Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DSD-2022-052 - Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-004 - Doon Bridges Rehab
Staffeeport Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Heritage Kitchener DATE OF MEETING: February 1, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Victoria Grohn, Senior Planner (Heritage), 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: January 5, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-052 SUBJECT: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-004 RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit Application HPA-2022-V-004 be approved to permit the bridge rehabilitation works on Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2, in accordance with the supplementary information submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final Heritage Impact Assessment be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a heritage permit; 2. That the colour of the pigmented sealer be reviewed by Heritage Planning staff and related heritage clearances issued by staff to proceed prior to application; and 3. That the details of the new guard rails be submitted for review and heritage clearance by Heritage Planning staff prior to installation. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to present the proposed bridge rehabilitation works detailed in HPA-2022-V-004. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed bridge rehabilitation works are in keeping with the policies and guidelines of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan and that these rehabilitation works will not negatively affect the heritage character and attributes of the bridges if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. • There are no financial implications associated with this report. • Community engagement included consultation with the Heritage Kitchener committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 147 1304 1310 F S • 5 chneider Creek Natural Area l I Is� 1366 1252 o n Bridge # Doon . , e #1 05 1265 1 � i?ofl1Y V1'tFtf'4t3��Rb 9 1�. C1 ff iff j 12 �,r, ! II . Location Map: Doon Bridge #1 and #2 BACKGROUND: The Development Services Department is in receipt of Heritage Permit Application HPA- 2022-V-004, which is seeking permission to rehabilitate Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2, located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. Heritage Impact Assessment Wood PLC was retained by the City of Kitchener to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in support of the rehabilitation of Doon Village Road Bridges #1 and #2. These bridges are owned by the City of Kitchener and are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (UDHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA, dated September 30, 2021, reviewed and evaluated the cultural heritage value or interest of the two bridges; provided statements of significance identifying the contributing heritage attributes of each bridge; identified potential impacts; and recommended conservation strategies and mitigation measures consistent with The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the UDHCD Plan, and other City policies. The HIA concludes that Doon Bridge #1 and #2 have cultural heritage value or interest. The bridges form a culturally significant group of two rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges and are the last two of their kind in the City of Kitchener. The bridges are almost identical in form and are functionally and visually linked to their surroundings. The bridges remain in situ and have undergone only sympathetic modifications. The HIA concludes that potential direct impacts to Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 are anticipated as part of the rehabilitation work. The direct impacts include coating the bridges in a pigmented sealer and replacing the existing metal guardrails. No indirect impacts to the bridges are identified within the HIA. The HIA recommends the following mitigation measures and conservation strategies to address the identified direct impacts: Page 4 of 147 • That the application pigmented sealer should be physically and visually compatible with the existing structures and that the colour for the sealer should be light grey in keeping with the existing colour of the bridges. • That rehabilitation measures should be designed in a manner that retains the existing physical form of the bridges and uses a "like for like" strategy where possible. • That new guardrails should use like materials or be painted green if a high quality and durable green paint is available and proven to be long lasting in application. • That the locations of protected heritage properties in close proximity to the planned work should be noted on project documents so that project personnel and construction crews are aware of the presence of these properties and that a disclaimer note be included on all project drawings. Heritage Planning staff generally agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the HIA and are of the opinion that impacts to Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 can be appropriately mitigated if the above -noted measures and conservation strategies are implemented, and that the proposed rehabilitation works are sympathetic modifications. A copy of the HIA prepared by Wood PLC and dated September 30, 2021 is attached to this report as Appendix B. REPORT: Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 are located on Doon Village Road, east of Doon South Drive within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (UDHCD). The bridges are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by virtue of their location within the heritage conservation district boundary. The single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arch bridges were built in 1924 and 1929 and cross over Schneider Creek. Doon Bridge #1 (photo credit: Wood PLC) Doon Bridge #2 (photo credit: Wood PLC) Page 5 of 147 Proposed Rehabilitation Works The proposed rehabilitation works for Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 are designed to retain the heritage attributes of the bridges while increasing their lifespan. The proposed rehabilitation includes the removal of deteriorated components of bridge elements and replacement with in-kind new elements. Doon Bridge #1 The works associated with Doon Bridge #1 include removing deteriorated elements, including the concrete from the deck, parapet walls, retaining walls, fascia, soffit, and abutments, and removing damaged and loose elements. The rehabilitation works include patch repairing elements, including the parapet walls, retaining walls, fascia, soffit, and abutments, applying a corrosion inhibitor and pigmented sealer to the concrete parapet walls, placing new waterproofing material and installing new guard rails. Doon Bridge #2 The works associated with Doon Bridge #2 include removing deteriorated elements, including the concrete from the deck, parapet walls, retaining walls, fascia, soffit, and abutments, and removing damaged and loose elements. The rehabilitation works include patch repairing elements, including the parapet walls, retaining walls, fascia, soffit, and abutments, applying a corrosion inhibitor and pigmented sealer to the concrete parapet walls, placing new waterproofing material and installing new guard rails. Pigmented Sealer As part of the rehabilitation works, it is proposed that a Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI) be applied to the concrete parapet walls. The MCI is applied to help prevent corrosion. To conceal the MCI, it is proposed that a pigmented sealer be applied. This sealer is recommended to be a colour that most closely resembles the colour of concrete. New Guard Rails As part of the rehabilitation works, it is proposed that