►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 20 January 2021
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee - 20 January 2021 - Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
A
I
see
that
everybody
has
joined
so
good
morning
happy
new
year
and
welcome
to
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
meeting
of
january
20th
2021
I'd
like
to
call
the
members
to
order.
This
meeting
is
being
held
remotely
through
zoom,
despite
the
fact
that
we
are
leveraging
technology
to
hold
these
meetings
due
to
the
kovid
19
pandemic.
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
that
the
land
that
we
are
gathered
on
is
the
traditional
unseated
territory
of
the
algonquin
anishinaabe
people.
A
Those
who
do
not
need
to
participate
in
the
meeting
can
also
watch
it.
Live
on
the
ottawa
city
council
youtube
channel
a
reminder
to
participants
to
please
keep
your
microphones
muted.
Until
I
call
upon
you
to
speak,
I
will
provide
each
committee,
member
with
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
comment
on
each
item
in
the
order
in
which
they
raised
their
hand
in
zoom
for
panelists
the
raise
hand
option
is
found
at
the
bottom
of
the
participants
list
for
those
calling
in
press
star
9.
A
If
you
have
technical
difficulties
signing
into
the
meeting,
you
can
contact
a
committee
coordinator
by
calling
613-580-2424
extension
22953
a
reminder
that,
if
participants
are
having
technical
issues
with
their
zoom
connection,
they
may
call
in
using
the
backup
telephone
number
provided
by
the
coordinator
to
date.
I
have
received
no
regrets.
Could
the
committee
coordinator,
please
call
the
role
a
reminder
to
members
to
unmute
themselves
when
they
are
called.
D
C
E
A
Seeing
none
are
the
minutes
for
the
meeting
of
december
8th
2000
2020,
confirmed
carried
confirmed
so
our
first
item
on
the
agenda
for
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development
right
away
heritage
and
urban
design
services
is
an
application
to
alter
593
laurier
avenue
west
a
property
designated
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act.
Can
staff.
Please
provide
an
overview
of
this
report.
F
F
F
So
this
application
is
to
permit
the
construction
of
a
new
nine
story.
Apartment
building
with
six
residential
units
proposed
within
the
historic
building.
The
application
also
includes
restoration
and
some
alterations
to
the
the
heritage
building,
including
the
removal
of
two
later
additions
on
the
north
and
west
facades.
F
F
F
F
F
The
historic
building
will
be
attached
to
the
new
construction
by
a
glass
lobby
on
its
west
facade
next,
so
the
construction
will.
The
construction
of
the
new
building
will
require
the
removal
of
two
existing
additions
on
the
north
and
west
sides
and
those
are
excluded
from
the
designation,
and
these
are
these:
are
those
additions
just
up
on
the
screen
next,
so
this
is
the
elevation
facing
laurier
avenue.
F
F
This
is
the
elevation
along
bronson,
so,
as
I
mentioned,
the
additions
on
the
west
and
north
will
be
removed
and
also
the
small
covered
entry
vestibule
on
the
east
side.
Once
these
are
removed,
the
facades
will
be
repaired
and
any
necessary
brick
replacements
will
be
made
in
kind.
The
proposal
also
includes
restoration
work
on
the
detailed
masonry
and
wood
elements,
including
the
half
timbering
doors
and
windows,
repair
of
the
stained
glass
windows
and
also
some
roof
cladding
the
stone
retaining
wall
along
bronson
will
also
be
retained
and
conserved.
F
However,
a
noise
fence
is
required
to
run
along
the
edge
of
the
wall.
Next,
this
is
the
landscape
plan.
So
the
proposal
is
to
maintain
a
mix
of
soft
and
hard
landscaping
in
the
front
yard,
including
two
visitor
parking
spaces,
as
well
as
a
wider
front.
Walkway,
there's
new
plantings
that
are
proposed
throughout
the
property,
including
new
ivy,
to
be
planted
along
the
noise
fence
to
help
soften
its
appearance.
F
F
A
Thank
you,
miss
kim
for
the
very
detailed
report
on
this
file.
We
in
terms
of
correspondence
submitted
to
the
clerk's
office,
we
did
receive
none
to
date.
However,
we
do
have
speakers
registered
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
and
I
understand
that
there
is
a
presentation
that
would
accompany
that,
and
the
registered
speakers
are
robert
martin
from
robertson,
martin,
architects,
who
is
the
heritage
architect,
murray,
chowan
from
nova
tech,
a
planner
and
ryan
coolwine
from
project
one
studio.
Who
is
an
architect?
A
G
So,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
It's
murray,
chown.
I
will
provide
some
introductory
comments,
followed
by
a
brief
presentation
by
robert
martin,
who
you've
already
acknowledged
as
being
the
heritage
consultant
on
this
file.
Mr
coolwine
is
available
to
as
the
project
architect
is
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
may
arise
from
members
of
the
committee.
G
I
actually
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
dalhousie
community
association
and
heritage
ottawa
for
the
comments
that
they
provided
to
the
committee
yesterday
and
mr
chair.
I
think
it's
regrettable
if
you
haven't
received
those
the
comments
from
both
the
dca
and
heritage
ottawa,
support
the
application-
that's
before
you
today,
and
and
acknowledge
the
efforts
of
our
client
and
of
the
design
team
to
take
all
the
appropriate
steps
to
ensure
the
protection
of
this
very
significant
heritage
resource
in
the
city
of
ottawa.
G
Just
to
to
confirm
for
the
members
of
the
committee
that
our
clients
are
dedicated
to
the
protection
and
restoration
of
this
heritage
feature
in
the
city
of
ottawa,
this
heritage
resource
in
the
city
of
ottawa.
They
bought
this
property
with
the
full
intention
of
restoring
this
building
to
its
full
glory.
G
I
thank
miss
kim
for
all
of
her
efforts
on
this
file
and
I
would
confirm
the
conversations
that
she
alluded
to
in
her
final
comments
that
we
will
work
with
staff
towards
a
future
heritage,
designation
of
some
of
the
interior
features
of
this
building.
Once
the
project
has
been
completed
with
that
introduction.
I'll
turn
things
over
to
mr
martin
to
make
a
brief
presentation.
H
H
H
This
particular
building
presents
a
great
opportunity.
It's.
This
is
one
of
the
most
I
think
important
signature
buildings
in
the
area
and
it's
it
is
very
intact
and
a
lot
of
the
heritage
features
are
in
are
in
good
condition,
so
that
comes
with
great
opportunity
and
responsibility
as
well.
I'd
also
like
to
commend
project
one
for
their
engagement
with
with
the
whole
team
and
with
city
staff
and
stakeholders.
H
The
project
really
was
very
iterative.
There
were
quite
a
number
of
of
design
options
that
were
explored
and,
and
that
every
case,
a
project
one
was
willing
to.
