1
Report to Rapport au:
Built Heritage Sub-Committee / Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti June 18, 2018 / 18 juin 2018
and / et
Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme June 26, 2018 / 26 juin 2018
and Council / et au Conseil June 27, 2018 / 27 juin 2018
Submitted on June 11, 2018 Soumis le 11 juin 2018
Submitted by Soumis par: Court Curry, Manager / Gestionnaire, Right of Way, Heritage and Urban Design Services / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department / Direction générale de la planification, de l'Infrastructure et du développement économique
Contact Person Personne ressource: Ashley Kotarba, Heritage Planner / Planificatrice, Right of Way, Heritage and Urban Design / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain / Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development | Urbanisme, infrastructure et développement économique (613) 580-2424, 23582, Ashley.Kotarba@ottawa.ca 2
Ward: RIDEAU-ROCKCLIFFE (13) File Number: ACS2018-PIE-RHU-0007
SUBJECT: Application to Alter 255 MacKay Street, a property located in New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
OBJET: Demande de modification du 255, rue MacKay, une propriété située dans le district de conservation du patrimoine de New Edinburgh et désignée en vertu de la partie V de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Built Heritage Sub-Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the application to alter the building at 255 MacKay Street according to plans submitted by Robertson Martin Architects, received on June 8, 2018;
2. Approve the application to demolish the existing garage and build a new garage on Avon Lane, according to plans submitted by Robertson Martin Architects, received on June 8, 2018;
3. Approve the landscape plan submitted by Robertson Martin Architect, received on June 8, 2018;
4. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development;
5. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.
6. Suspend the notice required under Subsections 29 (3) and 34 (a) of the Procedure By-law to consider this report at its meeting on June 27, 2018, so that Council may consider this report within the statutory 90-day timeline.
(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on July 5, 2018.) 3
(Note: Approval to alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander à son tour au Conseil :
1. d’approuver la demande de modification du bâtiment situé au 255, rue MacKay, conformément aux plans présentés par Robertson Martin architectes et reçus le 8 juin 2018;
2. d’approuver la demande de démolition du garage existant et de construction d’un nouveau garage dans l’allée Avon, conformément aux plans présentés par Robertson Martin architectes et reçus le 8 juin 2018;
3. d'approuver le plan de l'aménagement paysager présenté par Robertson Martin architectes et reçus le 8 juin 2018;
4. de déléguer au directeur général de Planification, Infrastructure et Développement économique le pouvoir d’apporter des changements mineurs de conception;
5. de délivrer le permis en matière de patrimoine dont la date d’expiration est fixée à deux ans après la date d’émission;
6. de renoncer à la signification de l’avis prévu au paragraphe 29 (3) et à l’alinéa 34 a) du Règlement de procédure pour pouvoir étudier le présent rapport à sa réunion du 27 juin 2018, de façon à respecter le délai de 90 jours prévu par la loi.
(Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d’examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, prendra fin le 5 juillet 2018.)
(Nota : L’approbation de la demande de modification aux termes de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario ne signifie pas pour autant qu’elle satisfait aux conditions de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)
BACKGROUND
The house at 255 MacKay Street (circa 1895) is a two-storey building with an L-shaped plan and a medium pitched, hipped roof. The building features returned eaves, brick hood mouldings, gabled dormer windows, and porch with decorative millwork. The 4 house was constructed as the manse for MacKay United Church, located next door, and is situated across the street from Rideau Hall (see Documents 1 and 2). Christina MacKay, daughter of Thomas MacKay, financed the construction of the manse and gifted it to the church. This block of MacKay Street is typified by one-and-a-half storey front gabled houses.
The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District (HCD) was designated in 2001 and its heritage conservation plan, written according to the requirements of the post-2005 Ontario Heritage Act, was approved in 2016. The New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District is a significant example of a small 19th century village located within Ottawa. It is significant for its historical associations, architectural and contextual values. Laid out by Thomas MacKay, who lived at Rideau Hall and had established an industrial complex of mills at Rideau Falls, the village was settled by many of MacKay’s workers. Incorporated in 1867, and annexed by the City of Ottawa in 1887, New Edinburgh was a self-sufficient community well into the 20th century. Primarily residential in character, the heritage conservation district features a wide range of building types in a variety of styles and types built in the 19th and 20th centuries.
This report has been prepared because the alteration to a property in a heritage conservation district designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act requires the approval of City Council. The house at 255 MacKay is categorized as a ‘contributing building’ within the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District.
