Report to/Rapport au:

Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee/

Comité Consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale

Planning and Development Committee/

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

and Council/et au Conseil

 

August 21, 2001 / le 21 août 2001

 

Submitted by/Soumis par:  Ned Lathrop,  General Manager/Directeur général

Development Services Department / Services d’aménagement

 

Contact/Personne-ressource:  Grant Lindsay, Manager, Development Approvals/ Gestionnaire, Approbation des demandes d’aménagement

244-5300 ext. 1-3242, grant.lindsay@city.ottawa.on.ca

 

 

Ref N°:   ACS2001-DEV-APR-0212

 

 

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT 361 MARIPOSA AVENUE

 

OBJET: DEMANDE DE CONSTRUCTION NOUVELLE AU 361, AVENUE MARIPOSA, DANS L’ARRONDISSEMENT HISTORIQUE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK.

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend that Council approve the application for the construction of a new house at 361 Mariposa Avenue in accordance with the plans received on August 3, 2001.

 

(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.)

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité consultatif sur la conservation de l’architecture locale recommande que le Conseil approuve la demande de construction d’une maison au 361, avenue Mariposa, conformément aux plans reçus le 3 août 2001.

 

(Nota : l’approbation de modification de cette propriété en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario n’a pas pour effet de satisfaire aux exigences de délivrance d’un permis de construire.)

 

BACKGROUND

 

The property known as 361 Mariposa Avenue is currently a vacant lot. The house that stood there, the former residence of the Dutch ambassador, was demolished in July 2001. The property is located within the boundaries of the former Village of Rockcliffe Park and is therefore included within the area designated as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (See Document 1, Location Map). This report has been prepared because applications for new construction must be considered by City Council according to the Act.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The proposed house at 361 Mariposa Avenue replaces a large structure demolished in July 2001 following the expiry of the 180-day waiting period required by the Ontario Heritage Act before a designated building can be demolished. It is located slightly to the east of the previous structure but closely matches its footprint. The building is a contemporary interpretation of the classically-inspired houses of late 18th and early 19th century England.  It is a red brick structure with a hipped roof, sheathed in cedar shingles consisting of two wings. The front (south) façade of the principal wing has five bays and features symmetrically placed nine-over-nine windows with operating exterior wooden shutters. A large, flat roofed portico with a balustrade shelters the front door. There is a larger tri-partite window on the second floor located directly above the front door. The secondary wing of the building is set back eighteen feet from the front wall of the principal façade and the peak of its roof is four feet lower than the peak of the roof of the main principal wing. Its fenestration is not symmetrical – on the ground floor there are two windows - a large window that projects from the wall with a copper roof and a nine-over-nine window. There are three evenly-spaced second floor windows above it.

 

The nine-over-nine windows continue along the west façade on both the principal and secondary wing.  A storey–and–a-half double garage with a pediment over the garage doors faces Buchan Road. The roof of the garage slopes over to create a roof for a secondary entrance.

 

At the rear of the building, the principal and secondary wings create an “L.”  A large Palladian window with wide French doors below forms a frontispiece that is in turn flanked by a pair of French doors.

 

The former Rockcliffe Park LACAC reviewed the proposed design of the house at its meeting of July 9, 2001 (see Document 4, Minutes of the Rockcliffe Park LACAC).

 

Subsequent to this review, the final drawings were submitted to the City of Ottawa. Some of the issues raised in July had been resolved by this stage; the roof of the secondary wing was now lower than the principal wing, the kitchen window and the windows above it had been altered, the driveway opening on Buchan had been narrowed considerably.  The applicant’s client did not make the other changes suggested by LACAC regarding the treatment of the garage wing, the roofline or the realignment of the circular driveway to make it symmetrical.  The Department did not object to the altered plans as filed as the remaining areas of concern dealt with a secondary façade set back a considerable distance from the road. The Department also has no concerns with the asymmetrical driveway as the maintenance of the driveway in its current position means that there will be less disruption of the existing mature landscape. 

 

The Department does not object to this project as altered during the course of July and August as it follows the Guidelines for new construction in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation Study prepared by Julian Smith and Associates and approved by the Council of the former Village or Rockcliffe Park. 

 

The Guidelines which apply to this project are found in Part IV, Management Guidelines, Section iv) Building Guidelines. It should be noted that the introduction to Part IV states that “These Guidelines are not prescriptive; rather, they outline the principles to be applied to any future development, based on past experience. The qualities of the Village as it exists today are the result of a consistent application of ideals rather than a consistent application of rules. This distinction needs to be maintained.”