I
guess,
explore
those,
so
I
I
thanked
him
for
that
that
the
challenge
in
the
project
definitely
is
one
of
of
allowing
the
intensification
without
adversely
impacting
the
prominent
location
and
appearance
of
the
heritage
building.
H
Toward
that
end,
there
were
a
lot
of
viewscapes
uscape
analysis
and
some
studies
of
of
the
primary
primary
views,
and
so
some
of
the
actual,
I
guess,
design
or
modulation
of
the
tower
component,
really
that
sort
of
hinge
both
echo
the
tower
element
to
the
existing
heritage
building,
but
also
allow
the
views
to
open
up
toward
the
toward
the
building.
I
don't
think,
maybe
go
to
the
next
slide.
We
can
yeah.
H
There
were
a
lot
of
concerns
about
how
to
express
the
contemporary
structure,
and
some
of
our
input
in
this
regard
was
to
pay
attention
to.
I
guess,
datum
lines
and
materiality
which
are
reflected
in
the
in
the
current
building,
and
in
this
sense
the
idea
is
that
the
contemporary
building
is
is
treated
as
a
foil
or
a
backdrop
to
the
much
more
innate
and
expressive
heritage
element,
and
I
think
the
design
achieves
that
very
well.
H
H
H
There
have
been
a
number
of
I
think,
unfortunate
residential
projects
in
in
the
recent
decades,
and
some
of
those
stand,
in
contrast
to
what
I
think
can
be,
can
be
done
here.
So
ryan's
team
certainly
looked
at
the
massing
of
the
topography
and
the
views
both
near
and
far
in
in
their
design
exercises.
H
H
Okay,
so
we
have
only
a
few
more
slides,
so
this
is
a
good
example
of
how
the
the
entry
to
the
new
building
is
slipped
between
the
heritage
building
and
the
new
structure
by
this
glazed
link
set
back
from
the
face
of
the
building
and
the
the
I
guess
later
editions
will
be
removed
in
our
assessment.
They
are
they're,
not
primary
value,
and
next,
please.
H
H
B
A
E
E
That's
part
first
part
of
my
question
and
secondly,
if
there
is
going
to
be
if
the
original
entrance
is
going
to
be
used
at
all,
I
know
that
there
you
explained
the
entrance
into
the
new
development
is
to
the
side
to
the
west,
a
new,
a
new
glass
entrance,
but
I'm
just
wondering
about
those
elements
of
the
original
house.
Thank
you.
I
I
We
paid
careful
attention
actually
to
code
requirements
and
exiting
to
ensure
that
we
could
remove
the
fire
escape
off
the
back
of
the
building
that
that's
currently
there
and
make
sure
that
we're
code
compliant
and
achieving
exiting
without
having
to
add
any
additional
elements
to
the
outside
of
the
heritage
building.
So
all
the
exiting
works
either
through
the
existing
central
stair.
A
J
A
J
All
questions
now
for
the
applicant:
yes,
okay,
so
my
question
is
I'd
like
more
details
about
the
protection
plan.
I
appreciate
in
the
stash
report
they
mentioned
as
part
of
the
site
plan.
There
would
be
a
requirement
to
provide
just
that.
Can
I
have
a
little
more
details
on
how
this
the
current
building
will
be
protected.
Staff
talked
about
boarding
up
windows.
H
So,
thank
you,
cancer.
The
a
couple
comments-
heritage
buildings
are
often
at
their
most
vulnerable
when,
when
under
construction,
because
they
they've
lost
their
often
their
life
safety
and
and
other
protection
systems,
and
so
heating
and
ventilation.
So
you
know,
we've
had
conversations
with
with
the
applicant,
and
I
mean
they're
very
committed
to
to
the
careful
retention
and
adaptive
reuse
of
the
existing
building.
So
some
of
those
details
will
need
to
be
sorted
out.
H
I
guess
greater
details
worked
out
with
the
construction
team
and
I
think
that
is
one
of
the
heritage
requirements
that
a
protection
plan
be
submitted
as
part
of
the
next
stages
of
approvals,
and
you
know
we
were
also
retained
to
provide
a
conservation
plan
for
the
the
building
and
that
does
allude
to
some
of
the
protection
requirements
before
during
and
after
construction.
So
I
would
say
there
will
be
some
work
to
do
with
with
ryan's
team
and
and
the
rest
of
the
consultants
and
as
well
with
the
owner.
H
I
wouldn't
say
it's
an
automatic
requirement,
but
it's
a
it's
a
good
idea.
I
mean
protection
plans
are
common
in
the
city,
regardless
of
whether
the
building
is
heritage
or
not.
We
often
have
situations
where
there
is
the
potential
to
undermine
foundations
or
or
to
have
health
and
safety
debris.
You
know
sort
of
barriers
between
new
and
existing
construction,
so
these
are
not
unusual
for
for
any
form
of
construction.
Okay,
thanks
very
much.
I
appreciate
it
thanks
chair.
C
Good
morning,
everyone,
quite
rightly
we're
focused
on
the
heritage
application,
and
I
would
comment
that
I
am
quite
impressed
by
the
the
best
practices
that
appear
to
be
undertaken
in
the
design.
I
have
a
question
that
maybe
could
be
best
answered
by
murray
chown,
and
it
is
related
to
the
build
heritage
committee
always
having
the
opportunity
to
understand
the
planning
context
and
the
other
planning
approvals
that
are
required
required.
C
G
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I'm
not
fully
prepared
for
it,
but
I'll
give
you
the
high
level
response
to
that.
So
we
have
this
process
actually
started
with
an
application
for
rezoning
to
permit
the
what
was
initially
proposed
to
be
a
a
high-rise
apartment
building
on
the
property.
The
initial
application,
as
I
think
was
alluded
to
earlier
this
morning,
was
for
17
stories
as
a
result
of
comments
received
on
the
initial
circulation,
both
from
staff
community
association
and
the
ward.
G
The
project
was
significantly
reduced
in
scale
from
a
high-rise
building
to
what
technically
is
now
a
mid-rise
building
at
nine
stories,
but
it
still
requires
a
rezoning
so
that
the
recommendations
coming
forward
from
this
subcommittee
when
it
comes
to
planning
committee
on
february
11th.
On
that
same
day,
there
will
be
a
recommendation
with
respect
to
the
application
for
rezoning.
G
There,
of
course,
is
also
a
concurrent
application
for
site
plan
approval
where
we're
dealing
with
all
of
the
details
with
respect
to
landscaping
parking
how
to
deal
with
that
noise
wall
that
miss
kim
referenced
in
her
presentation.
So
we
we
have
effectively
three
concurrent
applications
underway,
rezoning
site
plan
and
the
heritage
permit
application.
C
Great
thank
you
very
much
chair.
