Cultural Heritage Impact Statement SoBa Catherine Street, Ottawa

Transcription

1 Cultural Heritage Impact Statement SoBa Catherine Street, Ottawa CORE ARCHITECTS INC Report Prepared for: Lamb Development Corp RMA Project No.: Date: November 16, 2011 Report Prepared by:

2 A. Introduction: Robertson Martin Architects (The Consultant) was retained in November, 2011 by Lamb Development Corp ( the Developer) to provide a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIS) for a proposed development in a block bordered by Catherine Street, Bank Street, O Connor Street and Argyle Street, Ottawa, Ontario. The Prime Consultant Architect is CORE Architects. The Consultant has been provided with copies of the development proposal plans submitted to the City of Ottawa. B. Terms of Reference for preparation of a CHIS (credit Herb Stovel) Two sources provide references in preparing a CHIS for properties designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act: The City of Ottawa s Official Plan (including text changes made by OPA 76), which requires that a CHIS: a. Describe the positive and adverse impacts on the heritage resource or heritage conservation district that may reasonably be expected to result from the proposed development; b. Describe the actions that may reasonably be required to prevent, minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts in accordance with the policies below; c. Demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely impact the cultural heritage value of the property, Heritage Conservation District, and/or its streetscape/neighborhood. [OPA 76 Section 4.6.1]. The 2006 Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Volume 5 (HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS - Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, Annex 2) states that a Heritage Impact Statement will include the following: 1. Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation If the available identification and description of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource are inadequate for the purposes of the heritage impact assessment, or the cultural heritage resource is newly identified, research, site survey and analysis, and evaluation are required. An explanation of the methodology used must accompany a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. 2. Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource This is usually a summary of the cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes contained in a heritage property municipal designation bylaw, heritage conservation easement agreement, or other listings. This summary should clearly articulate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes of the heritage resource. If the property is not a protected heritage property but is listed or is newly identified and may possess heritage significance, Robertson Martin Architects Page 1 of 12

3 statements of cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes should still be developed. 3. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration This description details the rationale and purpose for the development or site alteration, the proposed works and graphical layout, and how the development or site alteration fits with the objectives of the municipality or approval authority. 4. Measurement of Development or Site Alteration Impact Any impact (direct or indirect, physical or aesthetic) of the proposed development or site alteration on a cultural heritage resource must be identified. The effectiveness of any proposed conservation or mitigative or avoidance measures must be evaluated on the basis of established principles, standards and guidelines for heritage conservation. 5. Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods Where an impact on a cultural heritage resource is identified, and the proposed conservation or mitigative measures including avoidance, are considered ineffective, other conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches must be recommended. 6. Implementation and Monitoring This is a schedule and reporting structure for implementing the recommended conservation or mitigative or avoidance measures, and monitoring the cultural heritage resource as the development or site alteration progresses. 7. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations This is a description of: the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; the identification of any impact that the proposed development will have on the cultural heritage resource; an explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended to minimize or avoid any impact on the cultural heritage resources; if applicable, clarification of why some conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. The provincial guidelines described in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit include the elements described for CHISs prepared according to Ottawa s Official Plan. Accordingly, this report has been prepared using the provincial guidelines described above. The report includes the following elements: 1. Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation. 2. Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource. 3. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration. 4. Measurement of Development or Site Alteration Impact. 5. Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods. 6. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations. Robertson Martin Architects Page 2 of 12