 

The Introduction, Section iv) Buildings, addresses the general residential character of Rockcliffe Park, emphasizing that its buildings “do not reflect one dominant phase of development; rather they have emerged in significant numbers at every phase of Village history.” The Introduction also says “They [the buildings] often exhibit irregular massing and eclectic revival styles which are part of a picturesque tradition. There is a rich palette of material, with a preponderance of stone, stucco and wood over brick …” 

 

The Recommendations for new construction that apply to this project are:

 

4                    Any application to construct a new building or addition shoube reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance the heritage character of the Village. New construction should be recommended for approval only when the siting, form, materials and detailing are sympathetic to the surrounding natural and cultural environment.

5                    New buildings and additions should be of their own time, but should also harmonize with the existing cultural landscape. They should be sited so as to retain the existing topography. The use of natural materials should be encouraged.

 

The proposed project at 361 Mariposa Avenue reflects the long history of eclectic residential architecture in Rockcliffe and, as a pastiche of “Georgian” elements, it is consistent with an area where mock Tudor, mock Georgian and other eclectic domestic styles prevail.  In terms of Recommendation 4) above, the landscaping around the building will remain essentially unchanged from its current character as great pains were taken to site the house to ensure the preservation of all existing trees. Finally, the proposed building is not inconsistent with the goals of Recommendation 5) above, as it is clearly a contemporary building that reflects the character of its predecessor.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Adjacent property owners and residential tenants were notified by letter of the date of the LACAC and Planning and Development Committee meetings and were provided with comment sheets to be returned to LACAC. This is in accordance with the municipal public participation policies of the former City of Ottawa.

 

The Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association was informed of the project and the Heritage Sub-committee of the Association commented on the proposal.

 

Councillor Jacques Legendre is aware of this project.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Document 1 Location Map

Document 2 Site Plan

Document 3 Elevations

Document 4 Extract from the Minutes, Former Rockcliffe Park LACAC, July 9, 2001

 

DISPOSITION

 

The Department of Corporate Services, Statutory Services Branch, to notify the agent, Terra Nova Building Corporation, P.O. Box 4185, Station “E,” Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B2, the owner, Nicholas Dawes, 99 Lyttleton Gardens, Rockcliffe Park, Ontario, K1L 5A4) and the Ontario Heritage Foundation (10 Adelaide Street East, 3rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of City Council’s decision.

Location Map Document 1

 

Site Plan Document 2

 

Elevations Document 3


Extract from the Minutes, Former Rockcliffe Park LACAC, July 9, 2001 Document 4

 

7. 361 Mariposa

On the materials proposed, Mr. Henry confirmed the following: windows of two single panes with internal spacers between the mullions, operable wooden shutters that covered the windows, wooden soffits, copper flashings as indicated on the drawings, foundation of poured concrete with exterior cement rendering, stone or pre-cast keystones above the windows, front of engineered composite, front steps faced with natural stone, columns of composite material. Concern was expressed that the proposed Williamsburg brick was more appropriate for an institutional building. Mr. Dawes agreed that he would look for brick more appropriate for a private residence.

 

David McRobie pointed out that an important feature of the existing composition [note: the original building was still standing at this point] was that the principal structure stood out with its wings lower and clearly subservient, but that, in the new design, the proposed wing facing Buchan was not clearly subservient to the main part. The high roofline, in particular of the Buchan wing concerned members, and the owner was asked to consider some alternate design that would de-emphasize the size of that wing.

 

Members asked that the driveway to the double garage facing Buchan be reduced in width at the street verge to 10 feet. The semicircular driveway on Mariposa in the existing composition is properly centred on the front door, and this feature would be desirable in the new design. The owner agreed to consider both moving the eastern arm of the semicircle eastward or shifting the entire building slightly to the west, or a combination of these measures. Some members were opposed to moving the house westward because the planner garden space in the southwest sector was an excellent feature of the proposal.

 

On the Buchan side, members were unanimous that the extension of the roof plane of the garage to cover the side entrance was not in keeping with the overall design, and asked that a different approach be developed that separated the two roofs.

 

The kitchen window stands out as a different design to the others. This was a serious concern to some members, but another member pointed out that decorative features of this sort were appropriate to the Georgian style and that the design might be improved by extending the treatment vertically to both floors.

 

The window above the front door covers two bathrooms which was considered awkward. Such a prominent window would more appropriately light a major room or hall.

 

The fact that the mass, position, orientation and roof of the proposed main part of the house are similar to the existing composition was applauded because of its fit with the other three houses to the east.

 

These comments by Rockcliffe members at the concept stage are for consideration by the owner. When an application for a permit under the Ontario Heritage Act is reviewed by the City LACAC, these comments will be taken into consideration.