It's
always
valuable,
at
least
for
me,
to
understand
the
planning
applications
that
need
to
that
are
being
processed,
and
just
as
an
aside,
I
maybe
quite
rightly
or
wrongly,
that
there
is
no
underground
parking,
except
for
a
couple
of
visitor
parking
spaces.
Is
that
correct.
G
B
I
Right
so
so
the
noise
fencing
is
a
is
a
requirement,
because
we
have
an
amenity
space,
that
abuts
bronson
avenue
and
so
there's
decibel
level
requirements
for
any
space.
That's
meant
for
gathering
to
serve
as
an
amenity
for
the
building,
so
that
that
required,
the
installation
of
this
of
this
noise
fence
we've
been
trying
very
hard
to
come
up
with
a
planting
solution
that
could
replace
any
kind
of
physical
construction.
I
However,
we've
we
originally
proposed,
you
know
a
a
concrete
wall,
let's
say
with
with
board
form
concrete
to
give
a
textured
look
to
play
off
of
the
existing
heritage,
retaining
wall
at
the
city's
suggestion,
heritage
planning,
suggestion,
we've
changed
this
to
a
wood
noise
barrier.
So
to
be
clear,
this
is
you
know,
just
it's
typical
to
a
wood
fence.
I
Only
the
thickness
of
the
boards
that
we're
using
you
know
with
just
a
thicker
buildup
of
wood,
with
tight
gaps
in
between
to
ensure
that
the
transfers
through
and
then,
as
was
mentioned
in
the
presentation,
the
plan
is
to
is
to
plant
it
with
iv,
so
that
we
do
get
a
softer
impact
and
we
have
some
vegetation
going
up.
The
fence,
you
know
if,
if
all
things
were
perfect,
we
would
rather
not
have
that
barrier
there
either.
But
it's
it's.
You
know
it's
a
requirement
and
that
that
requirements
you
know,
transcends.
G
I
just
wanted
to
note
that,
in
terms
of
views
of
the
building
and
views
of
the
turret
from
bronson
avenue
there,
there
currently
is
a
lilac
hedge
along
that
property
line.
So
the
noise,
the
the
noise
barrier,
that's
being
required
to
protect
that
amenity
space
isn't
obstructing
any
of
the
current
views
of
the
building.
But
we
are
going
to
make
best
efforts
to
soften
the
impact
of
that
wall.
I
B
B
I
I
mean
lighting
design
is,
is
certainly
an
exercise
that
we
go
through
once
we
get
into
more
technical
drawings.
It's
definitely
something
that
we'll
be
looking
at.
We
haven't
resolved
any
details
of
that
just
yet
letting
lighting
the
building
itself
is
always
a
delicate
issue
to
navigate,
because
we
want
to
be
very
mindful
of
the
way
that
we're
controlling
light
and
the
directions
that
we're
casting.
I
So
you
know
a
traditional
way
to
accentuate
like
a
heritage
asset,
let's
say,
would
be
to
uplight
the
building
just
to
really
make
it
shine
at
night,
but
the
issue
we've
got
there
is
just
you
know
how
we're
casting
light
and
how
we're
directing
it
upwards
and
we're
trying
to
limit
those
practices.
So
I
you
know,
a
short
answer
would
be
that
that
we
will
absolutely
look
to
enhance
the
presence
of
the
fleck
house
at
night.
Through
lighting,
we
haven't
resolved
a
lighting
plan
just
yet.
K
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
start
by
thanking
staff.
Thank
you,
mckenzie
for
presentation
and
and
congratulating
the
applicants
for
a
very
thorough
application.
I
was
actually
interested
you
guys
touched
on
in
a
little
bit
how
you
worked
to
sort
of
get
that
spacing
correct
between
the
existing
heritage
building
and
the
new
build.
K
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
you
came,
how
you
came
to
the
decision
of
of
the
relationship
between
the
existing
and
the
the
line
of
the
new
building
and
how
you're
hoping
to
mitigate
some
of
that
negative
impact
of
you
know
revealing
the
turret
again,
but
then
sort
of
enclosing
it
in
a
different
way.
I
would
say
a
less
negative
way,
definitely
than
those
two
later
additions
that
you're
removing,
but
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
you
had
any
more
any
more
sort
of
development
and
or
comments
on
that.
H
Well,
that's
happening
ryan.
Could
I
comment
something
too
sure
I
also
want
to
say
one
of
one
of
the
very
interesting
discussions
we
had
on
the
project
was
was
treating
the
tower
as
this
almost
element
of
delight
and
how
one
might
experience
it
from
different
vantage
points,
so
in
in
a
kind
of
narrow,
compressed
way
at
the
glazed
link
looking
up
and
then
also
in
terms
of
circulation
corridors
within
the
building
looking
down
on
it
and
similarly
from
the
amenity
space.
I
I
From
that
north
property
line,
you
know
it's
going
to
require
that
we
move
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
building
than
we
were
before,
and,
and
that
was
something
that
we
worked
through
with
heritage
staff,
and
so
that
does
create
a
bit
more
of
a
pinch
point
with
the
turret
from
you
know,
looking
at
it
from
the
top
of
the
page
down.
At
the
same
time,
we've
decided
really
to
treat
this
as
more
of
kind
of
a
an
amenity
space
as
well
right,
so
I
mean
the
view.
I
Let's
say
it
gets
cut
off
if
we
all
go
all
the
way
down
to
bronson,
but
as
we
climb
bronson
towards
laurier,
there's
there's
still
views
of
that
turret
that
we
made
clear
in
the
renderings.
You
know
I
do
want
to
highlight
too,
like
you
can
see
in
in
where
the
dashed
line
is
on
this
plan,
that
the
base
of
the
turret
currently
is
completely
covered.
All
you
really
have
access,
or
views
of
is
the
very
top,
and
so
the
the
turret
in
its
entirety
is
going
to
be
visible.
I
I
Finally,
what
we're
also
doing
is
on
the
ground
floor,
we're
using
that
turret
space
is
actually
amenity
space
for,
for
both
for
residents
of
you
know
the
the
rehabilitated
flat
house
and
the
new
building,
so
we're
physically
going
to
be
occupying
that
space
and
every
resident
is
going
to
have
access
to
that.
So
you
know
from
a
visual
perspective
and
from
a
functional
perspective,
we
really
feel
like
we're
doing
that
turret
justice
and
and
place
the
importance
that
it
really
deserves.
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair,
thank
you
staff
and
I
do
want
to
thank
the
applicant
today.
This
is
going
to
be
in
the
end
one
of
those
win-win-win
situations
and-
and
I
I
have
to
say,
I
know
that
we
started
off
with
renderings
that
you
know
the
community
was
concerned
about,
I
was
concerned
about,
but
the
work
that
the
applicant
did
with
the
community,
the
community
association,
the
surrounding
community.