4 C. A CHIS for SoBa 203 Catherine Street, Ottawa 1. Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation Research and Methodology. The methodology used in preparation of the CHIS includes the following: review of available terms of reference guidance for preparation of CHISs in the City of Ottawa Official Plan and in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (in order to define appropriate terms of reference for this study), review of all documents concerning the project provided by the Owner, on-site visits to the property and surrounding area and a review of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study (City of Ottawa, 1997). The historical research contained in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study has been used as a basis for analysis and reference throughout this document. Site Analysis and Evaluation The proposed site for development contains an existing building that is proposed for demolition. Although the subject property does not fall with within the Conservation District Study Area, due to its adjacency to the district, the focus for this CHIS must therefore be based on its impact on the District, surrounding neighbourhood and context. Community Design Plan A draft of the Centretown Community Design Plan (CDP) has been completed with a number of key objectives including strategies to protect the best of Centretown s heritage assets. Although not yet in effect, it is worth noting that it proposes that the Catherine Street corridor be designated mixed-use with a higher built form (25 stories at south side of Catherine Street) scaling down to Argyle Street (7 stories). The plan also recommends no gaps at podium levels to mitigate noise from the Queensway. 2. Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource Centretown Heritage Conservation District The boundaries of the Centretown Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, include an area bordered by Kent Street at the west, Elgin Street at the east, Gloucester Street at the north and Arlington Street/Argyle Avenue at the south. (See figure-ground plan attached). The subject property is located on the north side of Catherine Street along a main east-west commercial corridor, transportation artery and on-route to the Queensway, between O Connor Street and Bank Street. Heritage Character The Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study s Statement of Heritage Character is intended to form the basis for evaluating heritage resource management initiatives and guidelines within the district. Buildings within the District are categorized under the heritage evaluations of the Study as Group 1, 2, 3 or 4, with Group 1 being of high importance. There are a few heritage buildings within the Robertson Martin Architects Page 3 of 12

5 immediate vicinity of the proposed site and across the boundary of the Conservation District, as follows: Holy Korean Martyrs at 254 Argyle Avenue (Category 2), White Father s Missionaries at 252 Argyle Avenue (Category 2), 240 Argyle Avenue- Embassy of the Republic of Afghanistan (Category 2) The above properties, while originally residential, now serve office and institutional functions. The Centretown United Church at 507 Bank Street (Category 2) is at some distance and substantially screened from the subject site by a seven storey recent Centretown Citizens Ottawa (CCOC) condominium building attached to the Church, at 258 Argyle Street. The site and proposed T-Shaped design faces both south toward the busy Queensway and Catherine Street and north towards the quieter residential character of Argyle Street and Centretown. It will replace a three storey commercial building rated as Category 3 in the City Inventory of Heritage Properties. Argyle Street is characterized by a mix of two to three storey residential units, some small twostorey office buildings and, to the northeast of the proposed site, an eleven-storey residential apartment building. The grouping of properties from 252 Argyle eastwards represents the only remaining vestige of the original residential district. The District Study establishes the significance and key heritage features of the District and Section VII.5.6 recommends key guidelines for Residential Infill. There are no recommendations for transitions between the District and adjoining properties. As the subject property lies outside the district, the recommendations do not directly apply, but may serve as some guidance. Applicable recommendations include: Infill should be of contemporary design and distinguishable of its own time but sympathetic to heritage character of the area, rather than calling attention to itself. Form of new infill should reflect character of existing buildings on adjoining and facing properties. 3. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration The proposed development incorporates a two story brick-clad podium which extends almost to the north lot line and tight to lot-lines at the west and east sides of the site. Upon the podium, there is a five storey brick-clad block facing Catherine Street, lot line to lot line and a T portion extending toward the rear property line with a 5.0m setback. Above the seven storey level, there is a three storey more transparent intermediate block, set back 2.0m on Catherine Street, 5.0 m to the west and 2.4 m to the east. From the eleventh floor to the twentieth floor, the massing shifts again with brick cladding, set back 3.0m on Catherine Street, 3.0 m to the west and 8.1 m to the east. A glazed penthouse level caps the development, set back 2.0m on Catherine Street, 13.0 m to the west and 6.1 m to the east. To the rear, above the eighth floor level, there is a tower wing, approximately 17m wide, projecting to the north, set back 7.5 m from the north lot line. The massing strategy makes the development appear as a series of offset stacked boxes with contemporary detailing and materiality consisting of anthracite brick, exposed concrete, glass and aluminum. The design proposes the outdoor amenity space located over the two-storey podium. Garage and pedestrian entrances face Catherine Street. Robertson Martin Architects Page 4 of 12

