1. APPLICATION TO ALTER 32 CAMERON AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

DEMANDE DE TRANSFORMATION DU 32, AVENUE CAMERON, UNE PROPRIÉTÉ DÉSIGNÉE EN VERTU DE LA PARTIE IV DE LA LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L’ONTARIO

OBHAC RECOMMENDATIONS

The Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommends that Planning Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the application to alter 32 Cameron Avenue in accordance with drawings submitted by Jacques Hamel, Hamel Design Inc., as received on August 16, 2011 and included as Document 5;

2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department; and

3. 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 November 13, 2011.)

(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 CCPBO

Le Comité consultatif sur le patrimoine bâti d’Ottawa charge le Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander ce qui suit au Conseil :

1. Approuver la demande visant à transformer le 32, avenue Cameron conformément aux dessins réalisés par Jacques Hamel, Hamel Design Inc. reçus le 16 août 2011 et ci-joints en tant que document 5;

2. Déléguer au directeur général d’Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance le pouvoir d’apporter des modifications mineures de conception;

3. Délivrer un permis pour biens patrimoniaux d’une validité 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 13 novembre 2011.)

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.)

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, dated 14 September 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0026).

2. Extract of draft minutes, Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of 6 October 2011

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

14 September 2011 / le 14 septembre 2011

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager,

Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability, Services d’infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Richard Kilstrom, Acting Manager/

Gestionnaire intérimaire, Development Review-Urban Services/Examen des projets d'aménagement-Services urbains, Planning and Growth Management/

Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance

(613) 580-2424, 22379 Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca

Capital Ward 17

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0026

SUBJECT:	APPLICATION TO ALTER 32 CAMERON AVENUE, A PROPERTY DESIGNATED UNDER PART IV OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT

OBJET :	demande de transformation du 32, avenue CAMERON, 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 that Council:

1. Approve the application to alter 32 Cameron Avenue in accordance with drawings submitted by Jacques Hamel, Hamel Design Inc., as received on August 16, 2011 and included as Document 5;

2. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department; and

3. 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 November 13, 2011.)

(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 charge le Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander ce qui suit au Conseil :

2. Déléguer au directeur général d’Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance le pouvoir d’apporter des modifications mineures de conception;

3. Délivrer un permis pour biens patrimoniaux d’une validité 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 13 novembre 2011.)

BACKGROUND

The building at 32 Cameron Avenue was designated in 1981 under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-law 321-81. A location map is included as Document 1. The Statement of Reason for Designation that forms part of the designation by-law is included as Document 2 and photographs of the existing conditions are included as Document 3.

This report has been prepared because alterations to buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) require the approval of City Council following consultation with its Municipal Heritage Committee, the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC).

DISCUSSION

Current Proposal

This proposal deals with removal of a frame shed addition at the rear of 32 Cameron Avenue and its replacement with a new addition. The rear frame shed is being replaced because the foundation is unsound and the structure is pulling away from the main building.

The proposed two-storey addition is contemporary in design with materials that complement the original building. A small, one-story mudroom/ side entrance clad with salvaged bricks and covered with a shallow pitched roof will link the existing southerly wing to a two-storey glass staircase on the new addition (Document 5, Drawing A6). The main part of the addition will consist of a first storey base of recycled red brick and glazing with a projecting second storey clad in cedar. There will be an open deck above on the east side. The new addition will provide more living space for the owners and a better link to the backyard through increased windows and a patio.

The exterior materials to be used on the new addition include brick reclaimed from the back wall of the original building and garage, horizontal stained cedar siding, black pre-finished metal, glazing and black stucco.

Additional designs of the addition are included as Document 5. A Cultural Heritage Impact Statement is included as Document 6.

Pre-Consultation with OBHAC

A pre-consultation with OBHAC was held on November 18, 2010. The Committee made the following comments as extracted from the minutes of that meeting:

Members did not object to the demolition of the existing addition. They expressed general support for the proposed contemporary renovation, with the following suggestions to address certain concerns: consider toning down the colour of the proposed yellow/orange cladding on the second floor and use cedar shingles/boards that would grey over time to blend in more with the landscape and neighbourhood; consider landscaping or screening of some sort to block as much view of the addition as possible from Bank Street; consult with the neighbours on the proposed design and materials; consider a more traditional treatment for the side westerly entrance to tie the historical (brick) wing of the house being retained with the proposed addition.

All of the OBHAC suggestions have been addressed in the current design. The cladding initially proposed has been replaced by cedar siding. A new fence will screen the view of the addition from Bank Street which is already obscured by mature trees that will remain. Neighbours have been consulted by the applicant and have indicated their support. Further notification of immediate neighbours has been carried out as part of this application. The westerly side entrance (Document 5, Drawing A6) employs a simple sloped roof to transition between the existing brick wing and new addition.