D
D
It
will
also,
you
know,
help
to
intensify
the
downtown
yes
having
people
new
customers
for
lrt
for
those
bike
lanes
on
laurier.
It's
just
it's
a
wonderful
neighborhood
that
is
so
close
to
everything.
I
think
we
could
call
it
a
10
minute
neighborhood
rather
than
a
15,
but
so
we
we
have.
We
have
the
the
restoration
and
the
you
know
the
you
know,
saving
this
at
this
beautiful
home,
more
people
living
in
the
downtown
you
know,
which
is
which
is
what
we
we
want
to.
D
Actually,
so
that
the
fronting
on
the
step
back
and
the
the
fronting
onto
the
street,
the
way
that
you
have
with
the
the
red
brick
and
the
the
entrance
where
it
is,
is
just
very,
very
friendly
towards
the
street
and
it
you
know
in,
I
think
in
the
end,
it
will
go
down.
As
you
know,
one
of
those
I
think
it
was
councilor
moffat.
D
Texted
me
and
said
this
is
similar
to
what
happened
on
with
friday's
rose
beef
house
on
on
laurier
around
on
elgin,
and
you
know
we
look
at
that
and
just
think
wow.
You
know
we
could
have
never
had
it
any
other
way,
and
I
think
that
someday
we're
going
to
look
at
this
and
say
wow.
We
could
have
never
really
never
had
it
any
other
way.
So
thank
everyone.
D
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
Mackenzie
really.
I
do
have
just
a
a
question
just
because
it
has
arisen
with
other
developments.
It's
pertaining
to
the
glass
materials
on
the
new
addition
and
whether
there's
going
to
be
any
effort
to
introduce
some
bird
protection.
I
know
this
isn't
a
heritage
issue
specifically,
but
it
is
a
rising
increasingly
with
developments
associated
with
heritage
buildings
and
not
so
just
a
question
on
that.
F
Thank
you
vice
chair
quinn,
it's
it's
not
really
a
heritage
issue,
but
I
think
certainly
it's
a
conversation
that
we
can
have
through
the
site
plan
application.
My
colleague,
andrew
mcrae
is
on
the
call
today,
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
come
up
before
in
the
discussions
to
this
point.
It
might
also
be
a
question
for
the
applicant
if,
if
they
can
jump
in,
if
it's
something
they've
thought
of.
F
B
L
B
In
conversation
and
in
comments,
certainly
from
members
of
the
community,
as
well
as
staff
as
mckenzie
alluded
to
it's
really
more
of
an
item
that
can
be
controlled
through
site
plan.
That
type
of
detail
is
is
really
lies
within
the
site
plan
application,
not
necessarily
the
heritage
or
zoning.
So
we
don't
have
full
answers
yet
on
what
it
will
include.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
entertaining
that
non-heritage
question
mackenzie
also
you
you
mentioned
at
the
beginning
that
you're
working
with
the
owner
about
the
possibility
of
of
retaining
certain
interior
elements
of
the
building
which
I'm
really
happy
to
hear
having
been
in
and
out
of
that
building
myself
personally
for
many
many
years
I
can
attest
to
the
quality
of
that
interior,
and
so
that
is
really
good
news
and
especially
if
certain
elements
could
actually
be
designated
added
to
the
part.
Four
designation.
E
I'd
also
like
to
just
take
this
opportunity
again
to
congratulate
everyone
on
this
project,
but
also
to
just
mention.
I
know
this
is
the
andrew
fleck
house,
built
by
mr
fleck
in
1902
and
owned
up
until
the
early
1940s,
but
after
that
the
house
was
owned
by
the
mccord
family
and
its
descendants
for
over
80
years,
and
I
think
I
just
would
like
to
say
get
on
record.
Excuse
me
just
how
well
they
invested
and
preserved
that
property
for
that
time.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
for
the
question
and
for
the
wonderful
observation
I
did
have
one
brief
question,
noting
that
nobody
else
has
their
hands
up
for
staff
and
it's
just
maybe
a
brief
examination
or
some
brief
comments
about
the
protective
measures
that
will
be
put
in
place
by
the
city,
as
this
project
goes
forward,
to
ensure
that
the
designated
building
is
protected
during
that
construction
process.
So
that
that's
just
my
brief
question.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
robert
martin
answered
answered
that
question
earlier.
You
know
quite
well.
You
know
he
spoke
to
how
the
existing
property.
You
know
that
the
you
know,
given
that
the
existing
property
is
built
on
the
type
of
the
geo
sort
of
the
geography
of
the
property,
lends
itself
quite
well
to
in
term.
In
terms
of
stabilization.
C
C
Comments,
thank
you
and
I'd
like
to
echo
councillor
mckinney's,
compliments
to
not
just
the
community
associations
and
the
applicant
and
staff,
but
to
say
how
happy
I
am
that
we
can
launch
2021
series
of
meetings
of
the
military
subcommittee
with
what
appears
to
be
an
emerging
success
story.
I
think
that
this
is
an
exemplary
approach,
not
just
in
terms
of
the
design
and
the
conservation
plan,
but
the
whole
way
in
which
the
consultation
has
evolved
with
community
input
and
heritage
auto
input.
C
I
think
it's
important
to
share
positive
things
like
this
verbally
at
meetings
like
this,
because
often
we
get
down
into
arm
wrestling
over.
Why
didn't
you
do
this,
or
why
didn't
you
do
that,
and
I
think
that
I
would
just
like
to
launch
the
2021
season
of
heritage
applications
with
my
genuine
compliments
for
all
the
players
that
are
involved,
and
I,
of
course
will
be
supporting
the
staff
report
on
this
application.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
comment,
and
I
would
like
to
echo
that
as
well.
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up
on
the
the
notion
of
comments,
but
I'm
also
very
supportive
of
this
application.
I
think
it's
very
thoughtful
and
it's
an
excellent
example
of
adaptive,
reuse
of
really
how
a
property
can
be
conserved
and
integrated
into
a
project
that
provides
increased
density
and
continued
residential
use
of
the
designated
building
itself,
which
I
think
is
very
important
and
something
that
isn't
often
seen
so
I'm
very
excited
about
this
project.
A
The
other
element
that
I'm
excited
about
was
hearing
counselor,
mckinney's
comments
about
the
cooperation
between
the
community
and
the
applicant
and
seeking
a
better
results,
and
that's
what
we're
always
striving
for,
hopefully
when
we're
around
these
tables.
So
I
am
very
supportive
of
of
this
of
this
item.
We'll
be
supporting
it,
and
I
will
ask:
is
this
report
carried.
B
A
F
F
F
Next,
the
property
contains
a
two-story
masonry
office,
building
with
a
surface
parking
lot
at
the
side
and
the
rear.