6 4. Assessment of Site Alteration Impacts Assessment of site alteration impacts is made both by measuring the impact of the proposed new development on the significance and heritage attributes of the designated District defined in the Centretown Heritage Conservation District Study within the framework of the applicable conservation principles for infill designed in the Study document and within the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit manuals. The key reccomendation of the study for residential infill development acknowledges the beneficial impacts of residential intensification, of contemporary design and avoiding large lot land assembly, while being sympathetic to heritage character of the area. To allow the development, the existing three-storey industrial/commercial building is to be demolished. Although identified as Category 3, having some architectural or historical significance, it is outside the district and therefore not protected by legal status. Although potentially suitable for adaptive reuse, the floor levels and relationship to grade are somewhat problematic, especially to achieve mixed-use street access from Catherine Street. Shadowing is a prime concern, especially of adjacent residential uses. The Consultant has reviewed sun shadow diagrams of the project, which indicate that there are very modest impacts to residential uses and for quite limited portions of the day and year. The most obvious impact is that of the projecting north wing of the proposed development. While relatively close to the north lot line, this narrow wing is offset from the nearest heritage property to the north, Holy Korean Martyrs, allowing additional breathing space. Furthermore, the flat roofed church building has no windows or stained glass facing south and what glazing it has, is predominantly facing west and east. Taking the above, together with the other points made in Section 2 above (Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource), the following impacts of the proposed development at 203 Catherine Street may be noted: The proposed development has the following negative impacts: Although many parts of the proposed massing transition down to the predominantly lower scale height of the neighbourhood along Argyle Avenue, the projecting north tower wing remains vertical with limited stepping back from the properties at the north. From some vantage points, this may create a sense of overhanging mass. The design, by virtue of its striking stepped box massing, is not a backdrop to the residential area and can reasonably be said to draw attention to itself. The design removes an existing listed heritage building. The proposed development has the following positive impacts: The design is consistent with the planned mixed-use character of Catherine Street and reestablishes residential vocabulary along Catherine Street and facing into the Conservation District, in keeping with advanced drafts of the Community Design Plan. The development begins the challenging revitalization of Catherine Street, creating an urban street wall, and improving pedestrian and grade oriented development. Robertson Martin Architects Page 5 of 12

7 Although portions of the design extend close to the northerly property line, the most affected neighbour, Holy Korean Martyrs Church, is not adversely affected by shadowing of their windows or loss of privacy within residential units. The design provides a noise buffer for the residential neighbourhoods to the north and especially for the properties at 252 and 254 Argyle. The contemporary design is consistent with other four storey and taller residential developments within the immediate blocks and surrounding area and is of much higher design caliber. The contemporary infill, next to the surrounding Heritage District, does not face any heritage properties directly and therefore does not overwhelm adjacent heritage character. The visual mass of the predominant building base of seven stories is in scale and consistent with existing residential developments along Argyle Street, including the seven-storey massing of the condominium at 258 Argyle Street and the five-storey development at 255 Argyle Street. Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods Height and Stepping down In consideration of the identified negative impact of the development, which does not more generously setback at the rear property line nor step back in more pronounced fashion at the rear of the property down to the lower scale residential neighbourhoods, the stacked massing, narrowness of the north wing and limited rear yard setbacks do serve to lessen the visual impact on the northerly properties within the Heritage District; however, some further design exploration of the northerly wing is advised to increase both setback and stepping down. Overshadowing and Privacy Although at first glance there is striking contrast between the scale of the proposed development and the properties to the north on Argyle, by virtue of the fact that the most immediately affected properties do not contain residential uses and the shadow studies indicate that the impacts are for short durations, the proposal appears to be reasonable. The impacts of as-of-right zoning massing would likely be as great or greater than the thinner projecting wing and stepped block design. Drawing attention to itself In consideration of the identified negative impact of the development which draws attention to itself, we are of the opinion that, given the size of the development and its contemporary design, it is very difficult for the building not to contrast with the existing neigbourhood urban fabric. Removal of listed Heritage Building While the building has some attractive features, in our opinion, it is not a high-grade heritage building with special features, detailing and materials, worthy of extraordinary efforts. This point has been made in Draft Centretown Community Plan that some heritage assets are of questionable value. It would be impractical to try to integrate the structure into the new development given the placement of the building on the site, realities of underground parking garage construction, and the lot line to lot line design approach. Notwithstanding this, and in era of increasing focus on resource reuse, it is suggested that attempts be made to reuse and recycle as much as possible of the existing building. Robertson Martin Architects Page 6 of 12

