
in
the
ballroom.
The
proposed
edition
includes
materials
drawn
from
the
historic
building.
The
base
and
middle
portions
will
be
clad
in
indiana
limestone
and
the
bra
and
bronze
frame
framed
curtain
wall,
bronze
panels
and
fins
will
be
used
to
accept
accent.
The
roofline
next
slide.
J
J
J
The
view
from
the
statue
of
colonel
john
bye
in
the
park
the
view
from
wellington
street
on
the
plaza
bridge
and
the
view
from
the
ottawa
locks
I'm
going
to
go
through
these
views
quickly
now
and
provide
some
analysis
at
the
end
next
slide.
Please
this
view
shows
the
west
tower
of
the
edition
taken
from
wellington
street
on
the
plaza
bridge,
overlooking
the
ottawa
locks
next
slide.
J
J
J
J
J
Next
slide,
please,
as
noted
in
the
staff
report,
any
large
scale
addition
to
the
chateau
will
result
in
some
impacts
on
views.
The
current
proposal
minimizes
negative
impacts
on
the
key
urban
views,
particularly
from
majors
hill
park,
and
results
in
some
greater
impacts
on
the
skyline
views
from
the
north
negative
impacts
on
the
significant
views
have
been
mitigated
by
the
two
pavilion
massing
of
the
addition,
which
continues
the
east
and
west
wings
of
the
historic
hotel
and
opens
up
views
into
the
center
of
the
u-shaped
historic
building.
J
J
The
standards
and
guidelines
are
a
pan-canadian
document
developed
by
parks,
canada,
to
provide
a
framework
for
making
essential
decisions
about
character-defining
elements
of
historic
places.
The
standards
and
guidelines
were
adopted
by
city
council
in
2008
to
evaluate
applications
to
alter
under
the
ontario
heritage
act.
The
relevant
standards
for
this
application
are
standards,
1
and
11.
next
side.
Piece
standard
1
is
about
conserving
the
heritage,
value
and
character,
defining
elements
of
the
historic
place,
as
defined
by
a
statement
of
significance
intact.
Character-Defining
elements
should
be
retained
as
much
as
possible.
J
This
proposal
meets
standard
one
as
the
proposed
edition
conserves
the
heritage
value
and
has
minimum
impacts
on
the
character
defining
elements
of
the
chateau.
It
does
not
remove,
alter
or
replace
the
character
defining
elements.
It
replaces
a
parking
garage
of
little
architectural
value
and
re-establishes
a
relationship
between
the
hotel
and
major
sill
park.
The
addition
is
located
behind
the
hotel,
preserving
the
view
of
the
front
facade
from
wellington.
Street
art.
Rito
street
sorry
takes
an
appre.
J
It
also
takes
an
approach
of
minimal
intervention
by
lightly
connecting
the
addition
to
the
building
in
only
two
places
at
the
east
and
west
ends
of
the
facade
next
slide.
Please
standard
11
has
been
extensively
discussed
throughout
the
evaluation
of
the
various
design
iterations
for
this
project,
standard
11
recommends
that
any
addition
to
an
historic
place
must
conserve
the
heritage,
value
in
character,
defining
elements
further.
It
notes
that
new
additions
must
be
physically
and
visually
compatible
with
subordinate
to
and
distinguishable
from.
The
original
building
standard.
J
J
An
addition
must
not
impair
or
detract
from
the
heritage
value
of
the
character,
defining
elements
of
the
historic
building,
as
it
relates
to
the
addition
of
the
to
the
chateau
laurier.
This
application
meets
standard
11,
because
the
design
of
the
edition
is
distinguishable
and
of
its
own
time,
but
uses
cues
and
inspiration
from
the
design
of
the
historic
building,
including
the
two-volume
massing
that
is
sympathetic
to
the
evolution
of
the
chateau
over
time
into
a
u-shaped
building
with
an
east
and
a
west
wing.
J
J
The
roofline
is
stepped
back
to
allow
for
greater
views
of
the
roofline
of
the
chateau
and
finally
designing
the
loading
and
parking
to
be
located
inside
the
building
improves
the
relationship
along
mckenzie
avenue
next
slide.
Please,
the
applicable
guidelines
are
located
within
section
4.3.1
of
the
standards
and
guidelines.
J
J
J
So
to
conclude.
Under
the
ontario
heritage
act
staff
are
recommending
that
bill.
Territo
subcommittee
recommend
that
planning
committee
recommend
that
council
approve
the
application
under
the
heritage
act,
subject
to
the
conditions
which
I'll
speak
about
in
a
moment,
to
delegate
my
authority
for
minor
design,
changes
to
the
general
manager
of
the
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development
department
and
to
issue
the
heritage
permit
with
a
four-year
expiry
date.
J
The
four-year
expiry
date
is
longer
than
our
typical
expiry
date,
which
is
normally
two
years.
In
light
of
the
current
situation
with
kovid
and
the
legal
proceedings
on
this
file,
we
wanted
to
allow
for
extra
time
next
slide.
Please
staff
have
proposed
three
conditions
of
approval.
The
first
is
the
submission
of
material
samples
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit.
This
is
a
common
condition
for
heritage
permits
and
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
proposed
materials
are
appropriate
and
compatible
with
the
chateau
laurier
and
the
surrounding
cultural
heritage
landscape.
J
The
second
condition
is
intended
to
provide
additional
detail
regarding
alterations
to
the
historic
building
itself,
such
as
the
conversion
of
windows
to
doors
in
the
ballroom.
These
details
are
better
considered
as
the
detailed
design
progresses,
and
the
final
condition
is
to
ensure
that
the
proposed
lighting
of
the
chateau
and
its
edition
are
compatible
with
the
objectives
of
the
capital
illumination
plan
and
conserve
the
heritage,
value
and
attributes
of
the
chateau
laurier,
and
that's
all
we
have
for
today
and
happy
to
answer
questions
at
the
end
of
the
public
delegations.
Thank
you.
A
L
Whereas
these
revisions
have
no
implications
on
the
cur
on
the
content
of
the
staff
report
or
the
recommendations,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
listed
as
document
10
of
the
report
for
the
application
to
alter
the
shadow
laurier
one
reno
street,
a
property
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
be
replaced
with
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
dated
february
2nd
2021
on
file
with
the
city
clerk.
A
H
H
M
A
M
Thanks
very
much,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
protect
canada
laurier,
it's
a
group
that
was
formed
very
recently.
I
could
have
a
slide
change,
please.
We
believe
the
city
staff
reports,
while
acknowledging
public
opposition
to
the
current
addition
to
the
shadow,
laurier
minimize
or
even
dismiss
the
value
of
that
public
input.
The
public
has
repeatedly
shown
contempt
for
a
neo-modernist
hotel
addition
by
petition
of
nearly
fourteen
thousand
people,
also
through
a
city
survey
of
seventeen
hundred
and
of
all
comments
sent
to
city
council.
M
Recently,
fewer
than
five
percent
supported
the
current
proposal.
All
the
data
point
in
the
same
direction,
the
public
says,
do
not
build
it
slide
change,
please
the
focus
of
city
staff
on
the
standards
and
sorry,
the
focus
of
city
staff
is
on
the
standards
and
guidelines,
and
we
can
agree
that
the
standards
are
not
gospel
nor
mandatory
and,
as
the
reports
read,
there
are
no
requirements
to
design
an
addition
in
a
particular
architectural
style.
M
M
We
are
generally
aligned
with
gordon
bennett,
former
director
of
policy
of
national
historic
sites
and
who
played
a
significant
role
in
producing
the
heritage,
standards
and
guidelines.
He
wrote
this
week
in
the
ottawa
citizen
that
the
proposal
one
violates
subordination
to
the
historic
place.
Two
has
a
negative
impact
on
character,
defining
forms
in
space
and
three
fails
to
deliver
balance
between
imitation
and
pointed
contrast.
