►
From YouTube: Built Heritage Sub-Committee – December 2, 2016
Description
Built Heritage Sub-Committee meeting – December 2, 2016 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
B
A
A
A
The
consent
agenda
altogether.
Three
items
item
number
one
which
is
application
at
112,
River
Lane
staff
have
a
brief
presentations
or
will
hold
this
item
and
item
number
two,
which
is
15
cars.
Dale
a
staff
have
a
brief
presentation
there,
so
we
will
hold
that
one.
And
the
third
item
is
the
status
update.
The
subcommittee
inquiries,
emotions
for
the
period
ending
24th
of
November
2016,
and
we
like
to
hold
this
item.
Or
can
we
just
receive
it?
A
C
Thank
You
mr.
chair
committee
may
be
familiar
with
the
site
because
there
was
a
building
approved
on
it
previously
by
by
Bill
Taylor
subcommittee.
A
permit
actually
was
issued
for
that
property,
but
it
expired
with
because
two
years
had
gone
by
so
now
we
have
a
new
application
on
this
on
this
property.
It
is
a
lot
on
River
Lane
that
was
created
through
through
consent
and
severance,
so
it
is
a
newly
created,
but
completely
approved
lot.
Now
it
is
vacant.
It
has
been
never
been
built
on.
Here
is
another
view
of
it.
C
The
mr.
mr.
chair
you
and
councillor
Nussbaum
asked
me
to
illustrate
some
of
the
changes
in
the
in
then
in
the
new
project,
as
opposed
to
the
old,
so
I'm
going
to
do
that
here.
The
Doyle
Holmes
is
the
project,
as
approved
is
actually
approved
to
work
on
on
two
buildings,
but
the
one
that
we're
looking
at
is
the
one
at
the
top
of
the
photo
that
drawing
this
has
new
new
residents
and
then
the
the
the
application
that's
before
you
today
is
on
the
right.
C
This
is
again
doral
homes
at
the
upper
upper
left
and
the
project
under
consideration.
Today,
I
have
right,
as
you
can
see,
the
there
was
formerly
a
shed-dormer
that
has
been
removed.
The
the
gable
end
has
been
simplified,
so
it's
more
consistent
with
what's
found
within
the
Heritage
Conservation
District
it
is,
and
the
the
material
is
now
wood
and
before
it
was
stucco
and
the
all
the
windows,
and
some
of
the
expression
is
much
simpler
than
it
was
before
again.
C
So
that's
the
comparison
here,
just
some
shots,
so
you
can
see
the
other
elevations
and
the
rear
and
the
west
elevation.
So
again,
because
this
is
consistent
with
the
guidelines
found
within
the
within
the
I
actually
perhaps
built
house.
Your
subcommittee
isn't
aware
that
the
the
appeal
to
m---eleven
borough
has
now
been
withdrawn.
So
the
new
Edinburgh
heritage
plan
is
now
in
full
force.
C
A
B
C
B
I
asked
the
question
because
I
know-
and
this
is
something
I've
always
been
a
little
concerned
about
this-
is
in
these
areas.
If
we
try
to
and
and
I
had
a
lot
of
problems
with
the
way
the
windows
were
before,
because
they
were
kind
of
a
mishmash
of
some
more
vertical
and
somewhat
square,
and
there
was
just
all
over
the
place.
So
this
is
much
better,
but
I
mean
on
the
guidelines.
B
C
A
All
on
the
side.
Thank
you
all
right.
Yes,
the
next
item
is
application
in
the
Oakland
Park
Heritage
Conservation
District
at
15
cars
Dale.
The
application
is
to
demolish
the
existing
residents
and
construct
a
new
building
at
the
same
location.
We
now
have
a
short
presentation
from
and
Patrick,
and
would
you
please.
D
Uh-Huh,
thank
you.
So
this
is
the
application
before
you
is
for
demolition
and
new
construction
at
15
personnel,
Avenue,
a
property
designated
under
/
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
located
in
the
Rockwell
park.
Hcd,
the
property
is
located
on
the
north
side,
Scarsdale
Avenue,
which
is
a
small
cul-de-sac
east
of
acacia.
D
D
This
is
a
view
looking
down
cars
they
out
towards
acacia.
To
give
you
a
sense
of
the
streetscape
it
slopes
down
towards
Beachwood.
The
property
proposed
for
demolition
is
on.
The
left
is
on
my
left-hand
side
at
the
end
of
the
street,
is
black
maple
private,
which
is
an
extension
of
cars.
Dale
that
was
developed
in
2006
and
on
the
right-hand
side
and
immediately
across
from
the
proposed
new
construction,
is
the
side
of
a
property
that
fronts
on
to
acacia.
D
This
is
these
are
some
photos
of
the
existing
house.