Standards and Guidelines

The City of Ottawa adopted the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010) as a policy to assist in the evaluation to heritage properties together with other applicable and relevant policies and guidelines such as the Statement of Reason for Designation in this case or heritage conservation district studies in the case of district designations. The following Guidelines are applicable to this project:

Make the new work physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the historic place. 3. 11 (b)

Selecting the location for a new addition that ensures that the heritage value of the place is maintained. 4.3.1.13

Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. 4.3.1.14

Designing an addition that is compatible in terms of materials and massing with the exterior form of the historic building and its setting. 4.3.1.15

The proposed addition respects these guidelines through its location at the rear of the main building, its modern design that is distinguishable from the main building and its use of materials such as recycled red brick and cedar siding to transition and relate the old and new.

The proposed alteration respects both the Reason for Designation and the Standards and Guidelines and is supported by the Department of Planning and Growth Management.

Recommendation 2:

Occasionally, minor changes to the building design arise during the working drawing phase. This recommendation is included to allow the Planning and Growth Management Department to approve these changes without requiring a new heritage application.

Recommendation 3:

The Ontario Heritage Act does not provide any timelines for the expiry of heritage permits. A two-year expiry date is recommended to ensure that projects are completed in a timely fashion and according to the approved heritage permit.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CONSULTATION

Heritage Ottawa is aware of and supports this application.

The Ottawa South Community Association is aware of this application.

Adjacent owners were notified and offered the opportunity to make written or oral submissions to OBHAC and Planning Committee.

Adjacent owners were also notified separately by the applicant and indicated support in writing for this proposal.

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR

Councillor David Chernushenko is aware of this application.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications associated with this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk implications.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

N/A

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Objective F 2: Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of existing hard services, so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.

The City wants to protect the qualities and characteristics that define what is unique and special about each community while accommodating new growth.

Review applications as part of the development and infrastructure approval process for neighbourhood compatibility and the preservation of unique identities of our communities and villages

Objective E8 : Operationalize the Ottawa 20/20 Arts & Heritage Plan.

2.1.2 Identify and Protect Archaeological and Built Heritage Resources, Streetscapes, Public and Symbolic Civic Places and Cultural Landscapes

2.1.2.2 The City will preserve distinct built heritage, streetscapes and cultural heritage landscapes that serve as landmarks and symbols of local identity in both urban and rural districts, as outlined in the Official Plan.

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 Statement of Reason for Designation

Document 3 Photographs of Existing Conditions

Document 4 Site Plan

Document 5 Drawings – Perspectives and Elevations

Document 6 Cultural Heritage Impact Statement

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.

LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 1

cameron32.tif

STATEMENT OF REASON FOR DESIGNATION DOCUMENT 2

Bylaw 321-81

Plaque 1987

Statement of Reason for Designation- 32 Cameron Avenue

The one and one-half storey brick veneer structure at 32 Cameron Avenue is recommended for designation as being of architectural value. This well maintained building is enhanced by a double gable façade with ornate bargeboards and a one storey verandah with extensive woodwork and a centre gable. Erected ca. 1887 the overall exterior appearance including the rear additions of this building is representative of a rural residence of this time. The interior of the house is not designated.

PHOTOGRAPHS EXISTING CONDITIONS DOCUMENT 3

North Elevation

South Elevation

View looking North East from Bank Street

View looking South West

SITE PLAN DOCUMENT 4

Site Plan.JPG

DRAWINGS – PERSPECTIVES AND ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 5

Perspective Views from S.W.-Existing & Proposed.JPG

West Elevation Existing & Proposed.JPG

South Elevation Existing & Proposed.JPG

Side entry.JPG

Cultural Heritage Impact Statement Document 6

Property Address: 32 Cameron Avenue

Property Description:

The one and one-half storey brick veneer structure at 32 Cameron Avenue has a Part IV Heritage Designation. It received a heritage plaque in 1987 for the following reasons:

The building is “...of architectural value. This well-maintained building is enhanced by a double gable facade with ornate bargeboards and a one-storey veranda with extensive woodwork and a centre gable. Erected ca. 1887 the overall exterior appearance including the rear additions of this building is representative of a rural residence of this time. The interior of the house is not designated.” (Schedule B)

Statement of Significance

The Robertson House is of architectural value and is representative of a late 19^th century structure in the then rural area south of Ottawa as identified in Ottawa South p. 190

Proposed Development

The present owners purchased the property five years ago and have done extensive interior renovations – including re-plastering all the walls and recasting crown mouldings and other plasterwork as needed. They have also restored almost all the original windows with the help of the Heritage Grant program. Now they would like to expand their home and take advantage of the sun and views to their rear yard.

Removal of the existing rear shed

The existing rear wood shed will be removed for the following reasons:

Replacement of a structurally unsound rear shed.