M
This
proposal,
he
wrote
quote,
does
not
meet
these
requirements.
End
quote
slight
change,
please.
The
international
heritage
protections
principles
are
intended
to
minimize
intervention
while
making
protected
buildings
useful.
The
purpose
of
looking
somewhat
different
from
the
original
has
some
logic
to
it.
It
is
to
tell
the
original
from
the
annex
and
to
honor
the
original,
but
being
very
similar
without
being
identical
and
while
also
being
compatible
with
heritage,
can
all
be
done.
M
At
the
same
time,
there
are
many
canadian
historic
hotels
with
compatible
compatible
in-period
editions,
as
that
slide
shows
nonetheless,
and
as
the
canadian
international
standards
themselves,
state
quote,
new
additions
to
heritage
building
should
be
avoided,
in
quote,
if
at
all
possible
in
competition.
With
this
perspective,
the
staff
reports
insist
throughout,
despite
the
evidence
that
the
historic
and
precinct
views
are
not
harmed
by
the
architect's
design.
M
M
M
The
shadow
laurier
is
currently
privately
owned,
but
it
is
not.
It
is
not
only
privately
owned,
it
is
also
a
national
historic
site
and
the
owner
larko
promised
upon
purchase
in
2013
that
they
were
not
going
to
substantially
alter
the
structure
that
promise
may
not
have
been
a
condition
of
sale,
but
it
should
have
been
very
quickly.
The
owner
started
the
search
for
a
condominium
architect.
M
In
our
view,
these
staff
reports
are
not
neutral
assessments
but
skewed
appraisals
that
attempt
to
justify
an
unacceptable
unliked
proposal.
The
intentions
of
the
standards,
compatibility
and
subservience
of
the
existing
iconic
hotel
and,
above
all,
heritage
protection
are
not
being
met
by
the
proposal,
and
you
should
have
been
reflected
in
the
heritage
assessment.
There
is
no
unanimous
viewpoint,
but
overwhelmingly
people
who
live
in
this
city,
in
the
national
capital
and
beyond
even
many
of
those
on
council
share
the
same
perspective.
M
No
neo-modernist
edition
that
offends
the
historic
chateau
hotel
is
acceptable.
That
should
be
stated
loud
and
clear
from
here
to
council
committees
should
recommend
rejection
of
the
proposal
and
those
recommendations
to
support
it.
We
will
be
asking
council
to
take
a
pause,
a
pandemic
pause
if
you
will
and
then
consider
other
options.
Thank
you.
L
Thanks,
madam
chair,
mr
collins,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Council
endorsed
the
version.
The
previous
version,
which
many
would
agree,
was
you
know
a
lesser
quality
than
what
we
have
before
us
today.
So
if
council
approved
that
it's
likely
they're
going
to
approve
this
today
or
not
council,
but
at
least
the
committees,
so
in
a
couple
sentences
summarize,
what
is
the
main
issue
you
have
with
the
design
before
us
now.
M
In
essence,
we
and
most
people
believe
that
a
the
let's,
let's
use
the
term
neo-modern
design,
doesn't
fit
in
in
character
with
the
shadow
styling
and
much
of
the
discussion
has
been
about
the
minutia
of
materials,
ignoring
the
views,
ignoring
the
boxy
conflict
or
con
or
contra
distinction
between
the
proposal
and
the
the
original
it's
almost
as
if
nobody
is
speaking
about
on
council,
at
least
or
in
committee,
about
the
most
obvious.
This
is
like
the
emperor
having
no
clothes.
A
F
You
good
morning,
man,
I'm
chair,
thank
you
for
this,
mr
collins.
Good
morning,
I
a
lot
of
you
and
I
have
had
the
chance
to
discuss.
Can
you
maybe
clarify
you're
familiar
with
the
city
process
and
the
review,
that's
underway,
ultimately
you're
you're
asking
for
an
intervention
from
the
federal
government
or
federal
partners?
Can
you
maybe
articulate
how
you
see
that
procedurally
happen?
F
M
Sure
I
mean
for
at
the
city
level,
or
even
at
this
committee
level,
we're
asking
for
a
pause
so
in
essence
a
a
stall
on
the
recommendation,
that's
coming
from
staff
and
in
order
to
to
look
at
what
the
other
options
might
be
now,
there's
a
few
that
had
been
in
discussion
before
and
are
currently
also
in
discussion.
One
is
that
we
pursue
intervention
from
the
ontario
heritage
ministry
and
the
federal
authorities,
ncc
and
otherwise
parts,
canada
and
so
on.
M
To
see
whether
I
mean
one
option
is
that
a
better
proposal
come
forward,
a
better
a
better
plan
come
forward
dismissing
that
for
the
moment,
other
possibilities
would
be
a
a
competition
for
a
a
new
world
class
project,
possibly
hosted
by
the
national
capital
commission.
That
would
solicit
options,
including
shadow
esque
style
options
which
have
been
dismissed
in
the
past
to
the
largest.
M
That
would
be.
That
would
be
worst
case.
Certainly,
everyone
recognizes
this
as
private
property,
but
the
problem,
I
think,
is
that
there's
been
deference
to
the
ownership
over
the
heritage
aspect
and
that
priority
should
be
reversed.
We
should
we
should
remember
that
larco
purchased
this
building
in
2013,
knowing
that
it
was
heritage,
property
and
said
they
were
not
going
to
change
it.
So
I
mean
that
was
a
that
was
a
an
attribute
of
the
hotel
that
they
purchased.
M
M
Allow
silver
second
thought
that
the
four
and
a
half
years
haven't
attended
to.
So
we
think
that
the
one
option
that
was
put
forward
was
potentially
that
the
space
that
was
opened
up
with
removal
of
the
garage
could
be
taken
over
by
a
federal
authority
and
leased
back
with
extensive
regulations
and
heritage
protection
embedded.
M
M
A
A
In
short,
it's
a
question
about
whether
the
edition
is
compatible
with
the
shadow
and
it's
not
about
whether
we
agree.
A
contemporary
design
is
the
best
option
for
the
addition.
That's
not
before
us.
That
was
a
question
for
the
applicant
and
they
already
made
that
choice.
So
thank
you.
The
next
speaker
up
is
richard.
Beliveau
from
heritage
ottawa.
K
Good
morning,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
of
speaking
with
you
today.
I'm
richard
beliveau
president
of
heritage
ottawa
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
organization
to
support
the
staff
recommendations
for
this
application
in
2019
heritage
ottawa
challenged
the
city's
decision
to
permit
construction
of
a
widely
vilified,
horizontal
bar,
which
blocked
the
rear
view
of
the
chateau
laurier,
this
wonderful
national
historic
site.
After
the
ruling
of
the
committee
of
adjustment
in
september,
2019,
both
heritage
ottawa
and
the
owner
larko
investments
limited
filed
appeals
with
the
provincial
local
planning
appeals
tribunal.
K
The
proposed
new
addition
is
not
a
historical
replica
which
heritage
ottawa
never
advocated,
but
is
more
compatible
with
the
hotel's
composition
and
irregular
silhouette
in
its
new
form.
The
cherished
views
to
the
rear
of
the
hotel
are
exposed,
preserving
the
openness
of
form
by
revealing
the
original,
building's
u-shaped
pattern
and
picturesque
qualities
from
majors
hill
park.
K
The
preponderance
of
indiana,
limestone
cladding
with
copper
and
bronze
elements
in
the
new
design
is
in
keeping
with
the
materials
of
the
historic
hotel,
resulting
in
a
significant
improvement
over
the
long
glass
covered.
Rectangular
addition
previously
approved
these
material
changes.
The
opening
up
of
views
into
the
courtyard
and
the
subtle
delineation,
of
the
massing
of
the
two
pavilions
into
three
sections
that
align
with
the
hotel
together
form
a
worthy
contemporary
response
to
the
national
historic
site
that
meets
requirements
set
out
in
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
in
canada.
