|
1. APPLICATION
FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROCKCLIFFE PARK HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT
456 LANSDOWNE ROAD DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE ROCKCLIFFE PARK AU 456, CHEMIN LANSDOWNE |
Committee recommendation as amended
That Council
approve the application
to alter 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District,
according to plans by Roderick Lahey, architect, received on May 8, 2008.
Recommandation modifiÉe du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve la demande de modification du 456,
chemin Lansdowne, district de conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park,
conformément aux plans soumis par Roderick Lahey, architecte, et reçus le 8
mai 2008.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 22 April 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0104).
2.
LACAC
Extract of Draft Minutes of 8 May 2008.
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
22 April 2008 / le 22 avril 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 recommends
that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the
application to alter 456 Lansdowne Road, Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation
District, according to plans by Roderick Lahey, architect, received on April
10, 2008.
Note: City Council decision under the Ontario
Heritage Act is required on or before July 8, 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 de modification du 456, chemin Lansdowne, district de
conservation du patrimoine de Rockcliffe Park, conformément aux plans soumis
par Roderick Lahey, architecte, et reçus le 10 avril 2008.
Nota : En vertu de la Loi
sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, le Conseil municipal doit rendre sa
décision au plus tard le 8 juillet 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 subject property, 456 Lansdowne Road, is located in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District on a large lot that slopes from Lansdowne Road down to McKay Lake (see Location Map, Document 1 and Aerial Photograph, Document 2). Under the Ontario Heritage Act, new construction within a heritage conservation district requires the approval of City Council following consultation with the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC).
The house located at 456 Lansdowne Road was constructed in 1897 for Frannie and Etta Wright, two of Philomen Wright’s great grand daughters. Located on McKay Lake, it was the first permanent year-round house built on the lake and one of the first 20 houses in the Village. Until the busy building period of 1925-48 when the eastern portion of the original Village began to be developed, it was the only house in this part of the former Village. The two sisters and various relatives continued to live here until the 1940s when the house was sold.
As an early building on McKay Lake, the house represents the settlement period of Rockcliffe Park. Many of the first houses built in the area were simple summer cottages for the residents of nearby Ottawa who reached them by streetcar lines that were completed in 1894. Eventually, these were joined by more substantial structures designed by leading architects for members of Ottawa’s elite.
The house is a red brick, two-and-a-half storey, gable-roofed structure. This type of simple front- gabled house, constructed in either brick, stone or wood was the most common house type built across Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are many examples of the type throughout Ottawa, particularly in the Glebe and Ottawa South. A one-storey addition to the building was constructed in 1979. The original windows and front veranda have been replaced (see photographs, Document 3).
Lansdowne Road is mixed architecturally, featuring houses from the post-war period on the west side and large 1930s houses on the east (lake) side, including the Swiss (1927) and Israeli (1934) Embassies and two more recent houses, the award-winning Hart Massey House (1959) at 400 Lansdowne and 474 Lansdowne Road (1993) to the immediate north of the subject property. The tennis courts and parking area of the Rockcliffe Park Lawn Tennis Club (1925) are also located on this section of the road, facing the subject property. A sewer easement runs through the property, between the present house and the lakeshore. As no construction is allowed on the easement, development is restricted to the area between it and the road.
The current application is to
construct an addition to the house that will wrap around the south (side) and
east (rear) façades of the building (see Site Plan, Document 4). The 1979
addition will be removed. The proposed
red brick addition has been designed to complement the existing house while
maintaining a clear distinction between the new and old parts of the building,
as viewed from the street. The addition
has a gabled pavilion linked to the south of the original house that will have
similar proportions to it. It will
feature a large, clearly contemporary, two storey window facing the street. The
front veranda (not original) of the original house will be removed, and the
original front door will be replaced by a window. The two pavilions will be
separated by a glazed front entranceway that will serve as the main entrance to
the enlarged house. The entrance
section of the addition will have a roof that is sloped away from the
road. The entire roof and the existing
gable end will be sheathed in cedar shingles.
The south, east and north sides of the addition are clearly contemporary
in expression and feature large three-storey windows with horizontal mullions. The
new addition has a stone foundation (see Elevations, Document 5 and Perspectives, Document 6).
DISCUSSION
There has been
considerable interest in preserving 456 Lansdowne Road by the community. The proposed plan retains the building and
integrates it into a larger house. The
character of the original house informs the design of the addition, and
elements of the original house, such as the gabled roof, red brick, stone
foundation are expressed in the addition.
Addition
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 (for view of proposed building in the existing streetscape, see Document 7). 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.
The proposed addition complies with the lot coverage and floor space index ratio requirements of the former Rockcliffe Park Zoning By-law, which is still in force. The addition complies with Guideline 4 above because it is designed to be distinct from the original building but it uses materials such as red brick and stone that are complementary to the original structure and features such as the gabled pavilions and cedar roof are inspired by the original building. Furthermore, in accordance with Guideline 5, above, the addition is being constructed in a manner that preserves the treed character of the property along Lansdowne Road and much of the lakefront area.
Landscape
The former Village of Rockcliffe Park was designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act for its significance as a cultural heritage landscape, characterized by its informal plantings, gardens and trees. The preservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage landscape is as important as the preservation of individual houses as indicated in the “Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study” which states “… the architectural character of individual residential and institutional properties is secondary to their landscaped settings.”