the existing guard rails be removed and replaced. The UDHCD Plan notes that the metal guard rails should be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green. It is not advised that stone guard rails be implemented due to health and safety risks, and applying a green pigment to the rails may create undue potential for required early maintenance due to possible pealing and cracking of the paint. It is proposed that the replacement guard rails use like materials to the current stainless-steel guard rails with timber posts. It is noted that the metal portion of the guard rail could be painted green if a pigment is available that is proven to be high quality and long lasting in application. Additional application details can be found in Appendix A to this report. Heritage Planning Comments In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff note the following: • Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District and therefore designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; Page 6 of 147 • The rehabilitation works proposed will repair and replace existing features using "like for like" materials; • Appropriate mitigation measures are recommended to address direct impacts to the bridges as a result of the rehabilitation works; and • The proposed rehabilitation works will not adversely impact the bridges, the character of Doon Village Road or the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Ontario Heritage Act APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — HPA-2022-V-004 Attachment B — Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Wood PLC, dated September 30, 2021 Page 7 of 147 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor ITCHENER P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning(cDkitchener.ca PART A: SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The following requirements are designed to assist applicants in submitting sufficient information in order that their Heritage Permit Application may be deemed complete and processed as quickly and efficiently as possible. If further assistance or explanation is required please contact heritage planning staff at heritage(cDkitchener.ca. 1. WHAT IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Heritage Act, has enacted legislation to assist its citizens with the protection and conservation of cultural heritage resources. Once properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, the City is enabled to manage physical change to the cultural heritage resources as a means of protection. The principal mechanism of management is the Heritage Permit Application process, which allows the municipality to review site-specific applications and determine if proposed changes will beneficially or detrimentally affect the reasons for designation and heritage attributes. As a general rule, the preferred alterations to heritage properties are those that repair rather than replace original heritage attributes, and those that do not permanently damage cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. Where replacement of materials or new construction is necessary, these should be compatible with the original. Reversibility is also preferable as this allows for the future reinstatement of heritage attributes. According to the Ontario Heritage Act, no owner of designated property shall alter the property or permit the alteration of the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property's heritage attributes, unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent. This consent is obtained through the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Heritage Permit Applications are applicable for all individually designated properties (under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act) and all properties located within the boundaries of Heritage Conservation Districts (designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). 2. WHEN IS A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIRED? Under the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, any new construction or "alteration" to a property designated under Part IV of the Act (individually designated property) or a property designated under Part V of the Act (within a Heritage Conservation District) requires a Heritage Permit Application. "Alteration" is defined as: "to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair or disturb." In addition, the approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required for any demolition of a property designated under Part IV or V of the Act. Please contact Heritage Planning staff directly to confirm if your specific project requires the approval of a Heritage Permit Application. Below are some examples of typical Part IV alterations that may require a Heritage Permit Application: • Addition and/or alteration to an existing building or accessory building • Replacement of windows or doors, or a change in window or door openings • Change in siding, soffit, fascia or roofing material • Removal and/or installation of porches, verandahs and canopies • Removal and/or installation of cladding and chimneys • Changes in trim, cladding, or the painting of masonry • Repointing of brick 2021 City of Kitchener— Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements Page l a'Re 11o49 Note: Heritage Permit Application requirements differ between Part V designations depending on the policies and guidelines of the respective Heritage Conservation District Plans. Please refer to the City of Kitchener's website at www.kitchener.ca/heritage to download a copy of the relevant Heritage Conservation District Plan (Civic Centre Neighbourhood, St. Mary's, Upper Doon, and Victoria Park Area). 3. WHAT INFORMATION IS REQUIRED WITH A HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? The information required varies with each application. The intent of the application is to ensure that Heritage Planning staff and, where required, the Heritage Kitchener committee understand the specific details of any proposed changes in order to be sufficiently informed so they may offer advice to the applicant and, where required, to City Council. An incomplete application cannot be processed and the official notice of receipt (as required under the Ontario Heritage Act) will not be issued until all of the documents have been submitted. Failure to provide a complete application may result in deferral by Heritage Planning staff or the Heritage Kitchener committee in order to secure additional information, which will delay final approval. At minimum, the following information is required: Heritage Permit Application Form The applicant must provide a complete original copy, including signature of the owner, of the Heritage Permit Application Form. Written Description The applicant must provide a complete written description of all proposed work. The description should complement drawings, detailed construction plans, photos and any other sketches or supporting information submitted with the application. The written description must include a list and the details of all proposed work including, but not limited to, proposed colours, materials, sizes, etc. Construction and Elevation Drawings Along with construction elevation drawings (drawn to scale) the applicant may also, but not in lieu of, submit a sketch of the proposed work made over a photograph. Drawings must be drawn to scale and include: a) Overall dimensions b) Site plan depicting the location of existing buildings and the location of any proposed new building or addition to a building c) Elevation plan for each elevation of the building d) Specific sizes of building elements of interest (signs, windows, awnings, etc.) e) Detailed information including trim, siding, mouldings, etc., including sizes and profiles f) Building materials to be used (must also be included in the written description) g) Construction methods and means of attachment (must also be included in the written description) Some of the above components may be scoped or waived at the discretion of Heritage Planning staff following discussion with the applicant. Photographs Photographs of the building including general photos of the property, the streetscape in which the property is located, facing streetscape and, if the property is located at an intersection, all four corners. Photos of the specific areas that may be affected by the proposed alteration, new construction, or demolition must be included. Electronic copies of construction and elevation drawings, sketches, and photographs, along with hard copies submitted with the application, are encouraged. Samples It is recommended that applicants bring samples of the materials to be used to the Heritage Kitchener meeting when their application is to be considered. This may include a sample of the windows, brick, siding, roofing material, as well as paint chips to identify proposed paint colours. 