The
building
was
constructed
in
1955
as
a
as
the
purpose-built
headquarters
for
the
canadian
labor
congress,
and
it
includes
a
1960s
edition,
that's
attributed
to
the
firm
of
gilland
and
strut
architects,
the
building
features
a
modernist
style,
limestone,
clad
facade
with
brick
cladding
for
the
remaining
elevations
and
wings.
F
This
property
is
considered
a
category
2
property
within
the
centertown
hcd.
Next,
in
terms
of
context,
the
property
is
located
directly
adjacent
to
the
ottawa
police
headquarters
on
its
east
side
and
across
the
street.
To
the
north
is
the
canadian
museum
of
nature
and
it's
surrounding
landscape
grounds,
which
of
course,
is
a
national
historic
site
of
canada.
F
So
the
construction
of
the
new
building
will
also
result
in
the
removal
of
the
existing
parking
lot
and
improved
landscaping
with
new
street
trees
and
foundation.
Plantings
along
the
front
facade,
the
detailed
landscape
plans
and
also
lighting
plans
have
not
yet
been
finalized,
so
staff
have
recommended
that
these
be
submitted
as
a
condition
of
the
site
plan.
That's
required
to
facilitate
this
application
next,
please.
F
F
F
F
F
Next
as
well.
The
overall
contemporary
style
of
the
new
building
is
distinguishable
from
that
of
the
bozar
form
and
tudor
gothic
elements
of
the
museum,
but
with
subtle
details
such
as
the
chosen
cladding
materials
and
window
patterns,
which
are
meant
to
visually
connect
the
two
buildings
next,
the
second
key
consideration
for
this
proposal
was
the
conservation
of
the
overall
heritage
value
of
100
argyle.
F
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
building
was
constructed
as
the
headquarters
for
the
canadian
labor
congress
and
as
outlined
in
the
heritage
impact
statement
that
was
supported,
submitted
in
support
of
the
application.
There's
archival
research.
That
indicates
the
building
was
designed
to
have
a
facade
that
had
greater
importance
and
prominence
than
the
rest
of
the
building,
and
that
was
to
acknowledge
the
relationship
with
the
museum.
F
So
those
archival
documents
also
strongly
indicate
that
the
facade
was
designed
by
james
strutt,
who
was
a
well-known
architect
known
for
his
modernist
works
and
whose
firm
designed
in
the
1960s
addition
to
this
building.
So
through
the
retention
of
the
facade,
the
proposal
retains
and
rehabilitates
the
portion
of
the
building,
which
was
historically
the
most
prominent
and
the
historical
association
was
strut.
That
will
continue
so
the
facade
will
be
shifted
slightly
to
the
east.
F
Next,
please,
the
third
major
consideration
for
this
project
was
to
ensure
the
work
would
be
undertaken
carefully
and
minimize
risk
to
the
facade
as
part
of
this,
the
applicant
and
their
and
their
team
have
already
undertaken
comprehensive,
recording
and
documentation
and
also
a
detailed
methodology
for
for
the
project
and
that's
outlined
in
the
conservation
plan.
The
implementation
of
this
methodology
has
been
recommended
as
a
condition
of
the
heritage
permit.
F
Additionally,
given
the
risk
associated
with
the
proposal,
staff
are
recommending
that
the
owner
provide
a
letter
of
credit
in
an
amount
equal
to
the
estimated
cost
to
replace
and
reconstruct
the
facade
in
the
event
of
any
damage
or
unforeseen
circumstances,
and
this
letter
of
credit
would
be
required
prior
to
any
building
permits
and
would
be
held
by
the
city
until
the
reconstruction
is
complete
next,
please
so.
Finally,
of
course,
the
fourth
major
consideration
was
to
ensure
the
cultural
heritage.
F
The
retention
of
the
historic
facade,
the
proposed
window,
design
and
pattern,
and
the
material
palette
are
also
consistent
with
the
surrounding
properties,
which
help
it
blend.
With
its
context,
staff
have
recommended
a
condition
to
provide
final,
exterior,
cladding
samples
and
that's
to
ensure
that
the
final
selection
will
also
meet
those
guidelines.
F
The
proposed
height
is
taller
than
what's
than
the
established
character
of
this
area,
also
the
museum
and
the
direction
in
the
hcd
guidelines.
However,
in
general
staff,
are
supposed
supportive
of
the
proposed
height
given
its
location
near
the
417,
the
mitigation
measures
implemented
and
also
the
improved
cohesive
streetscape
through
the
removal
of
the
parking
lot.
F
Next,
in
terms
of
consultation,
this
application
has
followed
the
heritage,
planning,
branch's,
standard
notification
procedures
and
those
are
outlined
on
the
screen.
Counselor
mckinney
has
provided
comments
and
they
were
incorporated
into
the
report
and
and
since
the
original
original
proposal
that
actually
came
in
back
in
2018,
the
applicant
has
worked
closely
with
their
office
on
this
file
through
the
associated
planning
processes.
F
So,
in
conclusion,
staff
are,
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide.
Sorry
staff
are
recommending
conditional
approval
of
the
application
to
delegate
minor
design,
changes
and
issue
the
heritage
permit
with
a
three-year
expiry
date,
and
if
we
go
one
more
slide
eric,
please
so
the
recommended
approval
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
conditions
related
to
finalizing
landscaping
and
lighting
and
providing
cladding
samples.
F
A
Thank
you
miss
kim
once
again
for
another
detailed
report.
We
have
not
to
date
received
correspondence
that
has
been
submitted
to
the
clerk's
office.
However,
we
do
have
a
number
of
registered
speakers
from
the
applicant
who
include
kevin
reed
of
rla
architecture,
john
stewart
of
commonwealth,
historic
resource
management,
bonnie
martel
of
colonnade,
bridgeport
and
scott
allen
of
410.
They
do
not
have
a
presentation
but
are
available
to
respond
to
the
questions
of
subcommittee.
D
B
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
had
a
question
for
staff
on
this
one.
I
know
the
building
is
at
10
stories
taller
than
the
others
on
the
street,
but
what
is
the
the
tallest
building
on
this
section
of
argyle?
That's
facing
the
museum
to
date.
My
understanding
just
from
street
view
is
that
they
tend
to
be
three
and
four
stories,
but
his
staff
confirmed.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
think
your
you
would
be
correct.
Member
hustle,
typically
the
the
buildings
along
argyle,
would
be
low.
You
know,
between
between
two
and
and
four
I
would
say,
directly
adjacent,
but
sort
of
as
it
as
the
museum
is
framed.
There
are
some
taller
more
mid-rise
buildings
and,
as
you
move
further
kind
of
towards
our
o'connor,
they
are
taller
more
even
taller
than
that.
I'm
not
sure
the
exact
heights
there.
B
Hi
good
morning,
members
of
committee,
the
application
that
I'm
dealing
with
for
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
this
this
site
in
the
secondary
plan
is
designated
for
a
mid-rise
building,
which
is
up
to
nine
stories.