K
F
K
A
K
H
A
H
C
A
B
A
A
C
F
Okay,
no,
I
appreciate
appreciate
you
clarifying
that
michael.
I
wanted
to
know
if
it
was
a
a
written
legal
document
that
that
richard
was
required
to
read
here,
okay,
so
so
back
to
heritage
ottawa.
Mr
bedivo,
I
want
to
thank,
I
know,
there's
a
number
of
members
of
the
organization
I
see
mr
padalski
and
carolyn
and
others
who
who've
walked
that
journey
since
since
day,
one
of
this
application
can
you
maybe
speak
to
heritage
ottawa's
involvement
throughout
prior
to
to
the
appeal
just
so
I
I
just
so.
K
From
yes,
when,
when
the
first
designs
were
submitted,
we
made
several
comments
on
this.
I
think
we
even
organized
a
little
bit
of
a
of
a
display
of
alternate
possible
designs
by
the
students
from
carlton
university,
so
this
was.
This
was
two
years
back
when
the
application
for
approval
of
the
of
the
earlier
design-
and
this
was
the
one
that
eventually
was
approved
by
the
city
council-
the
what
we
call
the
radio
radiator
design.
K
We
were
very
conscious
of
the
outrage
that
had
been
expressed
by
so
many
of
the
people
in
in
ottawa
and
and
that's
when
we
got
together
with
this
group,
who
eventually
called
themselves
the
friends
of
the
chateau
laurier,
and
we
decided
that,
yes,
we
would.
We
would
take
this
campaign,
we
would.
We
would
make
appeals
when
it
came
time
to
when
they
were
seeking
variants.
For
their
approvals,
we
developed
a
fundraising
campaign.
We
had
an
enormous
fundraising
campaign
which
which
supported
our
our
our
legal
actions.
K
We
were
approached
by
the
the
other
side
by
by
larco
to
see
you
know
if
there
was
some
sort
of
common
ground
and
we
reverted
to
the
statement
that
we
had
made
to
begin
with
when
the
friends
of
the
shadow
laurier
was
was
there
that,
yes,
we
were
not
opposed
to
an
addition.
We
were
not
opposed
to
a
contemporary
design.
That
was
very
clear.
K
We
were
opposed
to
something
that
was
clearly
incompatible
and
destructive
of
the
of
the
certainly
from
the
rear
view
of
the
of
the
character
of
the
chateau
laurier,
and
we
thought
that
the
so-called
radiator
design
was
had
to
be
stopped
and
that's
what
we
achieved
in
the
end.
I
think
that
the
we
had
a
very
fruitful
discussion
with
the
architect
and
many
of
the
suggestions
that
we
made
were
accepted.
K
We
had
the
best
experts
in
the
world
I
named
or
in
canada
for
sure
that
I
I
discussed
there,
they
were
part
of
our
of
of
our
negotiations
with
larco
and
by
the
way,
councillor
flaherty.
If
I
may
say
so,
I
think
it
was.
It
was
your
leadership
as
well
that
encouraged
us
to
to
undertake
this
campaign,
and
we
thank
you
very
much
for
it.
F
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
question,
mr
bellavo
just
harkens
back
to
what
we
heard
from
mr
collins
prior
to
your
presentation,
and
this
was
with
respect
to
a
role
for
the
federal
government
in
this
issue,
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
share
with
the
committees
what
what
role
or
what
effort
heritage
ottawa
made
to
approach
federal
government
ministers
or
representatives
about
whether
there
was
a
a
role
or
a
step
that
the
federal
government
could
take
in
this
issue.
K
Oh
very
early
in
the
campaign
we
we
contacted
the
local
members
of
parliament,
including
minister
mckenna,
who
is
a
representative
for
centertown
for
part
of
the
area
there
we
spoke
with
the
ncc.
We
spoke
with
other
people.
There
was
no
appetite
on
the
part
of
the
federal
government
to
become
involved
with
this
project.
K
In
fact,
what
I
would
say
now
is
that
if
the
federal
government
really
were
to
be,
if
people
would
like
something
to
happen
on
behalf
of
the
federal
government
would
be
to
provide
the
proper
legal
protection
for
national
historic
sites,
it's
one
thing
to
name
a
national
historic
site,
but
there
is
no
legal,
no
strong
legal
legislation.
Sorry
there's
no
strong
legislation
to
protect
historic
monuments
in
this
country,
and
I
think
that's
what
we
really
need
now,
rather
than
intervention
on
a
specific
project.
A
You
that's
it
for
questions
thanks
very
much
gentlemen
for
coming
out
today.
So
next
up
we
have
the
applicant,
and
speaking
for
the
applicant
is
dennis
jacobs
with
dennis
is
a
whole
bunch
of
people.
Four
questions
so
dennis
is
going
to
introduce
it,
but
he
has
art,
phillips,
peter
clues,
rob
cadeau,
michael
mcclellan
and
emma
blanchard,
so
I'm
putting
it
into
your
hands
dennis.
D
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Counselor
chair,
the
you
did
identify
the
people
that
are
with
me
that
we're
here
to
answer
questions.
Art
phillips,
represents
the
owner
peter
clues
and
rob
cadeau
are
the
project.
Architects,
michael
mcclellan
is
our
heritage
architect
and
emma
blanchard
has
been
assisting
on
the
the
legal
side
of
this
this
project.
D
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
we're
very
pleased
to
be
in
front
of
committee
again
with
this
revised
design.
It's
a
very
important
addition
to
keep
the
fairmont
shadow
laurier
current
and
moving
forward
in
a
very
competitive
hotel
market,
so
we're
pleased
that
we
were
able
to
have
this
joint
meeting
to
help
expedite
things
and
also
allow
for
the
additional
consultation.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
morning,
dennis
just
in
turn.
I
just
want
to
clarify
so
in
front
of
us.
Now
we
have
the
site
plan
component
and
the
heritage
permit.
The
heritage
permit
would
will
make
its
way
to
to
for
for
council's
consideration,
as
highlighted
by
the
chair
last
go-around,
larko
or
the
applicant
had
to
go
to
to
committee
of
adjustment.
So
can
you
clarify
the
process?
F
D
D
We
are
also
dealing
directly
with
staff
on
what
are
called
federal
land
use,
approval
level
2,
which
deals
with
easements
the
need
to
provide
an
easement
underground
into
the
park
to
connect
up
servicing,
as
well
as
under
mckenzie,
to
connect
up
servicing.
It
all
goes
through
lands
that
they
own,
as
well
as
some
works
on
the
the
terrace
that
require
their
approvals
from
a
staff
level.
D
D
We
have
yet
to
go
to
a
hearing
on
that,
and
our
intention
is
following
the
the
decisions
made
by
city
council
and
planning
committee.
We
would
proceed
with
filing
a
submission
to
the
local
planning
approvals
tribunal,
appeals
tribunal,
and
that
would
outline
this
the
change
from
the
original
application.
As
as
committee
members
may
know,
the
once
an
appeal
has
been
filed
to
a
committee
of
adjustment
matter.
D
D
The
bylaw
requires
a
three
meter
setback
in
this
new
design.
There
is
still
that
same
projection
as
it
relates
to
the
western
pavilion,
so
the
amendment
or
the
variance
is
slightly
altered
in
some
dimensions,
but
as
far
as
the
intent
and
scope,
it's
essentially
the
same,
as
was
before
the
original
committee
of
adjustment.
F
F
A
F
F
L
L
He's
appears
to
be.
You
know,
entrenched
in
the
style
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
few
versions,
and
I
want
to
compare
that
against
the
public
sentiment,
which
has
more
or
less
been
strongly
in
favor
of
a
designer
expansion
that
better
blends
with
the
existing
architecture.