47 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements Page Mage 21ot b Other Required Information In some circumstances Heritage Planning staff may require additional information, such as a Heritage Impact Assessment or Conservation Plan, to support the Heritage Permit Application. The requirement for additional information will be identified as early on in the Heritage Permit Application process as possible. Pre - consultation with Heritage Planning staff before formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application is strongly encouraged. 4. WHAT CAN I DO IF MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION IS DENIED? City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff and the Heritage Kitchener committee endeavour to come to solutions for every Heritage Permit Application submitted. Discussions with the applicant and revisions usually result in successful applications. However, if the municipality refuses your application and you choose not to resolve the issue with a revised application, you have the option of appealing the decision to the Conservation Review Board (for alterations to designated properties under Part IV) or the Ontario Municipal Board (for demolition of property designated under Part IV or for any work to designated property under Part V). 5. IMPORTANT NOTES Professional Assistance Although it is not a requirement to obtain professional assistance in the preparation of this information, the applicant may wish to seek such assistance from an architect, architectural technologist, draftsperson or others familiar with the assessment of buildings and the gathering together of building documents. Building Codes and Other By-laws It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with all other applicable legislation, regulations and by-laws. These items include the Ontario Building and Fire Codes, and the City's zoning and property standards by-laws. 2021 Heritage Permit Application Submission Deadlines 2021 Heritage Kitchener Meeting Dates November 27, 2020 January 5, 2021 December 18, 2020 February 2, 2021 January 22, 2021 March 2, 2021 February 26, 2021 April 6, 2021 March 26, 2021 May 4, 2021 April 23, 2021 June 1, 2021 - No July Meeting June 25, 2021 August 3, 2021 July 30, 2021 September 7, 2021 August 27, 2021 October 5, 2021 September 24, 2021 November 2, 2021 October 29, 2021 December 7, 2021 Page 11� 2021 City of Kitchener— Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 31049 6. HOW DO I PROCEED WITH SUBMITTING MY HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION? a) Heritage Planning Staff are available to meet with applicants and review all documentation prior to formal submission. Often Heritage Planning staff can assist you with historical and architectural information that might help with your proposed changes. b) Formal submission of a Heritage Permit Application with all supporting documentation (written description, construction drawings, sketch plans, scale drawing, photographs) to Heritage Planning staff are due approximately five (5) weeks prior to a Heritage Kitchener meeting (see schedule for submission deadlines and committee meeting dates). c) Upon confirmation of the submission of a complete application, including the owner's signature and all supporting documentation, Heritage Planning staff will issue a Notice of Receipt, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act, to the Applicant. d) Heritage Planning staff determine whether the Heritage Permit Application may be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and/or Council. Where Heritage Permit Applications can be processed under delegated authority approval without the need to go to Heritage Kitchener and Council, Heritage Planning staff will endeavor to process the application within10 business days. e) Where Heritage Permit Applications are required to go to Heritage Kitchener, Heritage Planning staff prepare a staff Report based on good conservation practice and the designating by-law, or the guidelines and policies in the Heritage Conservation District Plan. Preparation of the staff Report may require a site inspection. f) Heritage Kitchener Meeting Agenda, including staff Report, circulated to Committee members prior to Heritage Kitchener meeting. Staff Report circulated to applicant prior to meeting. g) Heritage Permit Application is considered at Heritage Kitchener meeting. Heritage Planning staff present staff Report and Recommendations to Heritage Kitchener. Applicants are encouraged to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting in order to provide clarification and answer questions as required. Failure to attend the Heritage Kitchener meeting may result in a deferral in order to secure additional information, which would delay consideration of the Heritage Permit Application. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff, and Heritage Kitchener support the Heritage Permit Application, the application may be processed under delegated authority and approved by the Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Where the applicant, Heritage Planning staff and/or Heritage Kitchener do not support the Heritage Permit Application, the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation will be forwarded to Council for final decision. h) Where the staff report with recommendation and Heritage Kitchener recommendation are forward to Council for final decision, Council may: 1. Approve the Heritage Permit Application; 2. Approve the Heritage Permit Application on Terms and Conditions; or, 3. Refuse the Heritage Permit Application. i) Within 30 days of receiving Notice of Council's Decision, the applicant may appeal the decision and/or terms and conditions to the Conservation Review Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). 7. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNATED PROPERTY Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should indicate an understanding of the reasons for designation and heritage attributes of the designated property and, if applicable, the surrounding area, including the following: Page 1 2021 City of Kitchener— Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 41049 Setting 1. Positioning of the heritage building or structure on the property 2. Lot size related to building size 3. Streetscape (relationship to other properties and structures on the street) Building Details 1. Proportion and massing 2. Roof type and shape 3. Materials and detailing 4. Windows and doors: • Style • Proportions • Frequency or placement 5. Relationship of the heritage building to other buildings on the lot and to the streetscape Heritage Attributes The following applies where a Heritage Permit Application includes work on heritage attributes: Windows and Doors The applicant should consider in order of priority: 1. Repairing or retrofitting the existing units (information on how to make older windows more energy efficient is available from Heritage Planning staff) 2. Replacing the units with new units matching the originals in material, design, proportion and colour 3. Replacing the units with new units that are generally in keeping with the original units If historic window units are proposed to be replaced the application should include the following: • Description of the condition of the existing units • Reasons for replacing the units • Description of the proposed new units If approval to replace historic window units is given, the following action should be considered: • A sample of a window removed should be stored on site in case a future owner wishes to construct a replica of the original • The masonry opening and/or door framing should not be disturbed • Exterior trim should match the original Roofing The application should include: • Description of proposed roofing material to be applied • If there is a request to install a different roofing material, the applicant may wish to investigate what the original material might have been Masonry Work The application should include: • A description of the proposed work, materials (type/style of brick, type of mortar mix, etc.) and methods of repair and application • Outline the reasons for the work Page 1?n 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 51of 9 Signage The application should include: • A general written description of the proposed signage to be installed A scale drawing of the signage with dimensions, materials means of attachment (the means of attachment should be historic masonry units or into wood building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable Awnings The application should include: , methods of construction, colours and arranged to anchor into joints between • A sketch view of the proposed awning — perhaps over a photo A scale drawing of the awning on the building with dimensions, materials, operating mechanism, method of construction, colours and means of attachment (the means of attachment should be arranged to anchor into joints between masonry units or into wooden building elements) • Type of illumination, if applicable. 8. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION Information presented in the Heritage Permit Application should describe the existing conditions, including the existing setting and existing heritage attributes, of the designated property and the surrounding area, specifically as they relate to the building proposed for demolition. The Heritage Permit Application should provide a detailed rationale for the demolition, including an assessment of the current condition of the building, and a cost comparison identifying the difference in cost to repair and restore the building versus cost to demolish and construct a new building. 9. HERITAGE CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES The Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work (e.g., alteration, new construction or demolition) is consistent with the designating by-law for individual properties (Part IV) or the Heritage Conservation District Plan for properties within a Heritage Conservation District (Part V designation). In addition, the Heritage Permit Application must demonstrate how the proposed work is consistent with the Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (available at www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx). For more information on Heritage Planning in the City of Kitchener please contact our heritage planning staff at heritag Wa)kitchen er.ca. Page 1 147 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 1 6ot 9 HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION & SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Planning Division — 200 King Street West, 6th Floor ITCHENER P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2426; planning(cDkitchener.ca STAFF USE ONLY Date Received: Accepted By: Application Number: H PA -2021 - PART B: HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 1. NATURE OF APPLICATION ❑ Exterior ❑ Interior ❑ Signage ❑ Demolition ❑ New Construction 0 Alteration ❑ Relocation 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY Municipal Address: Doon Village Road Bridges (Bridge ID #802 and #803) are located on Doon Village Road, west of Doon South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Legal Description (if know): N/A Building/Structure Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Institutional Heritage Designation: ❑ Part IV (Individual) 0 Part V (Heritage Conservation District) Is the property subject to a Heritage Easement or Agreement? ❑ Yes 0 No 3. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Enaineerina Division. Citv of Kitchener Address: 200 King Street West City/Province/Postal Code: Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7144 Email: Shailesh.shah(a)kitchener.ca 4. AGENT (if applicable) Name: Matthew Gallowa Company: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Address: 3450 Harvester Road City/Province/Postal Code: Burlington, ON, L7N 3W5 Phone: 905-335-2353 Email: matthew.galloway(a)woodplc.com 2021 City of Kitchener— Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements Page 11age 71o49 5. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION Provide a written description of the project including any conservation methods proposed. Provide such detailas materials to be used, measurements, paint colours, decorative details, whether any original building fabricis to be removed or replaced, etc. Use additional pages as required. Please refer to the City of Kitchener Heritage Permit Application Submission Guidelines for further direction. Proposed Work The proposed work involves restoration of Doon Bridges 1 and 2. Both bridges have cultural heritage value or interest and contribute to the cultural heritage of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. Rehabilitation has been designed to retain the heritage attributes of the bridges while increasing their lifespan. Proposed rehabilitation includes the removal of deteriorated components of bridge elements and replacement with in-kind new elements. The rehabilitation is designed to retain the existing physical form of the bridges including their character defining elements. The proposed work is comprised of the rehabilitation of Doon Bridges #1 and #2, including: Doon Bridge #1 (Bridge 802) o Remove existing asphalt and granular material o Remove waterproofing from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from parapet walls o Remove deteriorated concrete from retaining walls, fascia, soffit and abutments o Remove loose aggregate from soffit o Remove damaged sidewalk panels o Remove existing steel beam guide rails on approach o Patch repair parapet walls o Patch repair retaining walls, fascia, soffit and abutments o Apply Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI) and pigmented sealer to concrete parapet walls o Place 75mm concrete overlay with Galvanic CP Anodes over central 12m of deck o Place new waterproofing, granular material and asphalt o Install new steel beam guide rails on approaches o Repair gabion wall on south-east corner Doon Bridge #2 (Bridge 803) o Remove existing asphalt and granular material o Remove waterproofing from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from parapet walls o Remove deteriorated concrete from retaining walls, fascia, soffit and abutments o Remove loose aggregate from soffit o Remove damaged sidewalk panels o Remove existing steel beam guide rails on approach o Patch repair parapet walls o Patch repair retaining walls, fascia, soffit and abutments o Apply Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI) and pigmented sealer to concrete parapet walls o Place 75mm concrete overlay with Galvanic CP Anodes over central 12m of deck o Place new waterproofing, granular material and asphalt Page 1 147 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 1 8ot 9 o Install new steel beam guide rails on approaches o Repair slope protection on north-west corner Wood has completed a Heritage Impact Assessment for the Doon Village Road Bridges that considers impacts to the heritage character of the bridges and recommends mitigative measures to alleviate significant impacts to the heritage defining elements of the bridge. Recommendations from the report are provided below (Wood 2021). 