8 5. Summary Statement and Recommendations In balance, the proposed mixed-use commercial and residential design proposal, by virtue of its massing, streetscape revitalization, and re-establishment of the Catherine Street commercial corridor, is assessed as having modest impact to identified heritage resources within the adjacent Centretown Heritage Conservation District. The design proposal offers limited impacts to the adjacent Argyle Street commercial and institutional buildings and their occupants, and the immediate environs of the subject property. The design also provides a transition and buffer between the District and the Catherine Street/Queensway Corridor. Although we have suggested areas for further design exploration and examination, the identified negative aspects are not felt to detract from the suitability and viability of the design proposal, are limited in nature and reflect the reality of contemporary development. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or wish to discuss any aspect of this assessment. Robert Martin OAA, MRAIC, CAHP, LEED AP Robertson Martin Architects Page 7 of 12

9 Annex 1. References to Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments in City of Ottawa Official Plan Ottawa Official Plan Heritage Buildings and Areas [OPA 76 Cultural Heritage Resources, Section 4.6, MMAH Decision January 4, 2010] Heritage buildings and areas are buildings, structures, sites, landscapes, areas or environments which may have cultural, architectural, historical, contextual and/or natural interest, and which may warrant designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, and/or may warrant other means of cultural heritage recognition by the federal government. Policies 1. Where a structure designated under Part IV the Heritage Act is to be altered, added to partially demolished, demolished or relocated the approval of City Council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, currently known as Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), is required. If the alteration, addition, partial demolition or relocation has the potential to adversely affect the designated resource, the City will require that a cultural heritage impact statement be conducted by a qualified professional with expertise in cultural heritage resources to do the following: a. Describe the positive and adverse impacts on the heritage resource that may reasonably be expected to result from the proposed development; b. Describe the actions that may reasonably be required to prevent, minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts in accordance with the policies below; c. Demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely impact the defined cultural heritage attributes of the property. 2. Where a structure designated under Part V of the Heritage Act is to be altered, added to, partially demolished, demolished, relocated, or where new construction in a district designated under Part V of the Heritage Act is proposed, the approval of City Council, after consultation with its municipal heritage committee, currently known as the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC), is required. If the alteration, addition, partial demolition, demolition or relocation or new construction has the potential to adversely affect the heritage conservation district, the City will require that a cultural heritage impact statement be conducted by a qualified professional with expertise in cultural heritage resources to do the following: a. Describe the positive and adverse impacts on the heritage resource that may reasonably be expected to result from the proposed development; b. Describe the actions that may reasonably be required to prevent, minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts in accordance with the policies below; c. Demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely impact the defined cultural heritage attributes of the property, Heritage Conservation District, and/or its streetscape or neighbourhood. Robertson Martin Architects Page 8 of 12

10 5. Where an owner of a designated heritage property applies for approval to demolish the property, the City will require a cultural heritage impact statement that, in addition to the regular requirements, demonstrate that the rehabilitation and reuse of the property is not viable. The City may consider acquisition of the property where it determines that it is in the public interest to do so, and the property is considered to be of sufficient cultural heritage value to the community. 9. When reviewing applications for zoning amendments, site plan control approval, demolition control, minor variance, or the provision of utilities affecting lands/properties adjacent to or across the street from a designated heritage resource, adjacent to or across the street from the boundary of a Heritage Conservation District, or within a Heritage Conservation District, the City will ensure that the proposal is compatible by: a. Respecting the massing, profile and character adjacent to or across from heritage buildings; b. Approximating the width of nearby heritage buildings when constructing new buildings facing the street; c. Approximating the established setback pattern on the street; d. Being physically oriented to the street in a similar fashion to existing heritage buildings; e. Minimizing shadowing on adjacent heritage properties, particularly on landscaped open spaces and outdoor amenity areas; f. Having minimal impact on the heritage qualities of the street as a public place in heritage areas; g. Minimizing the loss of landscaped open space; h. Ensuring that parking facilities (surface lots, residential garages, stand-alone parking and parking components as part of larger developments) are compatibly integrated into heritage areas; i. Requiring local utility companies to place metering equipment, transformer boxes, power lines, conduit equipment boxes, and other utility equipment and devices in locations that do not detract from the visual character or architectural integrity of the heritage resource. Robertson Martin Architects Page 9 of 12

