Report
to/Rapport au :
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee
Comité consultatif sur la
conservation de l'architecture locale
and /
et
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
19 February 2008 / le 19 février 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment/
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact
Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager / Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals / Approbation des demandes d'aménagement
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee recommend
that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
application for new construction at 291 Park Road according to plans by Sarah
Murray, Nicholas Caragianis, Architect, Inc. received on January 29, 2008.
(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 au Comité de
l’urbanisme et de l’environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil
d'approuver la demande visant à construire un nouvel immeuble au 291, chemin
Park, conformément aux plans reçus le 29 janvier 2008.
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 building at 291 Park Road is located within the boundaries of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District, designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997 (see Document 1). This report has been prepared because the consent of City Council is required before an addition to an existing building can proceed within the District.
The subject property serves as the residence of the Irish Ambassador to Canada. It is located on the north side of Park Road at the corner of Springfield Road. It is a large lot, roughly 3612 square metres in area. The house was constructed in 1942 by architect H. Gordon Hughes for D. Irving Cameron, a stockbroker. Hughes also designed 148 and 480 Manor Road, 231 Park Road and an addition to Maplelawn, an 1830s residence on Richmond Road. In design and massing, it is very typical of the revival style houses popular in Rockcliffe Park and other well-to-do neighbourhoods across Canada. It is vaguely Tudoresque in inspiration, constructed of stone with wooden trim and details (Document 2). The house was not included on the list of significant buildings compiled by the former Rockcliffe Park LACAC. The project does not require any variances.
The Republic of Ireland purchased the house in 1968 for use as its Ambassador’s residence. In 1996, a covered entrance porch and a sunroom were added to the building. Several other stucco-clad additions were also constructed over the years.
ANALYSIS
The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1997. The Heritage Conservation District Study contains Management Guidelines that are intended to protect and enhance those elements in the Village that contribute to its heritage character as defined in the Study. The Guidelines are not prescriptive, rather, they outline the principles to be applied to future development, based on past experience. They are intended to guide the evolution of the Village as a picturesque landscape of buildings set in informal grounds, and where the soft landscape in particular ties together and makes sense of, the irregular road layout, the diverse lot arrangements, and the eclectic mix of building styles. The Guidelines relevant to this application stress that:
4. Any application to construct a new building or addition should be reviewed, with consideration of its potential to enhance the heritage character of the Village. New construction should be recommended for approval only where 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 also be sited and designed so as to retain the existing topography. The use of natural materials should be encouraged.
Additions
The proposed intervention involves the construction of two new wings, at the east and west ends of the current building. Stylistically, the new wings will echo the character of the existing house and will feature the same steeply pitched roofs, multi-paned windows with both flat and segmented arches, and stone construction found in the original house (see Document 3, Elevations)
When completed, the building will be roughly “L” shaped. Each addition is two storeys in height, lower than the original house, and is joined to it with a glazed, flat-roofed link. The lower height and the glazed link serve to clearly delineate the old and new portions of the building. The proposed west wing extends 13.69 metres from the west wall of the original structure and is 28.5 metres deep. Part of this wing is two storeys in height and then it steps down to a one-storey sunroom. The addition will be in stone laid in regular courses. There will be a bay window with a stone parapet and a window above in the two-storey portion. It will contain a formal living room, sunroom and screened porch on the ground floor and a family room on the second floor.
The east addition is larger than the west. It will contain a new dining room, kitchen and two-car garage on the ground floor and bedrooms above. The two-storey part of the Park Road façade of this wing is identical to the west wing, emphasizing the symmetry established by the 1942 house. It also extends 28.5 metres back. The height of the wing drops in height above the garage.
There are currently two recent stucco-clad additions at the rear (north façade) of the house. These are proposed for removal. A one storey, glazed gallery will replace these later additions thereby enclosing the original ground floor of the house within the new construction.
As proposed, the addition to 291 Park Road, although large, respects the character of the existing 1942 building and its setting. The wings will be clad in stone to complement the existing stone and the additions’ windows, roofline, stone details style take their cues from the existing structure. The project, when completed, will fit into its setting at the corner of Springfield and Park Roads and its generous existing 18.83-metre setback from the front property line to the entrance vestibule will remain the same. The east wing will be 5.0 metres closer to Springfield Road but separated from the road by a hedge and a row of trees. The “cultural and natural setting” of the property will be preserved.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association heritage sub-committee met twice to review the elevations and landscape plan for this property. The sub-committee asked the applicant to consider some alternatives to the proposed design and stressed that an “excellent” landscape plan was critical to the success of the project. A copy of the full text of the group’s comments and the architect’s response to them are included as Documents 4 and 5.