DISCUSSION
The house at 255 MacKay Street (see Documents 4 and 5) is a late Queen Anne Revival style house built by local contractor Henry Avery. Since 2014, the building has been occupied by the New Edinburgh Community and Arts Centre, and is currently listed for sale. The applicant proposes to purchase the house and convert it into a semi-detached residence through an addition to the northwest façade of the building. The applicant has also applied for a Zoning By-Law amendment for the property from I1A, Minor Institutional Subzone A, to R4S, Residential Fourth Density Subzone S.
Recommendation 1
The intent of the project is to create a semi-detached house by constructing a new addition to the northwest, while retaining as much as possible of the original structure. The proposed alterations include an addition to the northwest, a small addition to the southeast and the demolition of an existing rear addition constructed in the 1960s. Other elements of the proposal include a new porch, the creation of new window 5 openings on the second floor and on the southeast façade, as well as the removal of gabled dormers to be replaced with shed dormers.
The new addition will create a nearly symmetrical façade, with the new portion being contemporary in its use of materials. It will have a projecting hipped bay and feature stucco and grey cement panels. The new windows will match the windows on the existing house in terms of proportion and placement. A second smaller addition will be added to the southeast façade. In order to accommodate the addition, the existing truncated hipped roof will be extended to the northwest, new shed dormers will be added on either side, and the existing front gabled dormer window will be replaced by a larger central shed dormer. To balance the façade, a window will be added to the second floor, above the existing entrance. The new window will match the existing in terms of size, however will not have the same brick hood mouldings that are present on the other windows. This absence of brick detailing will make it distinguishable from the other windows to indicate that the window was not an original feature of the house. The existing rear addition will be removed in order to build the new addition. This 1960s addition has no heritage value.
The contemporary additions will be distinguishable and subordinate from the original house in that they will be clad in modern materials and no higher than the original house. The original form and many of the heritage attributes of the manse will remain visible and prominent on the site. The addition will be compatible in that it will echo the same features as the manse, and not detract from the historic building.
Section 8.5.2 of the New Edinburgh HCD Plan has guidelines about Conservation and Maintenance. It states that the removal of historic porches will not be permitted. A circa 1900 photograph (Document 4) shows the manse with a decorative wood porch. In recent years, some alterations were made in order to make it accessible. A handicapped ramp and new railing were added, and the porch floor was raised however, the roof components with its decorative millwork remain original. The porch remains one of the distinguishing features of the building. The proposal includes a reconstructed porch to replicate the original features, and will include the addition of a modern pediment over the southeast door to echo the original pediment. The modern pediment will be located on the portion of the porch adjoining the historic side of the house, while the historic pediment will be on the contemporary half. Creating the new pediment with glass and a simplified design will make it distinguishable from the original porch, and reinforce the asymmetrical design of the original manse. New front steps will be created that will be reached by individual footpaths from the street. In order to recreate a more historically accurate porch, the grade of the front lawn will be sloped 6 upward from the street to avoid building code requirements for a railing. This will allow for the reproduction of the original baluster on the new porch.
There are general guidelines for contributing buildings in the New Edinburgh HCD Plan that state that existing rooflines shall be maintained, additions shall not result in the removal or obstruction of heritage attributes, and windows in additions should be compatible with the building’s original windows in size, shape and divisions. The proposed plans for 255 MacKay Street comply with the above guidelines in that the existing roofline will be extended, but not altered in pitch; and the heritage attributes such as the brick mouldings, the returned eaves, and porch will be maintained. The new windows on the addition will maintain the same size, shape and divisions as the windows on the original house.
Heritage staff have no objections to the proposed additions to the building located at 255 MacKay Street to create a semi-detached house. The additions are no higher than the existing building, are clad in modern materials that complement the original house in terms of style and reflect the historic style of the building. Although similar in expression, the additions are distinguishable from the original house as they are modern in materials. In terms of size, the additions will increase the overall gross floor area of the house by 244.4 square metres.
Recommendation 2
The proposal includes the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new garage with carports. This will allow each owner of the semi-detached house to have one parking spot in a garage, and one parking spot in a carport. This two-car garage will feature a hipped roof that extends beyond the walls of the garage to form a carport on either side. The garage will be accessed from Avon Lane.