Can
you
just
comment
on
why
the
versions
continue
to
be
quite
opposite
to
what
the
public
sentiment.
L
There
seems
to
be
unanimous
support
on
council
to
support
an
expansion
of
this
hotel.
I
haven't
heard
any
member
of
council
say
were
opposed
to
facilitating
the
expansion
of
the
shadow.
What
there's
disagreement
on
is
the
style
or
design
of
that
expansion.
So
talk
to
me
about
the
vision
of
your
owner.
D
C
C
C
K
C
I
said
at
the
outset
I
think
it
is
is
designed
is
better
for
the
process
that
it's
gone
through.
I
don't
know
if
that
really
properly
answers
your
question,
but
it's
not
our
opinion.
You
know
we're
not
dealing
with
here
my
ego
as
an
architect
and
as
a
modernist,
and
this
is
the
way
it
shall
be.
This
was
a
really
very,
very
fulsome
and
engaged
process.
L
I
appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
underscore.
There
continues
to
be
a
strong
difference
of
opinion,
I'm
not
calling
into
question
at
all
your
professional
expertise.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you're
aware-
and
I
know
you
are-
that
even
the
sixth
version
is
not
widely
embraced
by
the
public,
but
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
dialogue.
A
A
H
First,
in
the
spirit
of
reconciliation,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
that
the
city
of
ottawa
is
built
on
unseated,
algonquin
and
land,
the
people
of
the
algonquin
avenue
nation
have
lived
on
this
territory
for
millennia,
their
culture
and
presence
have
nurtured
and
continue
to
nurture
this
land.
The
city
of
ottawa,
honors,
the
people
in
the
land
of
the
algonquin
and
anishinaabe
nation
and
the
city
of
ottawa,
honors
all
first
nations,
people
inuit
and
metis
peoples
and
their
valuable
past
and
present
contributions
to
this
land,
starting
with
the
agenda.
C
F
F
H
The
heritage
permit
and
usually
that
rises
to
council.
Ultimately,
I
believe
that
the
site
plan,
components
and
the
other
planning
components
will
be
completely
followed
up
by
planning.
So
my
understanding
is,
we
are
just
strictly
dealing
with
the
heritage
permit
per
our
per
terms
of
reference
for
this
committee.
A
C
H
I
H
H
Thank
you
so
much.
The
next
item
is
declarations
of
interest.
Member
hassell's
declaration
of
interest
was
read
into
the
record
at
this
morning's
joint
planning
committee
meeting
and
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting.
Are
there
any
other
declarations
of
interest,
and
I
do
see
that
vice
chair
quinn
has
raised
her
hand.
G
G
B
B
I
was
also
involved
in
assisting
heritage
ottawa
in
its
negotiations
with
larco
to
abandon
the
approved
design
and
prepare
the
revised
design
in
version
6.
That
is
in
front
of
the
committee
today.
As
the
former
vice
chair
of
the
military
subcommittee
during
the
previous
tenure
of
city
council,
I
really
look
forward
to
today's
presentation.
H
Thank
you,
member
podelski,
seeing
no
other
raised
hands.
We
can
proceed
to
the
main
business
planning,
infrastructure
and
economic
development
right
away
heritage
and
urban
design
services.
The
major
item
on
this
meeting's
agenda
is
an
application
to
alter
the
chateau
laureate,
one
rideau
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
four
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
As
noted
earlier
today,
there
is
a
technical
amendment
to
replace
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
would
counselor
brockington.
Please
move
that
motion.
L
Thank
you
chair
and
yes,
during
our
joint
meeting
that
preceded
this
one,
I
read
a
motion
with
respect
to
updating
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
In
the
interest
of
time.
I
will
read
the
therefore
clause,
therefore
be
it
resolved
that
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
listed
as
document
10
of
the
report
for
the
application
to
alter
the
shadow
laurier
won
rito
street
a
property
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
ontario
heritage
act
be
replaced
with
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
dated
february
2nd
2021
on
file
with
the
city
clerk.
H
H
L
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
So,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
presentation,
I
think
I
went
through
most
of
these
items,
but
I'll
go
through
them
again,
just
to
be
clear,
so
the
proposed
materials
to
be
used
for
the
addition.
It
is
proposed
to
be
clad
in
an
indiana,
smooth,
indiana
limestone,
similar
to
the
limestone
used
on
the
clouding
of
the
chateau
laurier.
J
The
roofline
will
be
accented
in
bronze
and
the
windows
will
be
a
bronze
frame
curtain
wall.
So
picking
up
on
the
characteristic
materials
used
on
the
chateau,
the
height
of
the
of
the
edition,
there
was
an
error
on
one
of
our
slides
that
we
noticed
after
the
fact
it
will.
They
will
be
in
fact
10
and
11
stories,
so
the
east
pavilion
will
be
10
stories
or
about
36
meters
and
the
west
pavilion
will
be
11
stories
or
about
39
meters
and
on
the
slide
it
said
11
and
12
stories.
J
So
that's
that
was
an
error
on
our
part,
the
distance
from
the
existing
building.
This
is
one
of
the
key
pieces
from
the
staff
perspective.
The
west
pavilion
has
been
set
back
from
the
west
end
of
the
or
sorry
the
north
end
of
the
west
wing
by
about
13
meters,
and
it's
linked
only
by
a
two-story
glass
glazed
link
from
the
third
to
the
fifth
stories
of
the
property
and
then
in
terms
of
compatibility.
J
The
varying
heights
of
the
two
towers
is
compatible
with
the
asymmetrical
roofline
of
the
chateau,
as
well
as
the
massing
which
continues
the
east
and
west
wing
of
the
chateau
as
a
u-shaped
building,
the
lower
connector
between
the
two
pavilions
allows
for
views
of
the
rear
of
the
chateau
from
the
north
and
then
the
use
of
compatible
architecture
or
compatible
material
palette.
A
complementary
material
palette,
as
well
as
a
restrained
architectural
expression,
all
assist
in
in
increasing
the
compatibility
of
the
addition
with
the
historic
building.
J
L
L
I
asked
the
the
owners
representative
earlier
and
that
is
the
disconnect
between
what
the
public
believes
is
compatible
versus
staff's
professional
opinion
and
that
of
the
owner,
and
I
don't
know
how
much
leeway
you
have
a
staff
to
dance.
You
know
you
have
to
respond
to
the
proposal
before
you
not
entertain
any
other
option
right
it's
what
they
present.
What
the
owner
presents.
L
L
J
Through
you,
mr
chair,
I
mean,
I
think
you
have.
I
think
the
counselor
has
summed
it
up
in
that
staff's
role
in
this
is
to
assess
what
is
presented
to
us,
the
stan
against
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
in
canada.
I
think
what
you've
seen
from
the
submissions
received
today
and
from
the
staff
opinion
is
that
there
are
a
range
of
professional
opinions
on
this.
The
standards
and
guidelines
are
not
prescriptive.
J
They
do
not
dictate
an
architectural
style.
This
is
private
property,
so
it
has.
We
are
assessing
this
application
on
its
own
merits
against
the
standards
and
guidelines,
so
in
staff's
opinion,
for
the
reasons
I
outlined,
we
believe
that
this
is
compatible
with
standard
11
and
and
meets
those
requirements,
which
is
why
we're
recommending
approval
of
the
application.
C
Thank
you,
chair
thanks
staff.
I
I
really
only
have
one
question
again:
I
I
know
that
this
has
been
a
long
and
arduous
road,
especially
for
staff.
I
understand
your
position
and
thank
counselor
brockington
for
kind
of
articulating
that
in
this
public
meeting,
because
I
think
it's
important
that
you
know
the
public
understand
what
your
role
is
and
the
in
the
confines
of
that,
in
terms
of
you
know
the
standards
and
guidelines
that
that
you
have
to
you
know,
put
up
against
this
proposal.