Landscape/ Site Plan
A landscape plan was submitted as part of this application (see Document 6). The landscape plan shows a number of large trees inter-planted among existing trees on the south, east and west parts of the property. This will continue the informal picturesque landscape that characterizes the heritage conservation district. To the rear of the property, in the more private parts of the grounds, the landscape will be more formal. This mix of a treed, park-like public realm and a formal private garden is consistent with the pattern established elsewhere in the heritage conservation district.
The District Plan describes the landscape of the area as follows:
Soft landscaping features include tree cover over the entire Village area, and the use of shrubs, hedges and other plantings to provide subtle delineation of private space while allowing visual continuity and flow from one property to another. With a pattern of generous front and side yard setbacks, the plantings become equally important streetscape elements as the individual building facades.
The Recommendations in Section IV.1.iv) .2 Soft and hard landscape, state that “Existing trees, shrubs and other plantings should be protected and enhanced through appropriate maintenance, protection and replacement.” The landscape/site plan for this project shows the removal of four trees and the planting of at least eight on private property and six on public property subject to City approval. In addition, smaller shrubs such as serviceberry, columnar white pine, magnolia and cedars will be planted.
The yard facing Park Road will be enhanced by the removal of the current driveway that provides access to the garage that is to be removed. The existing circular drive will remain in its current location. A new cedar hedge, a common means of delineating property lines in the District, will be planted on the west property line. The existing cedar hedge on the east property line that runs parallel to Springfield Road will be retained, and the existing hedge at the north east corner of the lot will be replanted. There is a City-owned verge facing Springfield and Park Roads. The applicant is discussing planting four new trees between the cedar hedge and Springfield Road and two new trees near the driveway on Park Road. The applicant has agreed to plant whatever species the City wants. In addition to the trees on City property, the applicant proposes to plant a number of deciduous and coniferous trees, some with a tree spade to allow for larger trees to be planted on the property to enhance the picturesque quality of the landscape and to screen the proposed additions from the street.
The proposed landscape and site plans are consistent with the cultural heritage landscape of the heritage conservation district and reflect the goals of the Heritage Conservation District Plan.
There are four beech trees near the north property line which will be affected by the proposed eastern wing.
These trees were examined by an Arborist, to determine their condition (see Document 7, for a copy of his report). Of the four trees, three are in good condition and one is in fair condition. Of the three in good condition, one is to be retained and the other two removed. To replace these trees, two new beech trees will be planted with a tree spade in the front yard of the property. Similarly, a large ironwood will have to be removed to allow for the construction of the east wing; this tree will be replaced by a group of three ironwoods in the west side yard.
The Environment Committee of the
Rockcliffe Park Residents Association filed an objection to the removal of the
beech and ironwood trees (see Document 8) The Department believes that the
replacement trees proposed for the site, and the enhancement of both the
private and public realms at this location offset the loss of two healthy beech
trees and one ironwood. The approved
landscape plan is included as Document 6.
The Department has no objection to this application because of the care taken to preserve the character of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District as defined in the Heritage Conservation District Plan through the enhancement of the landscaping features and the construction of additions in a manner that respects the cultural heritage value of the original building and its landscaped setting.
CONSULTATION
Adjacent property owners and residential tenants were notified by letter of the date of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and Planning and Environment Committee meetings and were provided with comment sheets to be returned to LACAC.
The Councillor is aware of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association heritage sub-committee reviewed the elevations and landscape plan for this property. The sub-committee asked the applicant to consider some alternatives to the proposed design and stressed that an “excellent” landscape plan was critical to the success of the project. A copy of the full text of the group’s comments and the architect’s response to them are included as Documents 4 and 5).
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, Environment Committee, reviewed the landscape plan and commented on it. The Environment Committee objected to the removal of two beech trees in good condition and one in fair condition. Its comments are included as Document 8.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed within the
90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario
Heritage Act.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Photograph
Document 3 Elevation
Document 4 RPRA Heritage Sub-committee, Comments
Document 5 Applicant’s Response
to RPRA Comments
Document 6 Landscape Plan
Document 7 Arborist’s Report
Document 8 RPRA Environment
Committee Comments
DISPOSITION
City
Clerk's Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the applicant/ agent
(Sarah Murray, Nicholas Cariaganis architect, Inc., 137 Pamilla Street, Ottawa,
K1S 3K9) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor,
Toronto, Ontario M5C 1J3) of City Council's consent two additions to 291
Park Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District.
LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT
1
RPRA COMMENTS DOCUMENT
4
RPRA Development Review Subcommittee meeting 2 January 2008
Present:
John Cook, Robin Fyfe, Anthony Keith, Vic Lanctis, Bob McElligott, Sandy
Smallwood (by telephone)
291 Park
Road (Irish Ambassador’s residence)
We reviewed
plans from Sarah Murray with her letter of 21 Dec 07.
Roof
link options: All of us preferred flat roof links.
Site
plan: We accept the logic in moving the garage and
service entrance to the Springfield side but are concerned at the resultant
loss of a fine grove of American Beech trees.
Permitting the loss of these important trees should be conditional on
the provision of an excellent landscape plan.
Scale:
We recognize that the lot is large and that zoning would permit a large
building. But the structure also has to
be appropriate in scale for its streetscape in the heritage district. The proposed large additions, especially on
the Springfield side, change a distinguished house from a residential scale to
an institutional scale. This will not
fit well in that eastern section of Park Road.
So anything that can be done to reduce the apparent or real size of the
additions would help. We offer the
following suggestions:
-
Commission
an excellent landscape plan, with new tree and shrub plantings. The site plan’s eight small new trees around
the semi-circular driveway do not look suitable. Large deciduous trees to the south of each wing facing Park Road,
framing the original house, might be appropriate. (Note: This comment refers to an earlier site plan that has
been superseded by the current site plan)
-
Consider
reducing the north/south dimension of the sunroom at the west end, so it would
be distinctly set back from the south façade.
-
On the
Springfield elevation, consider moving the kitchen block back, so that it is
set back from the line of the façade, rather than protruding forward.
-
Consider
less-noticeable tops to the bay windows.
Square in section might be better than curved. Dressed stone might be better than copper.
-
Consider
lowering the wings so that they are more subservient to the original
house. Could their fascias either line
up with or be below those of the original house?
January
24, 2008
Attention: Mr. Anthony Keith
RPRA Development Review
Committee
Re: Embassy of Ireland
Ambassador’s
Residence
291
Park Road,
Dear
Committee,
Thank
you for your review of our proposed plans for the alterations to the existing
residence. We have explored your
comments and suggestions, and have the following results:
1. Springfield Wing and Trees:
Shifting
the Springfield Wing of the house west (to reduce the impact of the scale of
the building along Springfield, and to try to save the trees) resulted in
sacrificing the respect/clear-massing (see second floor connection) of the
original stone house and compromised the back garden connections.
The
kitchen block is a relatively small bay (one room wide) and we are stuggling
with the programme requirements in its current form. The kitchen block appears to be a suitable gesture for a corner
response: the original house and the kitchen block are “book ends” to the pivot
point of the dining room form. The current hedge is to remain (with the
required access points), the driveway will be opposite the police station, and
we are proposing canopy trees along Springfield Road.
We
propose to keep the building plan as it is currently drawn, but to minimize the
impact of the scale through appropriate screening landscaping, and the loss of
the five trees will be compensated with new large indigenous trees
strategically placed throughout the property.
2. Landscape Plan and Replacement of Five trees
The
Embassy has commissioned a landscape plan with John Szczepaniak, OALA, and a
great deal of effort has been made to sensitively replace the five trees that
are destined for removal. Friday
January 25, 2008, at 9:30 Mr. Szczepaniak will present a preliminary plan to
your committee for review. A Tree
Preservation Study Report is currently being prepared.
3. Bay Window Roof Treatments:
Roof treatment at bay
windows changed to square-section/flat-roof in accordance with committee
recommendation, design refinements still ongoing for detailing.
4. Sunroom Reduction North South:
After considerable
explorations, it was determined that the embassy requires the current north-south extent of the sunroom as
shown in the original plan. The
landscape plan is designed to minimize the impact of this sunroom when viewed
from Park Road.
5. Lowering of the New Wings:
The two new wings will be as
low as possible. The new fascias will not “match or be lower than the existing”
due to the programme requirements whereby the new ground floor formal entertaining
spaces require higher ceilings than the existing stone house has currently.
Please note that we are in
the process of budget reviews with the design.
The roof is anticipated to be copper/metal trim with either a copper
roof or shingle roof. The walls of the
addition are designed for rusticated stone base with cut honed stone body
and/or brick above.
Regards,
Sarah Murray