We
we
of
course,
are
dealing
with
a
10-story
building
and
that's
facilitating
the
need
for
that
amendment
to
to
the
secondary
plan,
but
as
part
of
that
larger
center
town
secondary
plan
exercise,
the
current
zoning
never
was
amended
to
reflect
the
policy
direction.
B
D
I
do
I
did.
I
did
want
to
wrap
up
it's
not
every
day
that
I
come
to
committee
happy
with
everything
in
front
of
me
for
my
award.
But
here
we
are.
This
is
another
example
of
a
win-win.
This
is
one
where
I
actually
from
the
beginning
wanted
it
to
work.
I
think
we,
you
know
when
we
saw
the
original
renderings
of
it
felt.
The
height
was
a
bit
high.
D
This
is
a
transition.
Street
argyle
is
a
transition
street
and
you
know
needed
to
be
kept
that
way,
but
you
know
with
10
stories.
This
is
also,
I
suppose,
what
you
would
term
facadism,
but
it's
good
facadeism,
because
this
building
is
just
really
the
panels
that
have
any
real
heritage,
cultural
values.
So
so
that's
being
it,
it
really
will
this
this.
This
development
really
will
retain
the
character
of
of
100
argyle
as
it
is
today
and
as
well.
D
As
you
know,
the
surrounding
conservation,
heritage,
conservation,
district
and
it's
its
relationship
to
the
museum
as
well
is,
is
vitally
important.
In
the
you
know,
the
materials
and
the
shapes
of
the
windows,
everything
that
that
went
into
this
building
really
complement
its
its
relationship
to
to
the
museum.
D
D
D
You
know
that
the
lobby
and
how
well-lit
it
was-
and
I
know
I
had
many
residents
in
the
area
who
who
wanted
to
see
it
happen,
wanted
to
wanted
us
to
find
a
way
to
make
it
happen,
and
I
think
that,
with
your
with
your
work,
both
staff
and
the
applicant,
you
found
a
way
to
make
this
happen.
So
this
will
this
will
be
a
real
bonus
to
to
the
street
and
and
to
the
downtown.
So
thank
you.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
These
are
comments
and
following
katherine
mckinney's,
lead
here,
and
my
comment
really
has
to
do
with
the
broader
picture
of
the
museum
precinct
and
how.
I
think
that
this
this
building
and
the
incorporation
of
the
historic
entrance
will
support
the
character
and
the
primacy
of
the
museum
of
nature.
I
say
that
having
spent
10
years
of
my
life
in
the
conservation
and
adaptive
reuse
of
the
canadian
museum
of
nature,
so
I
feel
that
I'm
a
living
neighbor
there
in
counselor's
ward.
C
So
I
think
that
if
we
imagine
the
south
side
of
the
museum
along
argyle
as
a
series
of
mid-rise
buildings,
as
simon
diaco
has
shared
with
us,
that
is
part
of
the
secondary
official
plan.
I
think
we
can
begin
to
see
how
the
monumentality
of
museum
of
nature,
and,
if
the
open
space
around
it
will
indeed
be
supported
and
enhanced
by
let's
say,
background
buildings
of
the
scale
that
are
complementary
to
the
museum.
C
Please
remember
when
you
visit
the
museum
precinct
that
the
phil
gabriel,
the
late
phil
gabriel,
was
the
mastermind
of
the
lighting
of
the
museum
and
his
vision,
for
it
was
of
a
moonlit
monument,
a
moonlit
heritage,
kind
of
landmark
and
let's
make
sure
that
the
lighting
of
the
buildings
around
respect
that
and
don't
overwhelm
it.
This
is
a
real
benefit
to
calm
and
and.
C
Appreciation
of
our
neighborhoods
without
necessarily
doing
theatrical
highlighting,
so
that's
just
a
a
comment
that
I'd
like
to
share
and
then
one
day,
counselor,
kenny
and
other
counselors.
We
will
get
together
with
the
museum
and
really
complete
the
museum
park
that
will
benefit
both
the
museum
and
the
the
surrounding
buildings,
which
includes
the
removal
of
the
metcalf
extension.
But
I've
gone
beyond
what
I
should
be
appropriately
saying
here.
So
thank
you
for
indulging
me
chair,
king
well,.
A
We're
always
happy
to
give
you
the
latitude
barry
I'd
like
to
actually
echo
those
those
sentiments
and
also
correct
the
record.
We
did
receive
once
again
correspondence
from
heritage
ottawa
on
this
item,
and
I
found
myself
in
in
complete
agreement
with
their
their
assessment
that
this
application
represents
a
design
which
is
more
compatible
with
the
museum
of
nature,
especially
considering
the
reduced
height
of
the
building
in
this
application.
A
A
This
report
is
scheduled
to
be
presented
to
planning
committee
on
february
11
2021.
The
next
item
is
number
three
status
update
built
heritage
subcommittee
inquiries,
emotions
for
the
period
ending
january,
8th
2021.
This
is
pretty
preforma
documentation
that
goes
between
us
and
the
office
of
the
city
clerk
there
is.
There
are
no
registered
speakers
to
date
on
this
item
and
no
correspondence.
A
A
There
is
no
presentations,
no
registered
speakers,
but
we
did
receive
a
correspondence
from
john
h,
smith,
consulting
for
domicile
developments
dated
january
19th,
opposing
consideration
of
the
motion
and
addition
of
of
this
property
to
the
heritage
register.
I
understand
that
councillor
menard
is
requesting
that
the
committee
consider
a
motion
to
recommend
that
council
add
15
to
oblates
avenue
to
the
city
of
ottawa
heritage
register
before
the
committee
can
consider
this
matter.
It
must
first
move
to
add
the
item
to
the
agenda.
Is
there
a
member
who
will
move
this
motion.
B
A
L
Yes,
thank
you
chair,
and
I
will
I'll
go
through
it
and
explain
some
of
the
more
complicated
history
with
this
one
as
well.
At
the
end
of
it
and
a
slight
change
to
the
motion
to
recognize
the
the
letter
that
was
received
yesterday
as
well.
So
we're
now
well
be
resolved
that
build
heritage
subcommittee.
L
Consider
pursuant
to
section
893
the
rules
of
procedure
motion
to
recommend
the
addition
of
15
days,
oblat
avenue
to
the
heritage
register
to
ensure
that
the
subject
building
with
heritage
significance
is
protected
in
capital
ward.
Whereas
the
heritage
planning
branch
has
confirmed
that
the
sisters
of
the
sacred
heart
of
jesus
convent,
15
days
old,
lats
avenue,
is
a
building
that
meets
the
design
test
and
reflects
the
heritage
attributes
listed
in
the
neighborhood
heritage.