11 Annex 2: References to Heritage Impact Assessments in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 Page 18: A designated heritage building or heritage conservation district may contain significant cultural heritage landscape features such as gardens, narrow streetscape patterns, and prominent structures. These features and views to and from them can support the significance of the property, and may be considered to be heritage attributes. Page 19: PPS 2005 policy provides that mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required to conserve the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site alteration. To conserve the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property, a municipality or approval authority may require a heritage impact assessment to evaluate the proposed development or site alteration on adjacent lands, and to demonstrate that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Components of a Heritage Impact Assessment for the Evaluation of Heritage Attributes must: Address the significance and heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource; Identify any impact a proposed development or site alteration may have on the cultural heritage resources; Evaluate and/or recommend alternative conservation methods to mitigate the impact of a proposed development or site alteration on cultural heritage resources. Page 20. Conserving heritage attributes in land use planning Municipalities and approval authorities can adopt Official Plan policies, objectives and other heritage conservation policies and approval procedures for conserving heritage attributes. An impact on the heritage attributes of a protected heritage property can be minimized or avoided, for example, by mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches, buffer zones, zoning, setback, design guidelines, regulation of density and height, and other site plan control mechanisms. Page 21, 22, 23. Info sheet 5. Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans Heritage impact assessments and conservation plans as conditions of development and site alteration With regard to cultural heritage and archaeological resources, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, issued under the authority of the Planning Act defines conserved as the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a Robertson Martin Architects Page 10 of 12

12 way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment. To conserve a cultural heritage resource, a municipality or approval authority may require a heritage impact assessment and/or a conservation plan to guide the approval, modification, or denial of a proposed development or site alteration that affects a cultural heritage resource. To ensure implementation of a conservation plan, a municipality may require an owner to post a letter of credit, bond or certified cheque as part of the development approval process. This applies to all properties or geographic areas containing cultural heritage resources that are significant or valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. (PPS, 2005). Properties and geographic areas include: all listed, inventoried, mapped heritage properties by local, provincial or federal jurisdiction(s); protected heritage property(s); newly identified cultural heritage sites which may need further evaluation; and areas that can be identified as having known archaeological sites or archaeological potential. Using tools such as heritage impact assessments and conservation plans, municipalities and approval authorities can further enhance their own heritage preservation objectives. A heritage impact assessment (or equivalent study) is a study to determine if any cultural heritage resources (including those previously identified and those found as part of the site assessment) or in any areas of archaeological potential, are impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration. It can also demonstrate how the cultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measures or alternative development or site alteration approaches may be recommended. What is the content of a heritage impact assessment? A heritage impact assessment generally contains, but is not limited to the following information: 1. Historical Research, Site Analysis and Evaluation If the available identification and description of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource are inadequate for the purposes of the heritage impact assessment, or the cultural heritage resource is newly identified, research, site survey and analysis, and evaluation are required. An explanation of the methodology used must accompany a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource. 2. Identification of the Significance and Heritage Attributes of the Cultural Heritage Resource This is usually a summary of the cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes contained in a heritage property municipal designation bylaw, heritage conservation easement agreement, or other listings. This summary should clearly articulate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes of the heritage resource. If the property is not a protected heritage property but is listed or is newly identified and may possess heritage significance, statements of cultural heritage value or interest and the heritage attributes should still be developed. 3. Description of the Proposed Development or Site Alteration This description details the rationale and purpose for the development or site alteration, the proposed works and graphical layout, and how the development or site alteration fits with the objectives of the municipality or approval authority. Robertson Martin Architects Page 11 of 12