The guidelines in the HCD plan state that new garages shall be designed and located to complement the heritage character of the HCD, and that new carports should be of wood construction and open in character. Additionally, new garages should not be attached to existing buildings and should generally be located off the rear lane, respecting the setback of adjacent buildings. The proposal for the new garage and carport meet these guidelines as the structure will not attach to the house, will be constructed of Hardie Board, a wood laminate similar in expression to the historic garages of the HCD, and will be in line with the adjacent properties. For complete guidelines, see Document 10.
Recommendation 3 7
The proposed landscape plan includes the retention of the trees in the front yard, and the planting of a new cedar hedge along the northwest and southeast lot lines to created privacy buffers between the house and the properties on either side. Additional front yard and rear yard plantings will further enhance the property.
The landscape plan also shows a semi-circular walkway leading up from the sidewalk to the front entrance, and a gradual change of grade. This grade change will allow a more historically accurate porch to be constructed, while meeting today’s building code requirements.
One tree in the rear yard on the laneway will be removed. This tree is in poor condition.
The guidelines in the HCD plan speak to the mixed character of the front lawns, which include natural lawns, flower beds, trees and shrubs, and also speaks to the retention of mature trees, lawns and flower beds found in rear yards. Additionally, the guidelines recommend retaining street trees. The proposed landscape plan meets the guidelines of the HCD plan in that the large greenspace in front of the house will be maintained and enhanced with new plantings, and the rear yard will also have a mix of lawn and plantings. The landscape plan also includes the retention of the mature trees at the street. For complete Guidelines, see Document 10.
Recommendation 4
The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide any timelines for the expiry of heritage permits. In this instance, a two-year expiry date, unless otherwise extended by Council, is recommended to ensure that the project is completed in a timely fashion.
Recommendation 5
Minor changes to a building sometimes emerge during the working drawing phase. This recommendation is included to allow the General Manager of Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development to approve these changes.
Recommendation 6
In order for Council to consider the report within the statutory 90-day timeline, it is recommended that notice required under Subsection 29 (3) and 34 (a) of the Procedure By-law be suspended. 8
Provincial Policy Statement
Staff have reviewed this proposal and have determined that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014.
Standards and Guidelines
City Council adopted the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada in 2008. Heritage staff also considers this document in assessing any heritage application. The applicable Standards for the application are:
Standard 1: Conserve the heritage value of an historic place.
Standard 11: Conserve the heritage value and character-defining-elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place.
The proposed alterations to 255 MacKay Street will maintain many of the character- defining features of the existing house such as the brick mouldings, returned eaves, wooden porch and vast landscaping. The large setback will be preserved and further enhanced by additional plantings in front of the house. The additions will not obstruct the heritage character of the manse as they will be built to the sides of the buildings and complement the design, form and massing of the house.
Section 4.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada has guidelines that are applicable to preservation, rehabilitation and restoration. Guidelines 1 and 13 to 15 recommend the following:
Understand the exterior form and how it contributes to the heritage value of the historic building.
Select the location for the addition that ensures that the heritage value of the place is maintained.
Design a new addition in a matter that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new.
Design an addition that is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. 9
The house was built as the manse to the neighbouring church and as such has a large amount of landscaping, is set back from the street, and has a grander design than the neighbouring houses. The new additions are physically compatible with, distinguishable from and sympathetic to the character of the historic building. They are no higher than the existing house, and are located in a location that will not impact the heritage character of the historic place. The additions are also sympathetic to the character of the HCD, as they are set back from the street, and do not overpower the property.
The alterations to the historic building are appropriate and conserve the heritage value of the building and the HCD. Overall, the project meets the Guidelines in the New Edinburgh HCD Plan and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
Conclusion
Staff in Right of Way, Heritage and Urban Design have no objection to the proposed alterations to the property located at 255 MacKay Street. The addition is consistent with Guidelines in the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District. The new addition will fit into the existing streetscape in terms of height and massing.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with this report.
CONSULTATION
Heritage Ottawa was notified of the application. Their comments concerning the May 15 design can be found in Document 11.
The New Edinburgh Community Alliance was notified of the application. Their comments concerning the May 15 design can be found in Document 12.
Neighbours within 30 metres of the property were notified of this application and offered an opportunity to comment either at the Built Heritage Sub-Committee or Planning Committee meetings.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR
The Ward Councillor is aware of the application. 10
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal implications associated with implementing the recommendations contained within this report.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no risk management implications association with the recommendations in this report.
ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no asset management implications associated with the recommendations of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial implications.
ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS
There are no accessibility implications associated with this report.
TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES
This project addresses the following Term of Council Priorities:
HC4 – Support Arts, Heritage and Culture
Governance, Planning and Decision Making
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was processed within the 90-day statutory requirement under the Ontario Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Current photographs
Document 3 Heritage Survey Form
Document 4 Archival Images 11
Document 5 Site Plan
Document 6 Existing Elevations
Document 7 Proposed Elevations
Document 8 Renderings
Document 9 Streetscape Perspectives
Document 10 New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan Guidelines
Document 11 Comments from Heritage Ottawa
Document 12 Comments from the New Edinburgh Community Alliance
DISPOSITION
City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services, to notify the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council’s decision.
12
Document 1 – Location Map
13
Document 2 – Current Photographs
Southeast angle Original porch with modifications
Northwest angle 14
View looking north on MacKay Street
View looking south on MacKay Street 15
Document 3 – Heritage Survey Form
16
17
18
19
Document 4 – Archival Images
c.1900 20
1989 21
Document 5 – Site Plan
22
Document 6 – Existing Elevations
Front elevation
Rear elevation
23
Side elevation – southeast
Side elevation - northwest 24
Document 7 – Proposed Elevations
Front elevation
Rear elevation 25
Side elevation - southeast
Side elevation - northwest
26
Garage/Carport
27
Document 8 – Renderings
Front façade perspective – southeast
Front façade perspective - northwest 28
Rear façade perspective - southwest
Rear façade perspective - southeast
29
Document 9 – Streetscape Perspectives
MacKay Street
Avon Lane with proposed garage and carport 30
Document 10 – New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation District Plan
8.5.3 Additions to Existing Buildings (Contributing and Non-Contributing)
The Guidelines below address the most common situations and types of additions. Situations not contemplated by the Guidelines will be considered on a case-by-case basis by heritage staff in consultation with the community.
General Guidelines
1. Property owners are encouraged to retain an architect, designer and/or heritage professional when designing an addition to an existing building.
2. Additions to existing buildings should be of their own time and are not required to replicate an historic architectural style. If a property owner wishes to recreate a historic style, care shall be taken to ensure that the proposed addition is an accurate interpretation.
3. Additions shall normally be located in the rear yard. However, there may be instances where an addition elsewhere may be appropriate because it does not have a negative impact on the cultural heritage value of the HCD. These situations will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the community.
4. The height of any addition to an existing building shall not exceed the height of the existing roof line.
5. Additions shall be consistent with the streetscape with respect to height, size, scale and massing.
6. Rooftop terraces are not typical in the HCD; however, a terrace may be appropriate where it is set back from the roof edge and not visible from the street at the grade of the house. 31
Guidelines for Contributing Buildings
1. All additions to contributing buildings shall be complementary to the existing building, subordinate to and distinguishable from the original and compatible in terms of massing, façade proportions and rooflines.
2. In planning alterations and additions to contributing buildings the rooflines of the original house (gable, hip, gambrel, flat, etc.) shall be maintained.
3. Additions shall not result in the removal or obstruction of heritage attributes of the building or the HCD.
4. Windows in additions should be compatible with the building’s original windows in size, shape and divisions. Windows may be wood, metal clad wood, steel or other materials as appropriate. Multi-paned windows should have appropriate muntin bars.
5. Cladding materials for additions to contributing buildings will be sympathetic to the existing building. For instance, an addition to a brick building could be clad in wood board and batten siding. Natural materials are preferred.
Garages and Accessory Buildings
1. New garages and accessory buildings shall be designed and located to complement the heritage character of the HCD and the design of the associated building. In general, new garages should be simple in character with a gable or flat roof and wood or stucco siding.
2. New carports should be of wood construction and open in character.
3. New garages should not be attached to existing building and should generally be located off the rear lane and will respect the setback of adjacent building.
8.5.5 Guidelines for Landscape and Public Realm
The New Edinburgh HCD is bounded by two large green spaces, the grounds of Rideau Hall and Stanley Park, along the Rideau River. These spaces, combined with the front and rear yards and laneways, contribute to the rich green character that is integral to the sense of place in New Edinburgh. These guidelines are intended to protect that character.
1. Front yards in the HCD are generally characterized by a mix of soft landscaping including natural lawns, flower beds, trees and shrubs. This character should be 32
reflected in all landscape alterations. Use of artificial turf in gardens it out of character and will not be permitted.