C
I
just
wonder
how,
like
you
know,
we
had
we
had
another
version
application
presented
to
us
that
did
not
have
these
materials,
and
yet
it
was
recommended
for
approval
today.
What
seems
to
have
changed
is
the
proposed
materials
and
that
is
being
used.
As
the
you
know,
the
maybe
I'm
being
unfair,
and
you
can
correct
me,
certainly
if
I
am,
but
that
seems
to
be
what's
being
used,
as
the
you
know,
reason
main
reason
for
for
approval
of
of
this.
J
Sure,
thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair.
The
standards
and
guidelines
do
recognize
that
there
are
a
range
of
design
solutions
to
meet
any
problem
and
that
anything
you
know
in
addition
to
an
historic
building,
there's
not
one
there's,
not
one
appropriate
solution,
so
staff
recommended
approval
of
the
previous
version
of
this
proposal
and
we
stand
by
that
approval.
We
think
this
this
proposal
is
also
compatible.
J
J
I
think
that
that
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there
are
a
range
of
options,
so
while
the
previous
version
was
lower,
which
allowed
for
views
of
the
roof
line,
this
version
allows
for
reviews
of
the
rear
of
the
building,
and
I
think,
as
I
said
in
the
presentation,
the
view
piece
is
interesting,
because
any
addition
to
this
building,
that
is
of
any
substantial
size,
will
have
some
impact
on
some
of
the
views.
And
so
I
think
the
goal
has
always
been
from
a
staff
perspective
is
ensuring
that
those
impacts
are
mitigated.
J
C
I
H
F
Thank
you,
councillor,
king.
I
I'll
my
comments.
I
assume
most
members
will
carry
through
planning
I'll
hold
my
comments
to
a
planning
committee
on
the
matter,
so
my
questions
to
staff
relate
to
so
there
was
a
motion,
a
technical
motion
that
was
brought
forward
and,
in
my
understanding
is
it.
It
refers
to
parks,
canada's
latest
interaction,
which
would
have
come
in
on
february.
2Nd.
Could
staff
comment
on
what
what
parks
canada
has
submitted?
What's
changed
and
what's
the
expectation
from
from
the
latest.
J
We
held
a
meeting
with
the
applicant
and
parks
canada
last
week
and
had
a
discussion
about
this
issue.
Following
that
meeting
parks,
canada
provided
us
with
an
email
with
some
recommended
revisions
to
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
and
those
revisions
were
incorporated
by
the
applicant
and
a
revised
cultural
heritage.
Impact
statement
was
provided
to
staff
and
to
the
parks,
canada.
On
february
the
2nd
parks,
canada
has
acknowledged
receipt
of
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
J
The
revisions
to
the
chis,
I
believe,
were
circulated
by
the
committee
coordinator.
There
is
an
excerpt
of
about
five
pages
that
shows
the
revisions
in
pink
font
so
that
you
don't
have
to
comb
through
the
entire
document
to
find
them,
and
they
are
specifically
related
to
impacts
on
the
canal,
the
lock
office,
the
commissariat
building
and
and
the
ottawa
locks
themselves.
F
Okay,
so
thank
you
for
that
and
thank
you
for
clarifying,
so
I
I'm
not
familiar
with
that
process,
so
parks,
canada
submitted
there's
a
number
of
elements
that
required
a
change
to
the
cultural
heritage
statement,
and
then
one
of
your
last
comments
was
we'll
work
with
them
on
their
concerns
on
the
canal
views.
Can
you
maybe
be
a
little
more
specific
on
what
that
means?
Like
process-wise,
you
have
you
have
a
report
in
front
of
committee
with
drawings,
with
pretty
prescriptive
elements
in
terms
of
materials
and
shapes,
and
so
on.
J
Thank
you
and
yes
to
clarify.
I
should
say
that
they
they
have
not
expressed
concerns
about
the
impact
on
the
canal.
They've
expressed
comments
related
to
being
clear
in
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
as
a
record
of
the
visual
impacts
and
a
record
of
the
mitigation
strategies
that
have
been
undertaken.
So
the
revisions
to
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
proposed
by
parks,
canada
and
implemented
by
the
applicant,
do
not
impact
the
staff
recommendations
or
the
report
in
any
way.
It
is
a
cultural
heritage.
Impact
statement
is
meant
to
be
an
iterative
document.
F
Okay,
okay,
I
appreciate
that
there's
a
number
of
elements
that
were
negotiated
and
are
in
front
of
us.
I
I
you
know
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
element
or
concerns
that
councilor
brockington
was
raising
in
terms
of
the
contemporary
aspects
and
some
of
the
priority
to
the
the
linear
lines
that
were
provided
and
obviously
can
appreciate
the
amount
and
and
the
effort
that
that
heritage
ottawa
and
their
team
have
put
to
get
the
applicant
to
to
to
work
with
them
on.
F
But
I'm
curious
specifically
for
the
height
component,
one
of
the
criteria's
really
pushed
says
needs
to
be
subordinate
too,
and
with
this
increase
in
in
height,
the
the
the
the
the
roof
line
is
much
higher
than
what
was
previously
previously
presented.
So
can.
Can
you
maybe
speak
specifically
to
that
element
so
sure?
There's
a
separation
between
the
two
buildings
sure
there's
a
change
in
material,
and
we
we
can.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
standard
11,
which
speaks
about
subordination.
It
also
refers
to
the
fact
in
the
explanation
of
standard
11.
It
talks
about
the
fact
that
subordination
is
not
only
a
question
of
size
so
that
a
small,
inappropriately
designed
edition
could
have
more
of
a
negative
impact
on
a
historic
place
than
a
large,
properly
designed
edition.
J
So
the
chateau
laurier
evolved
over
time
to
become
a
u-shaped
building
and
the
use
of
two
towers
at
either
end
of
the
east
and
west
wings
is
appropriate
in
terms
of
maintaining
the
massing
of
the
building
the
additional
height,
the
roof
lines
have
been
stepped
back
in
order
to
reflect
the
steeply
pitched
copper
roofs
of
the
chateau
and
particularly
on
the
west
pavilion.
The
separation
from
the
chateau
provides
provides
continued
views
of
the
chateau's
roof
line
from
from
say
parliament,
hill
or
from
the
ottawa
locks.
F
F
I
I
sort
of
see
two
process,
one
which
is
the
standard
and
guidelines
from
parks,
canada,
but
the
other
one
is
generally
from
a
heritage
point
of
view
at
the
city.
In
terms
of
your
considerations,
can
you
maybe
speak
if
the
applicant
did
provide
a
a
a
match
or
something
very
similar
to
to
what
is
existing
of
the
shadow,
as
as
you
can
see
behind?
My,
I
guess
would
be
your
my
left
shoulder
here.
J
Sure
so,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation,
the
standards
and
guidelines
are
not
prescriptive.
They
do
provide
for
a
range
of
design
solutions.
Standard
11
in
particular
calls
for
striking
a
balance
between
replication
and
pointed
contrast.
So
as
counselor
brockington
acknowledged
earlier
staff,
our
staff's
role
is
to
react
to
what's
before
them.
J
So
if
somebody
had
proposed
a
an
addition
that
was
more
historicist,
let's
say
or
or
more
in
keeping
with
the
existing
design
staff
would
evaluate
it
against
concerns
and
guidelines,
providing
that
that
proposal
was
still
distinguishable
from
subordinate
to
and
physically
and
visually
compatible
with.
It
could
also
be
approved.
F
F
Okay,
I
I
didn't
want
to-
I
don't
want
to
put
you
in
a
particular
spot.
I
just
thought
your
line
of
questioning
was
in
line
with
my
thoughts,
so
appreciate
appreciate
that
thank
you.
That
would
be
all
for
for
me.
Councillor
king.
I
think
my
my
comments
in
the
report
state.
The
very
similar
concerns
that
I
raised
under
the
previous
application.