1) Regarding the proposed rehabilitation work for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 involving the removal of deteriorated bridge components and replacement in kind with new element: a. The application of pigmented sealer should be physically and visually compatible with the existing structures. The colour selected for the sealer should be light grey in keeping with the existing colour of the bridges. b. Rehabilitation measures should be designed in a manner that retains the existing physical form of the bridge and uses a "like for like" strategy where possible. 2) Regarding new guide rails proposed for the bridge approaches: a. The current guide rails are galvanized steel with timber posts. New guide rails should use like materials or be painted green if a high quality and durable green paint is available and is proven to be long lasting in this application. This recommendation gives due consideration to Policy 5.13.3 of the Upper Doon HCD Plan. 3) Regarding Doon Bridges #1 and #2 location within the Upper Doon HCD. a. The locations of protected heritage properties in close proximity to the planned work should be noted on project documents so that project personnel and construction crews are aware of the presence of these heritage properties. Heritage properties in close proximity to the proposed work that should be noted on project documents include 1252 Biehn Park and 1265 Doon Village Road. Staging areas for the rehabilitation work should avoid these properties. b. The following note should be included on project drawings 4) Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD). All properties in the Upper Doon HCD are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Use caution during construction to avoid historical buildings and landscape features (trees, watercourse, historical plaques) in this area. See Appendix A for the detailed design drawings. The pigmented sealer to be applied to the parapet walls is available in a wide range of colours, including various shades of grey and beige. It is proposed that the city can select a colour from paint swatches that have been compared to the existing concrete. The Product Data Sheet and photographs of the colour options can be found in Appendix B. Photographs of the existing physical form of the bridges and identified heritage attributes to be maintained can be found in Appendix C. 6. REVIEW OF CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Describe why it is necessary to undertake the proposed work: Wood was retained by the City of Kitchener to carry out Detailed Bridge and Culvert Inspection Reports in 2017. These reports resulted in the creation of Structural Assessment Reports for Doon Village Road Bridge 1 and 2. These reports recommended options for extending the lifespan of the Page 1 2021 City of Kitchener— Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 91049 bridges. Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Part IV individual designating by-law or the Part V Heritage Conservation District Plan: Wood's HIA report considered the bridges significance as a standalone pair of bridges and in relation to their Part V designation within the Upper Doon HCD. Wood submitted a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest to the City of Kitchener as part of that HIA report detailing the cultural heritage attributes of the bridges. These attributes are listed below. • Heritage attributes of Doon Bridge #1: o The current location of the bridge on an east -west orientation crossing Schneider Creek o The earth filled spandrel arched construction. o The three concrete parapet walls including the rectangular inlay on both sides of the three parapet walls. o The separated pedestrian walkway along the south elevation of the bridge that allows for pedestrian circulation through the area and appreciation of the historic and natural surroundings. o Single lane configuration o Spatial relationship to Doon Bridge #2, which together form a rare pair of surviving single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges o The views north and south of Schneider Creek from the bridge deck. • Heritage attributes of Doon Bridge #2: o The current location of the bridge on an east -west orientation crossing Schneider Creek o The earth filled spandrel arched construction. o The three concrete parapet walls including the rectangular inlay on both sides of the three parapet walls. o The separated pedestrian walkway along the south elevation of the bridge that allows for pedestrian circulation through the area and appreciation of the historic and natural surroundings. o Single lane configuration o Spatial relationship to Doon Bridge #1, which together form a rare pair of surviving single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges o The views north and south of Schneider Creek from the bridge deck. The proposed interventions do not have a negative impact on the above listed heritage attributes. The application of a pigmented sealer on the concrete will have the effect of adding a uniformity to the concrete finish that has been compromised by recent interventions. The coating will be light grey in keeping with the bridges' original concrete colouring. The replacement plan for the new guide rails gives due consideration to Policy 5.13.3 of the Upper Doon HCD Plan, that states, "metal guardrails shall be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green". However, the current guide rails are stainless steel with timber posts. It has been recommended that guardrails should use like materials or be painted green if a high quality and durable green paint is available and is proven to be long lasting in this application. This recommendation allows for the project to adhere to safety regulations and best practices. Describe how the proposal is consistent with Parks Canada's Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (www.historicplaces. ca/en/pages/standards- Page 1 P 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 1� of normes.aspx): The rehabilitation strategy for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 is consistent with Parks Canada's 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada in many respects including but not limited to those listed below. This design approach involves minimal intervention, adhering to Standard 3 (Parks Canada 2010:26). Standard 3 states, "in the case of a historic bridge that is unable to support current traffic loads, minimal intervention might well mean significant interventions to assure public safety." This proposed rehabilitation retains the character defining elements and overall bridge form and function. The Guidelines for Engineering Works, Constructed Elements (Section 4.4.1) states that, "repairs might include limited replacement `in kind', or replacement with an appropriate substitute material, of irreparable or missing components, based on physical or documentary evidence" (Parks Canada 2010: 198).The materials proposed for this project, including the proposed application of sealer to protect concrete and the plan for guardrail replacement are designed to be sympathetic and compatible with the current form. Section 4.4.1 states that failing to undertake necessary repairs, resulting in the loss of constructed elements, or demolishing and replacing of an existing structure when repair is possible is not recommended (Parks Canada 2010: 198). This minimally invasive rehabilitation plan prevents the need for replacement of the heritage structures. The Guidelines for Materials, Concrete (Section 4.5.4), states that protecting and maintaining concrete by preventing moisture penetration, maintaining proper drainage; improving water shedding; and by preventing overuse of ice -clearing chemicals is recommended. The project design is meant to protect the integrity of the concrete and bridge surface by preventing moisture penetration (Parks Canada 2011: 231). 