It
was
constructed
in
1951
and
is
a
two-story
single,
detached
building,
clad
in
wood,
siding
and
stucco,
with
a
two-story
addition
in
the
evaluation
of
buildings
that
was
undertaken,
the
property
scored
at
2700
for
architecture
and
2200
for
historical
significance,
because
the
property
does
not
have
any
historical
or
architectural
significance.
The
department
has
no
objections
to
its
demolition.
D
These
are
the
proposed
elevations
of
the
new
building.
Just
to
clarify
the
front
elevation
is
on
the
this
one
here.
The
bottom
left
they
put
in
proposes
to
replace
this
structure
with
a
contemporary
two-story
structure,
with
a
flat
roof
and
rectangular
windows,
the
house
will
be
clad
in
a
stained
natural
cedar
shake
with
a
natural
limestone
base
and
chimney
which
serves
as
the
focal
point
for
the
facade.
D
D
The
proposed
building
is
larger
than
the
existing
building
and
the
orientation
will
be
changed
to
face
cars
now
Avenue,
the
setback
is
aligned
with
the
adjacent
buildings
on
black
maple
private,
a
streetscape
elevation
to
show
the
building
in
the
context
of
cars
down
Avenue.
As
you
can
see,
the
existing
grades
are
being
maintained
and
the
height
massing
and
orientation
are
compatible
with
its
neighbors.
D
This
is
a
landscape
plan
for
the
proposed
new
development.
It
includes
the
retention
of
all,
but
one
mature
trees,
which
is
here.
That's
that's
the
tree
from
removal
and
several
new
plantings,
including
two
new
trees
at
the
front
of
the
property
and
the
new
cedar
heads
at
the
back
to
create
a
landscape
buffer.
D
D
The
HC
study
also
has
policies
related
to
landscaping.
This
application
meets
those
guidelines,
as
it
retains
all,
but
one
mature
trees
provides
new
plantings,
including
the
two
new
trees
and
cedar
hedge
to
create
the
landscape
buffer
and
maintains
the
existing
grade
of
the
property
in
March
Council
passed
a
bylaw
to
adopt
a
new
rock
cliffs
Park
HD
plan.
This
the
planner
has
been
appealed
to
that
one
B,
but
is
being
used
as
a
policy
document
when
assessing
new
applications.
D
Staff
have
determined
the
application
is
consistent
with
the
new
HCD
plan,
the
existing,
but
for
the
following
reasons.
The
existing
building
is
not
historically
or
architectural.
A
significant
the
design,
height
and
massing
are
compatible
with
the
associated
streetscape.
The
setbacks,
along
with
the
adjacent
buildings,
and
there
are
no
grade,
run
buildings
in
The,
Associated
streetscape,
but
the
height
and
mass
respect
the
character
of
the
existing
buildings
and
will
not
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
HDD
as
part
of
the
application.
A
cultural
heritage
impact
statement
was
conducted
by
content,
Works
Inc.
D
The
conclusion
of
that
statement
is
up
on
the
screen,
but
they
it
was
concluded
that
the
proposed
development
conforms
to
the
guidelines
of
the
Rockland,
Park,
HEV
and
stir
scale
materials
finishes
and
landscape.
It
is
physically
and
visually
isolated
from
grade
one
historic
properties
in
the
HDD.
The
proposed
development
will
not
have
an
impact
on
the
heritage
value
of
the
HDD
or
on
attributes
related
to
streetscapes
landscapes
or
historic
buildings.
In
terms
of
consultation
council,
earnest
farm
is
aware
of
the
application
heritage.
D
Ottawa
supports
the
application
neighbors
within
30
meters
were
notified
and
opera
and
offered
the
opportunity
to
provide
comment.
The
Rockland,
Park
residents
association
does
not
support
the
application.
There's
detailed
comments
that
were
included
in
the
staff
report
and
then
I
believe
updated
comments
have
been
circulated
to
members
of
the
committee
more
recently.
D
So
in
conclusions
for
the
reasons
outlined
in
the
report
and
in
the
presentations
day,
the
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
application
to
demolish
the
building.
At
fifteen
cars
Dale
approved
the
application
to
construct
a
new
building
issue.
The
Heritage
permit,
with
a
two
year
expiry
date
and
delegate
authority
for
minor
design,
changes
to
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development.
B
C
D
E
Yeah,
just
looking
over
the
submission
from
the
rock
with
Park
Community
Association
on
their
concerns.
Unfortunately,
there
isn't
anybody
here
today
to
speak
to
them,
but
you
know
this:
is
they
point
out
the
first
I
guess?