I
I
will
speak
to
the
broader
matter
and
involvement
in
heritage
ottawa
and
process
at
planning
committee.
H
H
G
This
has
been
a
very
challenging
and
contentious
issue
that
has
galvanized
people
in
ottawa
to
take
action
like
nothing.
I've
experienced
in
my
time
on
this
committee,
but
what
we
have
before
us
today
is
a
carefully
designed
proposal
that
addresses
the
concerns
expressed
by
this
committee
about
the
previous
2019
bar
building
edition.
G
G
One
of
the
most
important
lessons
has
been
the
demonstrate
demonstrable
need
for
federal
legislation
in
this
country
that
protects
buildings
and
sites
that
the
federal
government
has
been
designating
as
national
historic
sites
of
canada.
Since
1919.,
canada
is
the
only
g7
country
that
does
not
have
protection
in
law
for
its
national
historic
sites,
with
the
exception
of
those
placed
under
parks
canada's
jurisdiction.
G
G
G
E
Thank
you,
chair,
yeah,
I'd
like
to
start
off
similarly
to
vice
chair
quinn
and
just
congratulate
and
commend
the
joint
effort
from
heritage
ottawa
and
the
owners,
larko
investment,
their
collaboration
and
their
sort
of
willingness
to
work
together
and
sort
of
meet
in
the
middle.
If
you
will
it's
admirable
and
I
think
I
think
it's
it
has
led
to
a
better
design
and,
of
course,
I'd
like
to
also
congratulate
staff
who
have
poured
an
immense
amount
of
time
into
this
file.
E
In
part,
in
large
part,
it
was
the
citizens
of
ottawa
that
really
pushed
for
this
design
to
develop
and
improve.
So
I
think
that
this
that
this
case
file
is
a
really
good
example
of
how
the
public
does
care
about
the
public
realm
and
they
do
care
about
what
our
city
looks
like,
and
I
remember
you
know,
thinking
back
to
2009's
subcommittee
meeting
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
the
citizen
delegations
preface
their
comments
by
saying.
E
Well,
you
know
I'm
not
an
architect,
but,
and
I
think
I
don't
think
they
needed
to
qualify
their
their
comments.
I
think
their
comments
were
very
astute
and
very
valid,
and
I
think
they,
you
know,
whoever's
been
involved,
there's
been
hundreds
and
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
people
that
have
been
involved
and
interested
in
this
project,
and
I
think
that's
that's
really
good
and
that's
a
really
sort
of
healthy
demonstration
of
democracy.
So
that's
another
point
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
E
The
next
point
I
wanted
to
mention
was-
and
this
has
been
alluded
to
in
this
meeting
this
morning-
but
by
other
speakers,
but
it's
this
sort
of
subjectivity
of
the
standards
and
guidelines-
and
I
do
want
to
just
make
a
point-
that
this
isn't
really
a
matter
of
public
bursary.
This
isn't
a
matter
of
personal
opinion.
It
doesn't
you
know,
I
won't
be
sharing
whether
I
think
this
design
is
good
or
bad.
I
don't
think
it's
about
that.
E
In
particular,
standard
11
has
been
spoken
about.
You
know
many
many
times
in
many
different
ways,
and
and
it's
true
that
you
do
have
to
evaluate
whether
this
design
has
met
standard
11
and
it
can
be
subjective,
it
is
subjective,
but
in
many
ways
you
have
to
you
have
to
sort
of
put
design
style
and
personal
preferences
aside
and
and
and
to
be
able
to
say
you
know,
is
this
subordinate
to
the
original
building?
Is
it
compatible
with,
and
there
are
different
measures
to
do
that
so
to
provide
some
context?
E
I
was
appointed
to
this
committee
in
2019
and
the
the
meeting
in
june
of
2019,
I
think,
was
my
second
meeting,
so
I
wasn't
involved
in
the
in
the
process
before
that
and
what
was
presented
to
us
that
day
we
weren't
voting
for
heritage
the
heritage
permit.
It
was
already
granted
upon
three
conditions,
though,
and
what
we
were
allowed
to
comment
on
that
day
was
whether
the
2019
design
met
those
three
conditions,
and
I
did
have
an
issue
with
two
of
them.
E
I
didn't
believe
that
the
2019
met
two
of
those
conditions
that
would
that
were
placed
on
the
previous.
The
previously
the
previously
approved
heritage
permit-
and
that
was
the
north
facade,
which
it
was
asked
that
the
that
the
sort
of
monolithic
form
or
massing
of
that
north
facade
be
broken
up,
and
I
didn't
think
it
went
far
enough.
There
were
a
few
sort
of
one
or
two
meter
setbacks
that
sort
of
broke
it
up
on
a
very
surface
level,
but
I
didn't
feel
that
it
met
that
condition.
E
The
other
one
was
to
draw
proportions
and
details
patterns
from
the
original
building
and
draw
those
into
the
new
edition.
I
also
didn't
feel
at
that
time
that
that
condition
was
met.
I
found
the
sort
of
the
relationship
between
the
new
edition
and
the
original
chateau
laurie
was
not
intuitive,
even
some
of
the
datum
lines
that
the
design
sort
of
or
the
architects
were
explaining
we're
trying
to
to
meet
the
original
shadow
laurie.
E
I
didn't
really
see
that
I
didn't
agree
that
there
was
sort
of
a
harmony
between
the
two.
What
we
have
in
front
of
us
today.
I
do
believe
addresses
those
those
concerns.
The
original
concerns
I
had
in
2019,
mainly
by
breaking
breaking
up
the
form
and
the
massing
of
the
of
the
addition
into
the
pavilion
shapes
and
continuing
sort
of
a
u-shape
of
the
original
chateau
laurier.
E
The
views
are
greatly
improved,
in
particular
the
view
from
majors
hall
park,
so
you
do
have
views
into
the
center
into
the
courtyard
into
the
into
the
the
rear
side
of
the
of
the
original
chateau
laurier.
Yes,
you
lose
some
views
of
the
roof
line,
but,
as
leslie
mentioned,
we
are
always
going
to
we
are.
We
are
always
going
to
lose
and
have
impacts
on
the
views.
E
The
design
as
it's
presented
today,
I
do
think,
achieves
or
has
a
lesser
impact
on
the
on
the
views
from
what
we've
seen
previously-
and
I
think
one
more
thing
I
wanted
to.
Oh,
I
think
also
the
sort
of
the
iteration
of
base
middle
and
top
is
also
much
more
successful
in
this
design.
It's
it's
much
more
intuitive
and
much
more
apparent
when
you,
when
you
look
at
the
building,
that
it
sort
of
mirrors
the
original
building,
those
that
tripartite
sort
of
composition
of
the
original.
E
E
You
know
that
the
west
the
west
portion
was
built
in
1912
and
then
the
east
portion
was
built
in
1929
and
there
are
subtle
differences
there,
so
you
can
differentiate
them,
but
overall
they're
built
in
the
same
style,
and
I
think
it's
very
important
to
note
that
there
was
only
17
years
between
those
two
editions.
So
architectural
styles
did
not
change
considerably
in
that
amount
of
time,
so
it
was
appropriate
at
that
time
to
be
very
similar
to
the
original
portion
of
the
building.
E
We're
now
talking,
you
know
a
hundred
years
later,
and
it
is
very
important,
even
in
a
heritage
context,
even
in
the
context
of
a
national
historic
site,
to
design
something
that
says
something
about
the
time
that
we're
living
in
and
the
construction
methods
and
even
the
styles
that
that
are
contemporary.
Again,
it's
not
about
personal
opinion.
E
H
B
B
B
There
is
a
I'm
going
to
hesitate
here
for
just
a
moment.