L
Statement
for
olato
east
satisfying
the
heritage
inventory
project
criteria
for
listing
on
the
heritage
register,
whereas
this
property
was
unintentionally
omitted
from
the
2017
staff
report,
heritage,
inventory,
project,
additions
to
heritage
register,
olato,
east
and
oldada
south,
whereas
the
community
submitted
a
request
on
january
12,
2021
to
add
the
property
to
the
city
of
ottawa's
heritage
register
and
whereas
there
is
no
notification
requirement
under
the
ontario
heritage.
Act
for
listing
properties
under
the
heritage
register
therefore
be
resolved
at
the
bill.
L
If
I
can
just
introduce
it
that
last
point
of
the
the
addition
to
the
february
10th
2021
meeting
allows
some
more
time
for
consideration
there.
There
is
some
time
constraints
with
this
and
I'll
explain
I'll,
explain
why
it's
a
bit
of
a
complicated
history
here
that
the
former
sail
the
sacrifice
was
built
in
1902
and
currently
has
no
status
under
inheritable
heritage
act.
L
So
our
motion
supports
the
effort
given
the
time
pressure
and
without
it
the
the
building
would
presumably
be
be
sold
before
the
timing
that
could
allow
for
this
and
potentially
demolished
before
the
city
has
a
chance
to
consider
the
heritage
value.
That's
why
the
motion's
in
front
of
you
today
and
why
we're
bringing
it
to
the
february
10th
council
meeting
rather
than
the
january
27th
council
meeting.
A
K
K
When
we
look
back
at
our
records,
we
have
photos
of
the
building
and
we
have
some
history
on
the
building,
but
for
some
reason
it
didn't
make
it
in
to
our
evaluation.
So
a
little
bit
of
human
error
there
and
staff
do
believe
that
it
meets
the
criteria
from
the
heritage
inventory
project
for
listing.
J
K
As
is
mentioned
in
the
motion,
mr
chair,
there
are
no
requirements
for
notice
under
the
heritage
act,
while
it
is
the
city's
practice,
of
course,
to
provide
notice
to
owners
prior
to
listing
it
isn't
a
requirement.
So
we
did
notify
the
owner
this
week
that
this
motion
might
be
on
the
agenda
and
they
have
submitted
a
letter
which
I
believe
the
committee
coordinator
has
distributed
to
to
the
members
asking
for
it
to
not
be
considered
today
and
that
they
that
it
not
be
considered
all.
In
fact.
K
J
So,
there's
past
practice
that
when
people
have
asked
to
have
more
time
to
consider
what
is
being
considered
by
this
committee,
we
have
granted
that
and
but
I'm
also
cognizant
of
the
concern
that
councilor
menard
has
that
this
project
is
moving
forward
and
it
is
time
sensitive.
And
so
I
want
to
give
the
property
owner
fair
consideration,
but
I
don't
want
to
stall
what
I
think
needs
to
happen,
and
so
it's
unfortunate
that
this
would
come
forward
with
the
property
owner
not
being
able
to
be
here,
particularly
when
they
appear
to
be
objecting.
J
J
L
So
you
know
I
I'm
open
to
solutions
on
it,
but
just
wanting
to
give
you
the
full
picture
of
of
where
we're
at
so
I'm
not
clear
on
on
how
quickly
this
could
potentially
be
demolished.
If
we,
if
we
could
have
time
to
go
to
the
march
meeting,
for
example,
I'd
be
open
to
that.
But
I'm
not
clear
if
that,
if
that's
the
case
or
not,.
J
L
J
Given
all
the
all
the
contributing
factors
to
this
discussion,
I
will
support
the
motion.
It
will
give
time
for
the
property
owner
to
reach
out
and
allow
us
to
debate
this
at
council
if
it
needs
to
be,
but
I
do
understand
the
time
concerns
that
councilor
menard
has
articulated
and
I
will
support
the
motion.
Thank
you.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
carefully
read
the
letter
from
the
representative
for
domicile
john
smith,
and
there
are
some
allegations
in
there
that
have
not
been
brought
forward
to
the
committee
verbally
as
we're
discussing
this.
One
of
them
is
that
the
applicant
apparently
got
reassurances
from
heritage
staff
that
the
heritage
staff
would
never
be
interested
in
making
a
recommendation
for
designation
under
part
four
of
the
heritage
act.
I
don't
think
that
the
listing
is
as
much
of
an
issue
as
whether
or
not
the
community
or
staff
will
now
reconsider.
C
H
C
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
sorry,
I
was
just
quickly
reviewing
the
letter
again,
I
don't.
I
didn't
see
in
there
that
that
had
been
a
commitment
that
was
made
at
some
point
in
time.
Perhaps
you're,
referring
to
the
comment
where
the
mr
smith
notes
that
staff
advised
him
that
there
would
be
no
action
taken
at
this
time,
and
that
was
mainly.
K
That
was
basically
that
I
had
discussed
with
him
in
the
fall
and
advised
him
that
we
believe
that
it
had
been
missed
during
the
heritage
inventory
project
and
that
you
know
that
there
was
some
community
interest
in
the
in
the
property
and
that
if
we
did
receive
a
request,
we
would
be
looking
at
it.
I
do
not
believe
that
there
has
ever
been
a
commitment,
a
specific
commitment,
that
this
property
would
never
be
designated
under
part
four,
as
that
is
a
council
decision
and
it
hasn't
been
evaluated
under
part.
K
C
You
know
putting
it
on
the
list,
even
though
listing
is
not
a
onerous
status
for
a
building,
there's
60
days
for
the
period
of
of
research
that
can
be
accommodated,
but
the
fact
that
this
has
come
so
quickly
and
that
we
don't
have
representation
of
the
owner
or
their
consultants
here
to
speak
as
to
why
it
should
not
be.
You
know,
listed
I'm
very
uncomfortable
with
that
in
terms
of
due
process.
So
I
can't
you
know,
conscience
support
the
motion
to
put
this
on
the
list.
L
Yeah
I
I
do.
I
do
think
that
I
agree
with
you
and
that's
what
I
that's
the
that's
the
process
I
want
to
to
head
in
the
the
issue
was
how
long
we
would
have
in
terms
of
an
option
to
not
demolish
it.
If
they
did
submit
a
request
to
demolish
how
long
we
would
have
now
I'm
hearing
back
from
staff
just
now
that,
with
regard
to
demolition
control,
we
would
likely
have
enough
time
to
give
notice
today
and
have
it
come
forward
at
a
future
meeting.
So
I
just
got
that
information
right
now.
L
So
it
seems
that
that
that's
the
case
and
I'll
work
with
the
developer
and
consultant
on
this,
some
more
in
advance
of
that
meeting
on
the
process
side
of
it
to
ensure
that
that
is.
That
is
the
case.