This
is
the
third
time
that
there
has
been
a
demolition
come
before
us
since
the
passing
of
the
new
the
heritage
plan
and
they
supported
the
first
two,
but
that
they
are
not
supporting
this
one
and
primarily
because
of
the
hard
versus
soft
landscaping
and
I
think
also
the
question
of
massing.
E
The
other
two
examples
that
came
before
us,
the
replacement
buildings
were
of
similar
massing,
and
in
this
case
it
is
more
than
double
and
and
also
I.
Think
the
the
reconfiguring
the
the
building
also
has
an
impact
on
on
that
perspective.
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
how
how
do
you
reconcile
that
yeah.
D
This
is
maybe
a
good
example
here,
as
in
working
with
the
applicant
and
in
consultation
with
the
Rockland
Park
residents.
Association
that
has
been
goal.
I
think
it
first
started
in
May.
This
was
the
original
design
concept
for
the
building
which,
as
you
can
see,
is
it's
much
much
larger
I
think
even
double
than
what
is
in
front
of
us
today.
So
he
encouraged
the
applicant
to
go
back
and
reduce
the
size
and
scale
of
the
building.
D
They
came
back
with
the
new
contemporary
design,
which
is
was
identified
here
below
and,
as
you
can
see,
there
was
a
large
deck.
The
garage
was
much
larger
than
it
is
right
now
and
there
was
not
very
much
landscaping.
The
applicant
has
revised
the
plan
to
shrink
the
garage
to
include
landscaping
on
both
sides
of
the
driveway
and
to
have
the
new
things
at
the
front
of
the
building.
So
our
concerns
were
alleviated
through
some
of
those
revisions
to
the
design
in
terms
of
the
massing
staff
evaluated
it
in
its
context,
encouraged
an
avenue.
D
E
The
the
the
heritage
plan
I
think
specifies
that
compatibility
is
really
supposed
to
be
as
compared
to
the
historic
properties
and
then
in
the
in
the
immediate
area
and
I
really
I.
Think
there's
some
concern
that
it's
been
compared
to
this
sort
of
little
mini
subdivision
from
2006,
which
really
is
not
contributing
to
the
attributes
of
the
HCD.
E
So
I
think
that's
a
concern
that
the
committee
has
and
I
certainly
I,
think
I
share
that
having
walked
around
the
area
this
week
and
seeing
that
most
of
the
other
historic
or
equivalent
date
or
earlier
properties
around.
There
are
one
to
one
and
a
half
stories
facing
acacia.
There's
a
lot
to
story
sort
of
across
the
street
angle,
down
toward
cars.
Dale,
so
I
do
appreciate
the
precedent-setting
nature
of
this
aligning
or
comparing
it
rather
to
the
new
builds
as
opposed
to
the
historic
builds
in
the
area.
So.
D
The
new
corrector,
the
new
Radcliffe
plan,
does
have
policies
that
requires
an
application
to
be
assessed
in
a
test
show
in
its
associated
streetscape
and
for
any
grade
one
buildings
in
the
nearby
or
in
that
associated
streetscape
and
for
the
applications
that
will
come
before
this
committee.
You'll
see
that
assessment
has
taken
place
in
this
instance
on
car
sale.
There
are
no
grade
one
buildings
and
the
plan
indicates
when
that's
the
case.
You
review
the
associated
streetscape
to
see
how
it
fits
in.
D
So
when
review
that
we
looked
at
the
car
style,
Avenue
streetscape,
that's
ahead
of
our
that's
before
you
on
this
screen
and
we
determined
it
was
appropriate
if
a
development
that
would
come
in
that
would
be
on
a
case
I
or
Springfield,
or
a
street
that
has
grade
one
buildings
and
historic
neighbors.
Then
it
would
be
assessed
in
that
context
using
those
buildings.
Okay,
thank
you.
F
D
F
B
E
We
don't
want
buildings
to
only
be
preserved
if
they're
an
outstanding
example
of
its
type,
because
I
think
that's
the
job
of
part.
Four
I'm,
not
part
five
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
but
I.
Think
in
this
situation,
as
I
get
as
again
as
I
said.
Having
walked
the
street
and
the
surrounding
area
may
be
good
terms
of
a
case-by-case
basis.
It
really
is
an
unusual
situation,
it's
a
very
short
street.
E
It
looks
across
at
a
side
elevation
which
isn't
particularly
attractive
and
so
I
I
think
that
in
and
also
the
I
can
understand
the
original
angle
of
the
house,
because
the
2006
mini
subdivision
was
sort
of
an
industrial
yard,
and
so
I
can
understand
why
you
would
want
to
design
your
house
to
be
sort
of
angled
away
from
that.
So
in
that
sense
reconfiguring
it
now
today
toward
the
street
does
make
sense,
and
those
are
the
reasons
why
I
will
support
the
staff
recommendation
today.