7. PROPOSED WORKS a) Expected start date: July 2022 Expected completion date: November 2022 b) Have you discussed this work with Heritage Planning Staff? ❑x Yes ❑ No - If yes, who did you speak to? Victoria Grohn, Michelle Drake c) Have you discussed this work with Building Division Staff? ❑ Yes ❑x No - If yes, who did you speak to?_ d) Have you applied for a Building Permit for this work? ❑ Yes ❑x No e) Other related Building or Planning applications: Application number_ 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned acknowledges that all of the statements contained in documents filed in support of this application shall be deemed part of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that receipt of this application by the City of Kitchener - Planning Division does not guarantee it to be a `complete' application. The undersigned acknowledges that the Council of the City of Kitchener shall determine whether the information submitted forms a complete application. Further review of the application will be undertaken andthe owner or agent may be contacted to provide additional information and/or resolve any discrepancies or issues with the application as submitted. Once the Page 1 ls 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 111 of application is deemed to be fully complete, the applicationwill be processed and, if necessary, scheduled for the next available Heritage Kitchener committee and Council meeting. Submission of this application constitutes consent for authorized municipal staff to enterupon the subject property for the purpose of conducting site visits, including taking photographs, which are necessary for the evaluation of this application. The undersigned acknowledges that where an agent has been identified, the municipality is authorized but not required to contact this person in lieu of the owner and this person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner for all matters respecting the application. The undersigned agrees that the proposed work shall be done in accordance with this application and understands that the approval of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act shall not be a waiver of anyof the provisions of any by-law of the City of Kitchener or legislation including but not limited to the requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning By-law. The undersigned acknowledges that in the eventthis application is approved, any departure from the conditions imposed by the Council of the City of Kitcheneror from the plans or specifications approved by the Council of the City of Kitchener is prohibited and could result in a fine being imposed or imprisonment as provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 16 Dec 2021 Signature of Owner's representative J Date: 16 Dec 2021 Page 1 M 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 1 of 9. AUTHORIZATION If this application is being made by an agent on behalf of the property owner, the following authorization mustbe completed: I / We, Engineering Division, City of Kitchener, owner of the land that is subject of this application, hereby authorize Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions to act on my / our behalf in this regard. Signature of Owner's representative: �'% -_ Date: 16 Dec 2021 Signature of Owner/Agent: Date: 16 Dec 2021 Design Engineer, Engineering Division, City of Kitchener The personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of Section 33(2), Section 42(2), and Section 42(2.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The information will be used for the purposes of administering the Heritage Permit Application and ensuring appropriate service of notice of receipt under Section 33(3) and Section 42(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If you have any questions about this collection of personal information, please contact the Manager of Corporate Records, Legislated Services Division, City of Kitchener (519-741-2769). STAFF USE ONLY Application Number: Application Received: Application Complete: Notice of Receipt: Notice of Decision: 90 -Day Expiry Date: Page 21� 2021 City of Kitchener - Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements age 1 of PROCESS: ❑ Heritage Planning Staff:_ ❑ Heritage Kitchener:_ ❑ Council: 2021 City of Kitchener — Heritage Permit Application & Submission Requirements Page 2 age 1141V Heritage Impact Assessment: Doon Village Road Bridge Rehabilitation Doon Bridge #1 and #2, (Bridge ID #802 and #803) City of Kitchener, Ontario Project # IM24708011 Prepared for: City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4V6 wood. Page 22 of 147 Heritage Impact Assessment: Doon Village Road Bridge Rehabilitation Doon Bridge #1 and #2 (Bridge ID #802 and 803), City of Kitchener, Ontario Planning Act Assessment Project: IM24108011 Prepared for: City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4V6 Prepared by: Wood Group Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited 50 Vogell Road, Unit 3 Richmond Hill, ON, 1_413 3K6 T: 647-689-4958 30 -Sep -21 Copyright and non -disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (Wood Group). save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third -party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. wood. Page 23 of 147 City of Kitchener Executive Summary Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Exective Summary Wood PLC (Wood) was retained by the City of Kitchener to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in support of the restoration of Doon Village Road Bridges #1 and #2 (the Study Area). These bridges are owned by the City of Kitchener. Given that the proposed work is contained within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD), which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that both bridges were previously identified as having potential cultural heritage value, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required. The Study Area consists of Doon Bridges #1 and #2, also known as Schneider Creek Bridge #1 and #2, or Bridges #802 and 803, respectively. These are single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges constructed in the 1920s. The two almost identical single span bridges each cover 21.3 m across Schneider Creek in an east to west orientation and are 8.1 m wide. The bridges have undergone previous sympathetic rehabilitation and remain in situ. The bridges form a culturally significant group of two rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, as they are the last two of their kind in the City of Kitchener. Both bridges are located within the Upper Doon HCD. This HIA reviews and evaluates the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the two bridges and drafts a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest that identifies the contributing cultural heritage attributes of each bridge. The potential impacts of the proposed rehabilitation to the bridges, surrounding protected heritage properties, and the HCD are also addressed. This