2. Rear yards generally include a mix of lawns and flower beds with mature trees that contribute to the green character of the laneways. This character shall be retained and protected.
3. The creation of new front yard parking spaces is strongly discouraged. The removal of existing front yard parking spaces is encouraged.
4. The existing grid system and the road pattern reflects the historical layout of the village and shall be retained.
5. In general, fences should be limited to the rear and side yards, constructed of wood and meet the requirements of the Fencing By-law (2003-462). Low fences of wood or iron in the front yard, inspired by historic precedent, may be appropriate.
6. Street trees should be retained and new trees should be planted to enhance the existing tree canopy. Trees should be deciduous species that develop a large canopy that will overhang the street.
33
Document 11 – Comments from Heritage Ottawa
Theses comments refer to the May 15, 2018 design. Many of these comments have been considered by the applicant and addressed through a revised design (June 8, 2018).
Heritage Ottawa does not support the proposed changes and additions to the existing building and will not recommend this application to the Built Heritage Sub-Committee.
Unlike the original February 23, 2018 Application which sought to preserve much of the primary architectural elements and made a solid effort to conform to the New Edinburgh Heritage Conservation Plan`s guidelines and directives, the current Application seems to ignore these guidelines and directives.
1. The current proposal recommends that the existing porch, a defining element of the structure, be completely altered to the historical form that a semidetached house would have had. It also includes a totally inappropriate second level balcony.
2. There is almost no separation of the new addition from the old in terms of articulation. The new mirrors the old and reads as though someone has clad half of an old semi in cement board.
3. The roof line does not respect the original structure. All the dormers should be retained, as they too are defining element of the building.
4. The design of the addition at the roof level should differentiate between the old and new.
5. The proposed new entrance makes no attempt to retain the pattern and arrangement of the original.
I suggest that you attempt to have the proponent revert to the design in the February 23rd application. 34
Document 12 – Comments from the New Edinburgh Community Alliance
Theses comments refer to the May 15, 2018 design. Many of these comments have been considered by the applicant and addressed through a revised design (June 8, 2018).
The Heritage & Development Committee of the New Edinburgh Community Alliance (NECA) has reviewed the latest proposal (dated May 09, 2018). NECA does not support the drastic changes that have been made to the front facade and therefore will not endorse this version of the adaptive reuse of the Manse.
In the initial proposal (dated February 23rd) the Manse would have remained its primary historic architectural elements. NECA approved it, and detailed information about the project was circulated to the community at large for comment via NECA’s website, the New Edinburgh News (April issue), and Councillor Tobi Nussbaum’s website. To date there has been no evidence of any negative response.
The latest proposal is an outrageous insult to both provincial policy guidelines pertaining to the protection of built heritage resources and to New Edinburgh’s Heritage Conservation Plan. The MacKay Street facade has undergone a major ‘remake’ which erases or alters most of the original architectural features and compromises the historic integrity of the Manse.
The New Edinburgh’s Heritage Conservation Plan for our HCD is unambiguous in its directive for contributing buildings within the district: “Additions shall NOT result in the removal or obstruction of heritage attributes of the building or the HCD”. It is also specific about the treatment of doors and entrances: (1) “Significant front entrances SHALL BE PRESERVED” and (2) “Existing historic doors and hardware SHOULD BE RETAINED AND REPAIRED. Where replacement is required, replacement doors WILL REPLICATE the historic door as closely as possible “. (3) “THE PATTERN AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE ENTRANCE WILL BE RETAINED, including doors, sidelights and transom windows”. "Dormer windows are addressed in the plan: New dormer windows should be located in a manner that DOES NOT AFFECT THE HERITAGE CHARACTER of the building or streetscape”.
What we see here is a proposal that clearly ignores all the directives outlined in the previous paragraph. Significant defining features have been jettisoned:
- the peaked roofs over the front porch entrances
- the original front door with a window in the upper third of it 35
- two individual dormer windows have merged into a shed dormer
- the stairs leading up to the front porch have been reduced by raising the grade and thereby changing the visual relationship between the house and the landscape as seen from the street
The most damaging change to the facade is the addition of a second level balcony, a new powerful horizontal element which as no connection with the original building.
NECA will not support this proposal in its present form. There is no justification in participating in the mockery of our heritage protective mechanisms.