I
think
that
the
important
thing
from
here
on
in
is
that
I
think
that
both
the
city,
the
ncc
and
parks,
canada,
together
with
heritage
ottawa
and
other
petitions,
should
initiate
a
kind
of
inquiry,
a
kind
of
post-mortem
on
this
file
to
really
learn
lessons
from
it.
That
can
be
of
benefit
to
others
in
canada
that
are
facing
alterations
or
interventions
to
their
beloved
heritage
architecture.
B
I
think
that
questions
will
need
to
be
asked
like.
Why
did
the
national
capital
commission
advocate
its
duty
in
2017
to
review
and
approve
the
design
leaving
it
to
the
city
of
ottawa
in
whose
hands
evaluating
projects
that
deal
with
the
federal
identity
and
federal
landscape
are
outside
of
its
experience?
B
I
think
that
we
need
to
ask
ourselves
what
is
the
principles
behind
standards
and
guidelines
for
historic
places
in
canada?
What
is
the
objective
of
the
core
of
the
capital
ncc
plans,
and
what
does
compatibility
really
mean?
What
do
we
mean
by
styles?
Is
there
a
case
for
compatible
design
such
as
the
one
that
ottawa
city
council
approved
in
the
year
2000
for
the
chatelair
expansion?
B
So
a
number
of
questions
need
to
be
asked,
because
what
we
don't
want
to
do
looking
forward
is
to
continue
to
struggle
and
repeat
the
errors
and
experience
the
anxieties
that
we
have
on
the
shadow
laurie
edition
file.
So
chair
king.
With
those
few
remarks,
I
really
would
like
to
hear
what
others
have
to
say
and
look
forward
to
the
recommendation
for
approval
of
this
of
this
application.
H
L
L
That's
okay,
see
gray.
It's
a
pass!
We're
okay
with
that
that
outside
the
parliamentary
precinct
in
this
city,
having
worked
at
tony's
pasture,
which
is
an
architectural
abyss,
ugly
having
as
a
young
kid
going
to
carleton
university,
as
my
dad
finished
his
degree
going
swimming,
and
even
at
a
young
age.
Thinking
to
myself,
these
buildings
are
ugly.
L
Having
sat
on
planning
for
six
years
and
looking
at
the
designs
of
the
various
developments
that
have
come
to
us
never
been
impressed
can
probably
count
on
one
finger
or
one
hand
when
the
architectural
quality
of
what
we
were
looking
at
was
impressive.
It's
just
it's
just
bland
just
another
building
we
put
up
people
have
the
right
not
to
be
happy
with
what
is
being
proposed
for
the
shadow
laurier
expansion.
I'm
not,
and
some
of
us
can
use
very
rigid
criteria
to
say
it's
better.
L
L
L
C
L
Good,
I'm
gonna
file
an
inquiry.
I'm
not
gonna
do
it
today,
because
I
wanna
get
the
wording
right
and
I
wanna
work
with
staff
on
the
wording,
but
I
do
believe
this
is
something
we
need
to
consider
and
consider
options.
So,
mr
mark,
I
appreciate
that
advice
and
I'm
likely
to
submit
a
public
inquiry
when
this
comes
to
council.
Thank
you,
chair.
H
F
Yes
and
thank
you
councillor
brockington
I've
been
working
with
councillor
mckinney
on
bringing
forward
a
motion
to
council
with
regards
to
legal
protection
for
national
sites,
so
glad
to
work
with
you
on
that,
and
then
I
think
we
should
take
away
as
well.
The
latest
request
from
from
member
padalski
relating
to
conducting
a
lessons
learned
exercise
at
the
city
about
this,
this
review.
So
let's
take
it
offline
and
re-raise
it
with
the
appropriate
awarding
at
council.
B
This
legislation
has
been
tabled
and
I
think
that
if
you
obtained
a
copy
of
that,
you
will
see
that
the
sentiments
that
we
would
be
conveying
to
the
government
already
in
place
and
that
piece
of
legislation
by
senator
joyel
was
in
direct
response
to
the
controversy
over
the
shadow
glory
because
he
was
one
of
those
persons
that
was
heavily
involved
among
the
friends
of
the
shadow
laurier
to
try
to
change
the
design.
So
I
think
that
that's
something
that
could
be
supported
and
followed
up
and
chair
king.
H
G
H
H
H
In
june
2019,
the
city's
planning
committee
approved
a
site
plan
control
application
for
a
seven-story
addition
to
the
rare
of
the
chateau
laurier
that
fall.
The
committee
of
adjustment
ruled
on
minor
zoning
variances,
a
ruling
that
both
heritage
ottawa
and
the
owner
larco
investments
appeal
to
the
lpat
to
settle
that
appeal.
Larko
consulted
with
heritage
ottawa
to
revise
its
design.
H
Despite
the
long
history
and
the
many
iterations
of
designs
up
before
us,
collectively,
it's
hard
to
consider
this
file
outside
of
the
context
of
its
design
evolution.
Frankly,
it
also
does
a
disservice
to
the
hundreds
of
hours
spent
by
staff
working
on
this
file,
for
which
I'd
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
thank
them.
Now.
The
application
before
us
is
very
much
a
compromise
one
brokered
by
heritage
ottawa,
who
also
spent
many
volunteer
hours
on
this
file.
The
proposal
significantly
increases
the
use
of
indiana
limestone
along
with
complementary
building
materials.
H
Further,
the
view
from
majors
hill
park
is
improved,
with
the
carve
out
in
the
middle
of
the
addition
that
simultaneously
maintains
the
view
of
the
original
building
and
the
u-shaped
heritage
feature
of
the
building.
These
are
design
features
that
I'm
generally
pleased
to
see.
I'm
also
cognizant
that
staff
recommends
approval
of
this
permit,
as
the
proposed
design
meets
the
standard
one
in
standard
11
of
parks,
canada
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
historic
places
in
canada.
H
H
This
delicate
balance
has
defined
ottawa
and
its
evolution
over
the
last
two
centuries
and
embodies
a
collective
memory
and
meaning
that
is
lacking
in
most
cities
today.
Conserving
this
heritage
character,
while
enhancing
vitality
and
modern
utility,
is
key
to
retaining
ottawa's
unique
sense
of
place.
H
While
I
disagree
wholeheartedly
with
our
former
prime
minister's
prognocation.
I
fear
that
approving
this
edition
is
a
step
backwards
towards
cementing
his
worst
fears.
Laurier
himself
established
the
ottawa
improvement
commission,
the
first
iteration
of
the
ncc,
with
the
view
to
beautify
what
was
a
sleepy
lumber
town
to
make
this
addition
to
a
building
which
is
a
national
historic
site,
which
is
a
piece
of
canadian
iconography.
H
I
can't
help
but
think
that
this
does
not
honor
wilfred
laurier's
legacy.
This
is
not
the
fault
of
staff
and,
ultimately,
the
crown
jewel
is
private
property.
I
do
realize
that
aesthetics
is
subjective
and
I
never
expected
to
see
a
proposal
that
was
the
same
as
the
original
building.
I'm
also
aware
that
city
staff
have
spent
an
astronomical
amount
of
time
on
this
application,
and
I
have
spent
much
time
taking
their
recommendations
into
consideration.
H
E
L
E
H
This
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
to
planning
committee
later
today.
That
meeting
will
be
after
the
adjournment
of
this
meeting,
so
we'll
move
to
adjournment
as
this
is
a
special
meeting.
We
are
limited
to
the
item
listed
in
the
notice
and
on
the
agenda,
and
accordingly,
there
is
no
other
business
on
adjournment.
Is
the
motion
carried
carried?
H
A
A
A
L
A
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
on
the
no
questions,
then,
on
the
application
to
alter
the
shadow,
laurier
I'll
call
actually,
first
of
all
the
let's
move,
the
technical
amendment
to
council
brockington,
and
let's
get
that
out
of
the
way
the
technical
amendment
which
you
this
will
be
the
third
time
it's
been
introduced
this
morning.