report also includes recommendations on conservation strategies and mitigation measures in accordance with Section 12 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (Region of Waterloo 2014: 12.C.1.23 to 12.C.1.28) and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2011). Following background research, information gathering, and evaluation against the criteria outlined in Spanning Generations, A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region, Phase 2 Heritage Assessment: Section 3.2.2 to 3.2.3 and the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, it was determined that Doon Bridge #1 and #2 have cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI). The Doon Bridges are a rare surviving pair of earth filled reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges located within the Upper Doon HCD. The bridges, built in 1924 and 1929 respectively, are the two oldest bridges of their kind in the City of Kitchener. Both single lane bridges consist of a span crossing Schneider Creek on an east to west orientation. Their single lane design acts to restrict the speed of traffic along Doon Village Road, which helps to preserve the quiet historical character of the Upper Doon HCD, while the bridges pedestrian walkways facilitate a circulation path through the HCD. Their understated parapet walls with a low profile and attractive arch design coupled with their location in the vicinity of several heritage structures and the ruins of the historic Doon (Perine) flax mill, allow for views of the natural beauty of Schneider Creek and the structural vestiges of the historic HCD. The bridges contribute to the central themes of the surrounding HCD and are connected to the community. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made: 1) Regarding the proposed rehabilitation work for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 involving the removal of deteriorated bridge components and replacement in kind with new element: i. The application pigmented sealer should be physically and visually compatible with the existing structures. The colour selected for the sealer should be light grey in keeping with the existing colour of the bridges. wood. Page 24 of 147 City of Kitchener Executive Summary Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment ii. Rehabilitation measures should be designed in a manner that retains the existing physical form of the bridge and uses a "like for like" strategy where possible. 2) Regarding new guard rails proposed for the bridge approaches: i. The current guardrails are stainless steel with timber posts. New guardrails should use like materials or be painted green if a high quality and durable green paint is available and is proven to be long lasting in this application. This recommendation gives due consideration to Policy 5.13.3 of the Upper Doon HCD Plan. 3) Regarding Doon Bridges #1 and #2 location within the Upper Doon HCD. i. The locations of protected heritage properties in close proximity to the planned work should be noted on project documents so that project personnel and construction crews are aware of the presence of these heritage properties. Heritage properties in close proximity to the proposed work that should be noted on project documents include 1252 Biehn Park and 1265 Doon Village Road. Staging areas for the rehabilitation work should avoid these properties. ii. The following note should be included on project drawings: Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD). All properties in the Upper Doon HCD are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Use caution during construction to avoid historical buildings and landscape features (trees, watercourse, historical plaques) in this area. 4) One heritage alteration permit detailing the proposed interventions to both bridges must be submitted and approved prior to commencement of work on the Doon Bridges. The City of Kitchener heritage permit application is available online. wood. Page 25 of 147 City of Kitchener Project Personnel Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Description and Location of Property..................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Tasks Completed.....................................................................................................................2 2.0 Methodology.....................................................................................................................6 2.1 Regulatory Requirements......................................................................................................6 History of the Study Area....................................................................................................14 2.1.1 Planning Act.......................................................................................................................................................6 Indigenous Land Use....................................................................................................................................14 2.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement..........................................................................................................................6 2.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act.......................................................................................................................................6 3.3.1 2.2 Planning Policies.....................................................................................................................7 3.3.2 2.3 Guidance Documents..............................................................................................................9 3.3.3 2.4 Background Research...........................................................................................................11 3.4 2.5 Information Gathering.........................................................................................................12 3.4.1 2.6 Field Review...........................................................................................................................12 3.4.2 2.7 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................12 3.5 3.0 Historical Context........................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Physiography.........................................................................................................................14 3.2 History of the Study Area....................................................................................................14 3.2.1 Indigenous Land Use....................................................................................................................................14 3.3 Township Survey and Settlement.......................................................................................14 3.3.1 Waterloo Township, Waterloo County...................................................................................................14 3.3.2 Village of Doon...............................................................................................................................................15 3.3.3 The Doon (Perine Mill) Flax Mill................................................................................................................16 3.4 Review of Historical Mapping.............................................................................................16 3.4.1 19th Century Land Use.................................................................................................................................16 3.4.2 20th Century Land Use.................................................................................................................................17 3.5 Bridge