The rear yard shed is in very poor repair. It is structurally deficient and requires extensive upgrades including:

a. Proper footings down 5’-0” to replace adhoc foundation;

b. Re-enforce or replace joists; and,

c. Replace roof planking with sheathing to repair roof.

See Genivar report November 4, 2010.

Insufficient size of existing rear shed

The small size of the rear shed does not meet the spatial requirements of the current owners.

Blocking of the views and light by rear shed

The rear shed does not have any windows to either side and only a small second storey window. Consequently, the rear addition does not permit any main floor views to the rear or side yards or admit any natural light into the house. The proposed addition opens up to the sides and rear of the lot and admits morning, noon and afternoon light.

Given these structural problems, the size restrictions and the blocking of views and light, the owners decided to build a new addition to replace the existing shed.

Proposed two-storey addition

The proposed development is to replace a wood shed (450 gsf) with a two-storey addition (1200 gsf) to the rear of the heritage-designated house.

On the main floor, the existing small kitchen is to be expanded towards a new family room opening up to the rear yard light and views. A new glass-enclosed staircase will function as a small solarium that will connect the heritage building to the addition as well as to all three floor levels. Tucked between the stair and existing house is a new one-story mudroom and side entrance wrapped with salvaged original bricks from the existing end wall. It will be covered with a roof similar to what might have protected the original side entry and porch.

Behind the stairs, the addition develops in a contemporary language but employs traditional materials. Brick at the base extends the original house’s main material and cedar for the second storey bedroom volume echoes the old shed’s cedar material.

On the second floor, the addition will provide a master bedroom with ensuite and closet space as well as providing space for a second floor laundry area in the existing back portion of the house.

New structurally sound concrete foundations and a new full basement is proposed under the addition.

The proposed contemporary addition will enhance owner’s enjoyment of their full property. As mentioned, currently there are no views of their deep rear yard barring a single window in the fragile second storey of the shed. Presently the occupants also have no direct access to their rear yard nor do they have any access to southern light. The addition consciously opens up the interior vistas, views and circulation to the whole backyard and light on all floor levels. The house will not only be physically bigger but will also be more connected to the exterior through larger windows, doors and terraces that extend the interior to the landscape.

Conclusion

In summary, the rear yard addition is a clear contemporary form that opens and releases the nature of the existing heritage house to the intimacy of the backyard landscaped property.

Both the materials and form of the contemporary addition enhances, complements and echoes the existing heritage home.

The heritage house will now be able to accommodate and sustain a modern lifestyle through the addition’s presence that mediates effortlessly the transition from old to new, and the connection from inside to the outside – enveloped in natural light.

Summary of Impacts

Proposed change	Description	Impact
Removal of existing rear shed	The shed does not meet current O.B.C requirements: the staircase is too narrow and steep; the structure is sub-standard; insulation is deficient; the foundation is unsound; and the addition is pulling away from the main house breaching the roof and walls. (see Genivar report, November 4, 2010)	It is not practically or financially feasible to maintain, repair, upgrade or rebuild the existing structure. The proposed addition will provide a sound and properly insulated building mitigating any further damage to the heritage structure. The materials to be used for the proposed addition echo those used in the original building e.g., cedar siding and brick. There is a brick and cedar presence on three elevations, providing homage to the existing brick house and its original cedar shed addition.
Two-storey addition – Enhancement of the existing heritage building	The proposed addition is located entirely behind and below the front elevation profile of the existing heritage house from Cameron Avenue; as such it will not require any minor variances.	Enhancement of existing building The addition will not alter the original T-shape plan of the existing brick heritage building. The proposed addition will provide views and access to the surrounding property. It will admit natural light into the living areas from the south, east and west. It will provide for more living space and accommodate a contemporary life-style. The contemporary design of the proposed addition provides a formal contrast to the existing heritage building and as a result, enhances its historical stature.
Two-storey addition – Streetscape (see elevation drawings)	Elevational impact	Streetscape North elevation: There are no adverse impacts on the Cameron Avenue streetscape as the addition is entirely located behind and below the existing heritage front elevation. South elevation: Due to the depth of the rear yard, there no affected rear yard neighbours. North-west elevation: As a result of the mature vegetation and very close proximity of the west-side neighbour, very little of the new addition will be visible in the acute angle from the street. Mature vegetation on the front and sides of the house mitigates the addition’s impact on the streetscape. East elevation: No streetscape impact as it is only visible to the east neighbour. West elevation: This streetscape view is only visible from Bank Street that is across a 90’ parking lot, between a dry-cleaning business and a retail strip, over a solid wooden fence and behind an evergreen. Only a part of the second storey of the addition will be visible having little to no impact on the resulting streetscape from Bank Street. Mitigating measures The proposed addition is visible only from Bank Street. As such, the following mitigating measures could be undertaken: The existing fence could be replaced with a solid wood fence; and, If required, a hedge could be planted that could eventually screen the addition from Bank Street.