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

 

Rideau-Rockcliffe (13)

Ref N°: ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0054

 

 

SUBJECT:

Application to alter the irish ambassador’s residence, 291 park road, rockcliffe park heritage conservation district designated under part v of the ontario heritage act

 

 

OBJET :

DEMANDE VISANT À MODIFIER LA RÉSIDENCE DE L’AMBASSADEUR D’IRLANDE, SITUÉE AU 291, CHEMIN PARK, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE de rockcliffe park, DÉSIGNÉ AUX TERMES DE LA PARTIE V DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

 

 

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

 


PHOTOGRAPH                                                                                                       DOCUMENT 2

 


 



ELEVATIONS                                                                                                          DOCUMENT 3





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?

 

 


APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO RPRA COMMENTS                                        DOCUMENT 5

 

     

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

 


LANDSCAPE/ SITE PLAN                                                                                     DOCUMENT 6


 


 


ARBORIST’S REPORT                                                                                         DOCUMENT 7


 

 

 

 


 





 


 

 

 


RPRA ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE COMMENTS                                DOCUMENT 8

I want want to be notified of the decision on this application

I want to be notified of any public meeting on this proposal.  Please send notification to Iola Price, 563 Fairview Ave., Rockcliffe Park ON K1M 0X4

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 


Address of the proposed development: 291 Park Road

City file No :  needed

Developer's name:  Republic of Ireland

City Planner's name and coordinates:  Sally.Coutts@Ottawa.ca  613-580-2424 x 13474

Documents provided in review package: Site Plan, Tree Protection Plan

Documents and Information missing and needed  Size (dbh) and health status of other trees on the property and those on the city right of way.

Name of Reviewer:  Iola Price  revised 6 February 2008

 

At the meeting with the architects, the landscape designer, city heritage staff and the RPRA Development Review Committee on January 25, we were told that four large American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) on the north east side of the property (Springfield side) would be removed to accommodate a new driveway and an addition to the residence.  One Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) on the east side adjacent to the existing house will also be removed.  The revised landscape plan distributed at that meeting confirms that statement.  However, the Tree Protection Plan (Andrew Boyd January 28, 2008) indicates that one of the four beech trees will now be retained.  This discrepancy should be resolved and it should be clarified which tree on the site plan A01 dated July 2007 is to be retained if in fact the Boyd report is correct and the January 25 Szczepaniak landscape plan is incorrect.

 

The destruction of the four (or three) mature beech trees should not be permitted as the Boyd Report does not indicate that these trees are unhealthy to the point that he would recommend their removal.  The destruction of the Ironwood would be regrettable and should not be permitted as it is one of the two largest specimens of that species in Rockcliffe Park.  Mr. Boyd could likely recommend a course of pruning that would correct the leaning he describes if he views that as a major problem.  Similarly, he might be able to recommend remedial treatment for the Ironwood.

 

The tree plan deals only with the trees on the Springfield side; other trees on the property are not described, nor are the trees that are on the line between the road allowance and the Irish property described as we understand they should be.  We understand from the January 25 meeting that other trees on the property will be removed, one of them an invasive Norway Maple.  Trees and shrubs proposed for planting should, to the extent possible, be species native to Ottawa and Rockcliffe.

 

The tree protection guidelines provided in the Boyd report are excellent and the city should ensure that they are followed for all trees on the property.

 

Two new beech trees are proposed for planting around the circular driveway on Park Road.  The proponent proposes that these trees be mature trees as replacements for the beech and ironwood trees that are proposed for removal.  Two trees on Park Road that will take several years to recover from transplant shock are not an ecological or visual substitute for the loss of what are probably much larger trees on the Springfield side. The addition of two Serviceberry shrub/trees to the circular driveway still does not mitigate the loss.

 

The property is large and it should be possible to revise the plans in some way so as to protect these trees.  Given that the swimming pool will not be built for several years. Would it not be possible to redesign the additions and enter the property from Park Road, as is now done, and wait until some future Ambassador might decide to alter the site design in regard to the swimming pool?

 

The Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District (HCD) is predicated, in large part, by the landscape values of the former Village.  It should therefore be incumbent on proponents of developments, whether the developments be changes to a residence or new construction, to pay attention to the landscape values of the village, the neighbouring residences and the lot on which the development is to occur.  If there are important landscape features, such as the beech trees and the Ironwood on the 291 Park road site, they should be preserved.

 

As a final note, soft landscape is an important feature of the HCD.  There will be a great loss of soft landscape as a result of this development and that too is regrettable and avoidable to some extent.

 

Recommendation 1:  Revise the site plan to accommodate the four (or three) American Beech and the Ironwood trees and do not permit their destruction.

 

Recommendation 2:  Update the tree preservation and planting plan with data on the size and health status of the remaining trees not covered by the January 28 Boyd Report.

 

Recommendation 3:   Ensure that the Tree Protection Measures outlined in the Boyd Report are followed and written into the Site Plan Agreement and that appropriate inspection occurs during construction and after to ensure compliance.

 

Recommendation 3:  Use every effort to plant only native trees and shrubs on the property (see www.ottawaforests.ca for a native tree and shrub database).

 

 

Photo1:  The largest of the American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) trees on the property.

Photo 2:  L to R – four American Beech trees proposed for removal as per the January 25 landscape plan. (Note: One of these beech trees will now be saved)