13 4. Measurement of Development or Site Alteration Impact Any impact (direct or indirect, physical or aesthetic) of the proposed development or site alteration on a cultural heritage resource must be identified. The effectiveness of any proposed conservation or mitigative or avoidance measures must be evaluated on the basis of established principles, standards and guidelines for heritage conservation. 5. Consideration of Alternatives, Mitigation and Conservation Methods Where an impact on a cultural heritage resource is identified, and the proposed conservation or mitigative measures including avoidance, are considered ineffective, other conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches must be recommended. 6. Implementation and Monitoring This is a schedule and reporting structure for implementing the recommended conservation or mitigative or avoidance measures, and monitoring the cultural heritage resource as the development or site alteration progresses. 7. Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations This is a description of: the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; the identification of any impact that the proposed development will have on the cultural heritage resource; an explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended to minimize or avoid any impact on the cultural heritage resources; if applicable, clarification of why some conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. NEGATIVE IMPACTS Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. Robertson Martin Architects Page 12 of 12

14 Annex 3 Elevations and Section (CORE ARCHITECTS INC) Robertson Martin Architects

15 Robertson Martin Architects Annex 3-1

16 Robertson Martin Architects Annex 3-2

17 Robertson Martin Architects Annex 3-3

18 Robertson Martin Architects Annex 3-4

19 Robertson Martin Architects Annex 3-5

20 Annex 4 Photographic Documentation Robertson Martin Architects

21 Image 1: City Plan of the Centertown Heritage Conservation District. Yellow shading indicates location of 203 Catherine Street in relation to the Heritage District. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-1

22 Photo 1: Aerial view of the subject property and the surrounding buildings, with lot lines. Proposed building site at 203 Catherine Street indicated within the red boarder and shading. Photo 2: Aerial view from the southwest of the subject property and the surrounding buildings. Red shading denotes the location of the proposed building site. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-2

23 Photo 3: Aerial view from the southeast of the subject property and the surrounding buildings. Red shading denotes the location of the proposed building site. Photo 4: Aerial view from the northeast of the subject property and the surrounding buildings. Red shading denotes the location of the proposed building site. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-3

24 Photo 5: View from the west side of Bank Street at Catherine Street looking east towards SoBa site. Photo 6: View from the south side of Catherine Street looking west towards SoBa site. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-4

25 Photo 7: 519 Bank Street (Catherine Street façade), Bank at Catherine Street. Photo 8: 205 Catherine Avenue, adjacent to SoBa site. Photo 9: 203 Catherine Street, proposed SoBa site. Photo 10: 141 Catherine Street, with side façade and parking adjacent to SoBa site. Photo 11: 200 Catherine Street, building and parking lot opposite to SoBa site. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-5

26 Photos 12-14: , 133 and 129 Catherine Street. Photo 15: 127 Catherine Street, parking lot at Catherine and O Connor Street. Photo 16: 440 O Connor Street, Ottawa Curling Club. Photo 17: 420 O Connor Street (Argyle Ave façade). Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-6

27 Photo 18: Argyle Avenue. Photo 19: 226 Argyle Avenue. Photo 20: 234 Argyle Avenue. Photo 21: 238 Argyle Avenue. Photo 22: 240 Argyle Avenue, Embassy of Afghanistan. Photo 23: 252 and 254 Argyle Avenue, two property that back onto SoBa site. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-7

28 Photo 24: 252 Argyle Avenue, property that backs directly onto SoBa site. Photo 25: 254 Argyle Avenue, property that backs directly onto SoBa site (formerly Eglise Christ-Roi AD.1930, now Holy Korean Martyrs Parish). Photo 26: 203 Catherine Street- SoBa site, looking towards the rear of 252 and 254 Argyle Avenue. Photo 27: 258 Argyle Avenue, 5 story apartment building connected to church. Photo 28: 507 Bank Street (Argyle Ave façade), Centretown United Church, Bank at Argyle Ave. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-8

29 Photo 29: View east down Argyle Avenue. Photo 30: 507 Bank Street (Bank Street façade), Centretown United Church, Bank at Argyle Ave. Photo 31: 511 Bank Street. Photo 32: View from Bank Street to side of 205 Catherine Street, which is adjacent to SoBa site. Photo 33: 519 Bank Street (Bank Street façade), Bank at Catherine Street. Robertson Martin Architects Annex 4-9