So
I
think
chair
with
your
with
your
indulgence,
just
receiving
this
information
literally
right
now.
It
might
probably
make
sense
to
give
notice
of
motion
if
we
can
on
this
and
and
leave
it
for
the
next
meeting.
B
If
there's
I
mean
the
dual
concern,
is
that
you
could
have
demolition
occur
without
any
action
taken
and
then
the
reverse
of
that
is
that
we're
proceeding
with
looking
into
designation
without
having
the
opportunity
to
hear
from
the
property
owner.
I
wonder
if
you
just
wouldn't
consider
separating
the
two
items
actually
approve
the
addition
to
the
heritage
register
today.
So
then
you
actually
have
that.
B
Sort
of
squared
away
in
case
in
the
event
that
something
between
now
and
when
our
next
meeting
is
that
a
demolition
permit
is
sought,
and
then
you
actually
defer
the
discussion
on
the
second,
the
second
item,
to
a
future
meeting
to
have
that
discussion
later.
So
it
buys
you
that
time
it
gives
you
that
sort
of
you
know
silver,
second
thought
so
to
speak
on
the
on
the
heritage
register
aspect.
But
then
we
don't
actually
go
any
further
in
terms
of
exploring
destination
without
having
additional
conversation
here
at.
E
L
E
A
Thank
you
and
I'm
open
to
that
these
recommendations.
I
think
that
they
do
make
sense.
The
idea
of
amending
the
motion
that's
before
us
to
deal
with
the
register
and
then
seeing
the
designation
portion
debated
based
on
a
notice
of
motion.
So
I
don't
know
if,
if
councillor
menard
is
amenable
to
to
that
solution,.
A
C
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
I'm
very
very
uncomfortable
with
the
proceeding
with
putting
this
property
on
the
register
now,
especially
since
we
have
confessed
that
since
2017,
this
building
has
been
part
of
the
the
process
of
adding
buildings
to
the
register,
and
I
hate
to
say
it.
We
have
overlooked
a
monumental
convent
through.
C
I
think
that
we
somehow
have
to
swallow
our
pride
and
to
convey
to
the
public
that
these
kind
of
things
can't
happen
again
and
if
they
do
happen,
we've
got
to
find
ways
to
maintain
public
confidence
in
the
heritage,
designation
and
listing
process,
and
I
think
that
this
is
not
a
small
property
that
was
was
missed.
On
the
on
the
street
view.
C
This
is
a
major
major
property
and
I
think
that
it
would
be
very
important
to
defer
the
discussion
even
of
putting
it
on
the
register
until
we
can
actually
hear
from
the
the
owner
and
the
owner's
representatives.
This
is
making
extremely
uncomfortable
about
the
integrity
of
the
city's
process.
So
I
just
thought:
I'd
share
that
and
if
there
is
a
call
to
vote
on
the
listing,
I
am
going
to
be
opposed
that
in
principle.
A
L
I
don't
want
to
be
here.
I
don't
want
to
be
here
with
these
items.
To
be
honest
with
you,
this
item
came
up
very
very
fast
and
it
wasn't
until
it
was
raised
that
I
realized
there
was
an
error
that
had
happened
in
the
past
and
I
think
staff
were
also
on
the
same
boat.
It
wasn't
intentional,
so
normally
this
this
would
not
occur,
but
in
this
case
I'm
willing
to
go
with
what
councilor
moffatt
has
proposed.
L
I
think
that's
reasonable
and
gives
us
a
source
of
protection,
but
also
gives
the
applicant
more
time
to
to
have
those
discussions
that
are
needed
over
the
next
couple
of
months
and
and
get
to
a
situation.
As
I
say
just
on
on
the
look
at
this.
I
don't
necessarily
think
this
needs
a
full
designation.
However,
the
the
process
is
such
that
it
makes
sense
to
to
move
in
a
direction
of
getting
it
on
the
register
to
to
not
have
it
be
lost
completely
without
having
done
that
other
due
diligence
as
well.
L
So
we've
got
two
due
diligence
process
here
that
we're
trying
to
work
with.
So
I
appreciate
member
podolski's
very,
very
helpful
input
and,
as
I
say,
I'm
open
to
the
amendment
that
councilor
moffett
has
has
has
raised
and
I'm
also
open.
If
staff
have
more
information
on
how
much
time
we
have
where
we
could
just
provide
for
a
notice
of
motion
today
and
consideration
of
the
next
meeting.
I'm
also
open
to
that.
A
So
what
I'll
do
is,
I
will
ask
staff
for
the
latest
information
that
they
have
around
the
demolition
element
and,
let's
just
see
if,
if
staff
feels
confident
that
we
have
a
scenario
with
the
the
demolition
notice
that
will
allow
for
us
to
have
a
fulsome
dialogue,
I
would
be.
I
would
trend
towards
the
notice
of
motion.
But
I
I'm
interested
in
hearing
staffs
staff's
view
on
this,
based
on
the
information
that
has
come
in.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
again
apologies
for
as
council
members
noted.
This
is
happening
as
we're
talking.
There
was
a
little
bit
of
confusion
because
the
building
is
a
former
convent
as
to
whether
or
not
it
was
subject
to
demolition
control,
but
it
has
I've
received
confirmation
from
colleagues
now
that
it
is
considered
residential,
which
would
mean
it
is
subject
to
demolition
control
under
the
planning
act,
which
means
that
it
cannot
be
demolished
without
replacement
building
without
a
formal
demolition
control
application.
K
B
Thanks
just
just
procedurally
since
the
motion's
already
in
front
of
us
and
we've
already
walked
it
on,
it
might
just
be,
as
it
might
be
easier
just
to
move
deferral
of
recommendation
to
to
the
next
meeting
of
committee
of
this
committee
and
then
vote
on
the
motion.
As
amended
by
the
deferral
on
item.
B
K
A
E
L
If
you'd
like
chair
through
counselor,
making
through
yourself
and
counselor
mckenny,
therefore
be
resolved,
the
build
heritage
subcommittee
recommended
council
one
approved
the
addition
of
15
days
old,
blatts
avenue
to
the
saturday
of
ottawa's
heritage
register
under
section
27
of
the
heritage,
ontario
heritage
act
and
two
direct
staff
to
review
the
property
to
determine
if
it
meets
the
criteria
under
ontario
regulation.
906
for
designation
under
part
4
of
the
ontario
heritage
act,
and
that's
it.
A
J
J
J
A
A
Everyone
you're
adjourned.
I
thank
you.
Everyone.
There
will
be
a
special
joint
meeting
of
the
planning
committee
and
built
heritage
subcommittee,
followed
by
a
special
meeting
of
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
on
friday
february
5th
2021
in
relation
to
the
chateau
laurier
heritage.
Permit
application
the
next
regular
meeting
is
scheduled
for
tuesday
march
the
9th
2021.