The landscape of 456 Lansdowne Road currently reflects the tradition of large, informal, heavily treed lots found throughout the former Village of Rockcliffe Park (for a view of streetscape, see Document 8). The front yard of the property features mature trees on both City and private lands that will be protected during construction to ensure their preservation. The existing cedar hedges along the north and south property lines (some of which straddle the property line) will remain in place and planting along these property lines will be enhanced and filled in, as necessary. The proposed addition respects the sloping character of the site and is situated approximately 30 metres back from the existing shoreline. Changes to the area between the shoreline and the house will include the construction of a terrace adjacent to the house. New stone steps leading to a new dock were completed last year.
Rockcliffe policies encourage the naturalization of lands within 10 metres of the shoreline and discourage the cutting of trees and disturbance of vegetation within 30 metres of the shoreline. For this project, the actual riparian zone will not be altered, and the bush adjacent to the water’s edge will remain.
The “Guidelines” for the management of the District reflect the importance of the landscape in defining the heritage character of the District. Sections IV) i, 1 and 2 address the District’s natural features stating that “The existing topography should be maintained, without any major excavation, filling and re-grading…” and “Special attention should be given to the protection and enhancement of the lake and pond environment …”
Further landscape guidelines in the “Guidelines” (Section IV v, 1-3) emphasize the dominance of soft landscape over hard, the importance of tree preservation and the preservation of important existing features of the landscape. The proposed rear yard respects these Guidelines as it retains existing retaining walls and lawns and features an arbour, relocated from elsewhere on the property.
The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, in reviewing the previous plan for this property with roughly the same footprint, suggested changes to improve the landscape including narrowing the driveway and moving it away from the property line, diminishing the hard landscaping adjacent to the front door of the building, and developing a tree preservation program. All these suggestions were implemented and are illustrated in the current plan. The Rockcliffe Park Residents Association, Heritage Sub-committee and the ward councillor reviewed the current plans. Their comments are included below.
Conclusions
The Department has no objection to this application because the addition is inspired by the design and massing of the original house but is clearly contemporary. This is consistent with the goals of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Study and accepted international practices for additions to heritage buildings. Furthermore, the proposed landscape plan for the property has been designed to retain and enhance the current landscaped character of the site.
CONSULTATION
The Rockcliffe Park Development Review Subcommittee met with the applicant on April 16, 2008 as part of the consultation process. The subcommittee had no objections to either the proposed addition or the changes to the original building. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application. Details of the consultation are provided in Document 9.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
APPLICATION PROCESS
TIMELINE STATUS
This application was completed within the
90-day time period prescribed by the Ontario
Heritage Act. City Council decision is required on or
before July 8, 2008
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location Map
Document 2 Aerial Photograph
Document 3 Existing building
Document 4 Site Plan
Document 5 Elevations
Document 6 Perspectives
Document 7 Context
Document 8 Streetscapes
Document 9 Consultation
Details
DISPOSITION
City
Clerk's Branch, Council and Committee Services, to notify the applicant/agent
(Rod Lahey Architect Inc., 1501 Carling Avenue, Suite 200, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Z
7M1) and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street, 3rd Floor, Toronto,
Ontario M5C 1J3) of City Council's
consent to demolish 456 Lansdowne Road, and construct a new house on the lot.
RPRA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS
16 April 2008
The
proposed building would be much larger than the existing structure, altering
the historical relation of house to garden, but the footprint is within the
minimum required setbacks. The
retention of the front and north walls and the roof of the original house and
the placement of the driveway on the north side are positive features. Part of the driveway will require a variance
from the zoning by-law provision of a 1.52‑metre-landscaped strip between
the driveway and the lot line. On
balance, the Subcommittee considers this design acceptable.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
The Ward Councillor, Jacques Legendre, made the following comments:
April 2008
The most recent proposal is a significant improvement over the previous proposal which envisaged the demolition of the existing structure.
The current proposal results in an enormous residence, but it must be said, the neighbouring houses are also large. The major impact of the increased footprint is the loss of greenspace. Of course, the lot itself is quite large which means that considerable greenspace remains.
There are two aspects of this proposal that might be improved with some relatively minor design modifications.
1. The very large windows in the new addition are most suitable for the East-face overlooking the lake. It is clear that views to the East and South-East will be quite spectacular. The West-face overlooks the street and the tennis courts across Lansdowne road. While those are not ‘bad views’ per se, I believe that the marriage of the old structure with the modern addition suffers by having such expansive windows on that side (front-face) of the combined structure. The large windows clash ‘starkly’ with those of the existing house. They don’t so much provide a distinctive element as diminish the otherwise excellent style-match that is proposed. The South-face also has very large windows facing the (Israeli) property next door. That face would be more respective of the neighbouring property if smaller windows were used, especially in the upper-flour of the westerly windows.
2. The proponent should be congratulated for tucking the garage to the rear and utilizing the existing driveway, extended along the north-side of the existing house, to serve as the access corridor. Space is tight on that side. I am supportive of any variance to side-yard setbacks that may be required to achieve this result, especially as there is an existing hedge along the property line (to be retained) and additional hedge-material to be provided.
The driveway
width appears to unnecessarily widen to five metres at the public property line. I would ask that the City’s Forestry
Services Division be asked to comment on the effect of the encroaching
impermeable hard surface on the roots system of the large trees to either side
of the driveway in this vicinity. It
would be preferable if the driveway width were limited to 3.5 metres
(11.5 feet) at the property line and across the public verge.