First
time
formally
for
this
committee.
L
L
I
won't
I'll
just
read
the
therefore
thank
you,
therefore
be
it.
This
is
regarding
updating
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement.
Document
10,
therefore,
be
it
resolved
that
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
listed
as
document
10
of
the
report
for
the
application
to
alter
the
shadow
laurier
one
rito
street,
a
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act,
be
replaced
with
the
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
dated
february
2nd
2021
on
file
with
the
city
clerk.
A
A
A
F
A
F
A
F
A
F
F
C
C
F
A
F
So
how
we
got
here,
I
think,
is-
is
complex.
It's
challenging,
but
ultimately
it
is
a
private
applicant
in
larco
that's
submitted
to
the
city.
I
I
too
want
to
thank
city
staff
for
their
time
for
their
constant
follow-up
and
response
and
clarification
to
community
as
part
of
the
the
entire
process,
not
just
the
latest
submission.
F
So
it's
a
lot
of
of
staff
hours
based
on
an
application
that
we
have
very
little
control
over,
so
really
want
to
to
bring
that
to
to
the
attention
of
everyone.
I
also
want
to
thank
heritage.
Ottawa
heritage
ottawa
has
been
put
in
a
very
challenging
spot
and
it's
one
of
the
unique
times
where
an
organization
does
an
appeal
and
and
improves
what
what
was
put
in
place,
what
was
approved
by
the
previous
submission
and
process.
F
I
know
that
we
need
their
continued
engagement
on
heritage
matter
in
our
city
and
I
want
to
thank
not
just
the
entire
board
but
the
entire
membership
for
for
their
work.
I
know
that
some
members
are
are
left
to
to
think
of
rethink
of
the
organization,
but
I
would
say
that
you
know
they
really
heritage.
Ottawa
has
done
tremendous
work
in
our
community
and
will
continue
to
do
so.
So
I
want
to
thank
mr
bedivo
and
the
entire
team.
F
F
Again,
I'm
sure
I
do
recognize
the
challenges
of
a
process
that
that
committee
and
council
are
are
forced
to
to
to
follow.
I
I
do
want
to
raise
to
committee
that
you
know
you
do
make
decisions
relating
to
property
rights
and
and
heritage
permits
do
have
influences
on
heritage
matters,
so
I
know
that
as
part
of
the
last
round
of
submission,
those
were
some
of
the
comments
that
were
raised
and
I
fear
that
you
know
every
time
we
make
a
decision
out
of
committee
and
council.
F
I
C
A
C
Comment,
I
guess
I
can't
believe
we're
still
we're
still
debating
over
whether
the
design
is
historic.
Enough
really
appreciated
the
comments
from
member
comforti
and
the
bill
territories
subcommittee
about
the
need
to
be
designing
for
our
own
time.
You
know
I
look
over
the
the
skyline
of
the
city
of
ottawa
and,
yes,
we
have
the
the
traditional
chateau
laurier
and
the
parliament
buildings,
but
we
also
have
the
the
conference
center
completely
different
design,
but
it
fits
in.
C
It
fits
in
perfectly
now
to
our
landscape
and
even
the
concrete
buildings
of
national
defense.
You
know
they've
become
something
that
are
part
of
our
city,
it's
the
heterogeneity
of
our
architecture.
That
makes
our
downtown
interesting
and
appealing
to
visitors
and
picturesque
and
photos
that
people
take
when
they
visit
here.
C
The
proponent
has
come
forward
with
something
that
not
everybody
agrees
with
and
that's,
okay,
I
don't
think
as
a
committee
we
should
be
making
our
decisions
based
on
on
the
popular
opinion.
We
should
be
listening
to
the
architects
to
the
heritage
community
and
and
appreciating
when
we
have
private
landowners
who
are
coming
to
our
city
with
something
that
could
be
a
positive
change.
So
that's
all
I
wanted
to
say
today,
chair
I'll,
be
supporting
the
staff
recommendations.
A
H
B
C
C
D
D
A
C
C
C
No,
no,
I
don't
want
to
do
it.
Site
plan
is
site
plan
and
they
try
to
respect
the
the
integrity
of
that
process.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
staff:
were
there
any
substantive
site
plan
issues
where
there
continue
to
be
any
kinds
of
disagreements?
We've
been
looking
at
the
the
heritage.
Permit
considerations
mostly,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
whether
there
were
any
site
plan
issues
that
we
should
keep
in
mind.
I
I
There
were
some
minor
changes
to
how
the
stormwater
was
collected
and
and
held
on
site
because
of
the
changes
to
the
roof.
It
went
through
a
technical
circulation.
The
comments
raised
by
parks,
canada
about
drainage.
That
letter
is
included
in
in
leslie's
heritage
report,
basically
parks.
Canada
asked
to
be
involved
in
the
kinds
of
construction.
I
C
F
Yes,
my
question
is:
is
just
in
terms
of
again
process,
so
you
have
a
a
site
plan.
I've
come
out,
commented
in
it
on
it,
and
and
now
there
are
matters
that
are
in
in
the
national
capital
commission's
hand.
So
how
does
that
link
work?
How
does
the
feedback
you've
received
from
the
public
and
the
city's
goals
through
the
site
plan
tie
in
to
the
review
of
the
national
capital
commission,
and
how
is
committee
and
council
assured
that
those
elements
be
carried
forward?
For
example,
councilor
mckinney
was
speaking
earlier
of
the
tree
protection.
F
I
know
that
we've
had
conversations
relating
to
the
pavers
that
are
existing
on
mckenzie
avenue
and
and
tie-in
also
on
the
the
terrace
side
of
the
chateau.
So
a
lot
of
you've
done
a
lot
of
that
work
and
want
to
make
sure
how
how
is
that
carried
through
the
national
capital
commission's
review
and
process.
I
So,
just
to
reiterate,
what
that
is,
is
surface
works
along
mckenzie
and
some
subsurface
works
for
servicing
connections
along
mckenzie
subsurface
works
for
servicing
connections
in
majors
hill
park
and
alterations
to
to
the
rideau
canal
terraces,
so
that
the
the
the
new
design
has
a
staircase
leading
up
from
the
lower
terrace
into
the
courtyard
and
in
terms
of
public
consultation,
the
ncc
could
run
their
own
public
consultation
on
this.
As
was
noted
earlier,
their
advisory
committee
on
design,
property
and
realty
is
expected
to
which
is
similar
to
our
urban
design.
I
Review
panel
is
expected
to
to
review
this
and
offer
comments
to
staff,
and
then
there
will
be
different
levels
of
approval.
Some
approvals
are
delegated
to
staff.
Some
are
at
the
board
level,
so
people
would
be
able
to
to
participate
by
listening
to
the
board
decision
and
also
by
reaching
out
to
to
ncc
staff
directly.
F
So,
just
to
clarify
madam
chairs
so
elements
that
you
as
a
planner
and
the
team
at
the
city
have
brought
forward.
Could
the
ncc
overturn
that
just
to
clarify
what
you're
saying
here,
like
you,
you've
made
you've
gotten
the
applicant
to
improve
some
of
the
site
plan.
You
you're,
bringing
those
forward
recognize
what
you're
saying
around
the
ncc
lands,
but
could
some
could
the
ncc
have
influence
on
overturning
some
of
the
the
changes
you've
requested.
A
A
A
L
B
B
I
B
B
A
A
So
move
adjournment
and
before
that
I'll
tell
you
that
our
next
meeting
there's
a
lot
between
now
and
then
isn't.
There
is
next
thursday
and
it
doesn't
have
that
many
items,
but
it's
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
long
meeting
just
for
your
calendars
purpose
of
your
calendars
and
of
course,
next
wednesday
we
have
the
growth
management
strategy
at
council.
So
I
thank
you
for
your
attention.
I
think
the
staff,
I
think
have
done
an
amazing
job.