1 Report to/rapport au : Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d Ottawa and/et Planning Committee Comité de l'urbanisme and Council / et au Conseil October 2, 2012 2 octobre 2012 Submitted by/soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,planning and Infrastructure/Urbanisme et Infrastructure Contact Person / Personne ressource: John Smit, Manager/Gestionnaire, Development Review-Urban Services / Examen des projets d'aménagement- Services urbains Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance (613) 580-2424, 13866 John.Smit@ottawa.ca Rideau-Vanier (12) Ref N : ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0235 SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO ALTER THE SIMARD HOUSE, 31 SWEETLAND AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT OBJET : DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION DE LA MAISON SIMARD, AU 31, AVENUE SWEETLAND, UNE PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L ONTARIO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning Committee recommend Council: 1. Approve the application to repair and restore 31 Sweetland Avenue, as per plans submitted by Douglas Hardie Architect Inc. on September 18, 2012 and included as Documents 3 and 4;
2 2. Approve the application for an addition at 31 Sweetland Avenue as per plans submitted by Douglas Hardie Architect Inc. on September 18, 2012 and included as Documents 3 and 4; 3. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department; and 4. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance. (Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on December 17, 2012.) (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.) RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT Que le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d Ottawa recommande au Comité de l urbanisme de recommander à son tour au Conseil : 1. D approuver la demande de réparation et de restauration du 31, avenue Sweetland, conformément aux plans soumis par Douglas Hardie Architect Inc. le 18 septembre 2012 et joints en tant que documents 3 et 4; 2. D approuver la demande d aménagement d une annexe au 31, avenue Sweetland, conformément aux plans soumis par Douglas Hardie Architect Inc. le 18 septembre 2012 et joints en tant que documents 3 et 4; 3. De déléguer l autorité d effectuer des modifications conceptuelles mineures au directeur général d Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance; et 4. De délivrer le permis pour biens patrimoniaux assorti d une date d expiration de deux ans à partir de la date de délivrance. (Nota : Le délai réglementaire de 90 jours d examen de cette demande, exigé en vertu de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l Ontario, prendra fin le 17 décembre 2012.) 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 31 Sweetland Avenue is a one and one half storey wood frame house constructed in 1884 and located in Sandy Hill. The house was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1979 for its architectural value. This report has been prepared because any application to alter a designated building requires the approval of City Council.
3 DISCUSSION The Simard House, 31 Sweetland Avenue was constructed in 1884 by Olivier Simard, a carpenter and is significant as an example of a modest Second Empire style house. The house features typical elements of the style including the mansard roof, dormers and one storey bay window. The front façade features a two-storey tower with diagonal wooden cladding. The location of the house and current conditions can be seen in Documents 1, 2 and 5. Parks Canada s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada were adopted by City Council in 2008 and have been used in the evaluation of this application. Standards 1, 2, 11, and 12 are relevant for this application: 1. Conserve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact or repairable character defining elements. 2. Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character defining elements in their own right. 11. Conserve the heritage value and character defining elements when creating any new additions to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place. 12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of an historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future. Recommendation 1: The property was purchased by the current owner in 2011 and at the time of purchase the house had been seriously neglected for a number of years. Some stabilization and restoration work already has been completed on the property including stabilization of the foundation walls and footings, replacement of the roof and repair work on the dormer windows. This application includes further repair and restoration work. The existing cladding is wood but has been installed in many different profiles which has led to shifting and rot over time, making repair impractical. The proposal is to replace the existing wood siding with new pine siding in a ¾ inch profile milled to match the most common horizontal profile. The diagonal siding on the tower will be replaced with new diagonal wood siding in the most common profile found on the building. The bay window at the front of the house and the porch roofs are to be clad in copper. Decorative metal cresting will be installed on the roof of the bay window and the side porch. A new curved canopy will be installed over the front entrance in the tower. The curved canopy will respect the existing semi-circular transom window. Details of the proposed works and the expected finished state can be seen in Documents 3, 4, and 5. The proposal for repair and restoration work meets the Standards as outlined above as it conserves the heritage value and character defining elements of the building and conserves the entrance tower which is a later addition to the building that has become significant over time.
4 Recommendation 2: The application also includes the proposed construction of a two-storey addition with a basement at the rear of the existing building. The proposed addition has a rectangular footprint and is set in from the side walls of the building and will have a mansard roof, clad in cedar shingles. The low sloped upper roof will be asphalt shingles. The addition complies with the Heritage Overlay (Section 60) of the Zoning By-law. The cladding for the new addition will be wood siding, with the exception of the north elevation which will use Hardie Board composite siding as the Ontario Building Code requires a non-combustible cladding because the building does not meet the minimum separation distance on the north side. The cladding profile on the new addition will match the original building but it will be installed diagonally both to distinguish the addition from the original house and to complement the diagonal siding on the front tower. The new foundation walls will be clad in a stone veneer to complement the original building and new windows will be wood framed single hung windows in a 2/2 pattern. On the north elevation, where non-combustible materials are required, the windows will be metal clad wood. Details of the proposed edition and the expected finished state can be seen in Documents 3, 4, and 5. The proposed addition is sympathetic to the cultural heritage value of the Simard House and will restore this house to its historic appearance. The addition at the rear of the house meets the Standards and Guidelines as it is compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the original building and the proposed materials are appropriate. For these reasons, the Department supports the application. RURAL IMPLICATIONS There are no rural implications associated with this report. CONSULTATION Action Sandy Hill is aware of the application. Heritage Ottawa is aware of the application. Neighbours within 30 metres of the property were notified by letter and offered the opportunity to submit oral or written comments. COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR Councillor Fleury is aware of the application. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct legal implications associated with this report.
5 RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS There are no risk management implications. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications. ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS There are no accessibility implications associated with this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environment implications associated with this report. TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS There are no technology implications associated with this report. TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES C3: Provide a vibrant compelling destination HC4: Improve arts and heritage APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS This application was processed within the 90-day timeline outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Document 1 Location Map Document 2 Current Conditions Document 3 Site Plan Document 4 Elevations Document 5 Streetscape Document 6 Statement of Reason for Designation DISPOSITION City Clerk and Solicitor Department, Legislative Services to notify the applicant and the Ontario Heritage Trust (10 Adelaide Street East, 3 rd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 1J3) of Council s decision.
6 LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1
7 CURRENT CONDITIONS DOCUMENT 2 West Elevation East Elevation
8 South Elevation North Elevation
9 SITE PLAN DOCUMENT 3
10 ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 4
11
12
13
14 STREETSCAPE DOCUMENT 5
15 STATEMENT OF REASON FOR DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 6 Bylaw 1979-223 Statement of Reason for Designation- Simard House, 31 Sweetland Avenue Simard House, 31 Sweetland Avenue is recommended for designation as being of architectural interest. Erected in 1884 by Olivier Simard, carpenter, it is a one and onehalf storey wood frame dwelling featuring a mansard roof, dormers and one storey bay window. A two storey tower and entranceway with diagonal classing was a later addition. In its overall exterior appearance, this second empire building is a good example of an attractive, although modest, workman s dwelling.