Drawings....................................................................................................................18 wood. Page 26 of 147 City of Kitchener Project Personnel Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 3.6 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................18 3.6.1 Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District........................................................................................18 3.6.2 Spanning the Generations (Region of Waterloo 2004)...................................................................19 3.6.3 Arch Truss and Beam, The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory .....................19 3.6.4 OSIM (2018).....................................................................................................................................................19 3.6.5 Structural Survey and Assessment Report Bridge # 802 — Doon Village Road Bridge #1 .19 3.6.6 Structural Survey and Assessment Report Bridge # 803 — Doon Village Road Bridge #2.19 4.0 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Information Gathering.........................................................................................................26 4.2 Field Review Results.............................................................................................................26 4.2.1 Doon Bridge #1 (802)...................................................................................................................................26 4.2.2 Doon Bridge #2 (803)...................................................................................................................................33 5.0 Heritage Evaluation........................................................................................................ 41 5.1 Spanning the Generations Evaluation................................................................................41 5.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act.....................................................44 5.3 Summary of Evaluation........................................................................................................48 5.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest............................................................48 5.4.1 Doon Bridge#1...............................................................................................................................................48 5.4.2 Doon Bridge#2...............................................................................................................................................51 6.0 Impact Assessment.......................................................................................................... 54 6.1 Description of the Proposed Work.....................................................................................54 6.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts........................................................................................55 6.2.1 Summary of Potential Impacts..................................................................................................................57 6.3 Mitigations Measures...........................................................................................................57 6.3.1 Discussion of Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................59 7.0 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 61 8.0 Assessor Qualifications................................................................................................... 63 9.0 Closure..............................................................................................................................64 wood. Page 27 of 147 City of Kitchener Project Personnel Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 10.0 Sources............................................................................................................................. 66 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Review of 19th Century Historical Mapping..................................................................................... 16 Table 2: Review of 20th Century Historical Mapping..................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Review of 20' and 21St Century Historical Records....................................................................... 17 Table 4: Spanning the Generations Heritage Assessment of Doon Bridges #1 and #2 .................... 41 Table 5: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation of Doon Bridge#1......................................................................................44 Limitations Table 6: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation of Doon Bridge#2......................................................................................46 Table 7: Evaluation of Potential Direct Impacts to Doon Bridge #1 ......................................................... 56 Table 8: Evaluation of Potential Indirect Impacts to Doon Bridge#1...................................................... 56 Table 9: Evaluation of Potential Direct Impacts to Doon Bridge#2......................................................... 56 Table 10: Evaluation of Potential Indirect Impacts to Doon Bridge#2................................................... 57 Table 11: Proposed Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................... 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of the Study Area.......................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Aerial Photograph Showing Location of the Study Area...............................................................4 Figure 3: Site Context of Doon Bridges..................................................................................................................5 Figure 4: Topographic Map Showing the Location of the Study Area .................................................... 21 Figure 5: 1861 Map of the County of Waterloo Showing the Location of the Study Area .............. 22 Figure 6: 1881 illustrated Historical Atlas Map of the County of Waterloo Showing the Location ofthe Study Area......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7: 1916 Topographic Map of Ontario, Galt Sheet Showing the Location of the Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 8: 1938 Topographic Map of Ontario, Galt Sheet Showing the Location of the Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Aerial Photographs Appendix B: Information Gathering Appendix C: Original Bridge Drawings Appendix D: Bridge Rehabilitation Drawings (1986) Appendix E: Proposed Work Appendix F: Conservation Standards and Guidelines Appendix G: Assesor Qualifications Appendix H: Limitations wood. Page 28 of 147 City of Kitchener Abbreviations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Project Personnel Project Manager: Matthew Galloway Cultural Heritage Specialists: Luke Fischer, M.A., CAHP Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Report Preparation: Chelsea Dickinson, B.A. (R1194) Luke Fischer, M.A., CAHP Graphics: Stephen LaBute Report Reviewers: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Peter Popkin, Ph.D., CAHP, MCIfA Acknowledgements Karla Barboza Acting Team Lead, Heritage, Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries Kevin DeMille Heritage Planner, Ontario Heritage Trust Victoria Grohn Heritage Planner, Planning Division, City of Kitchener wood. Page 29 of 147 City of Kitchener Abbreviations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Abbreviations CHVI Cultural Heritage Value or Interest HIA Heritage Impact Assessment MHSTCI Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries OHA Ontario Heritage Act PPS Provincial Policy Statement SCHV Statement of Cultural Heritage Value wood. Page 30 of 147 City of Kitchener Glossary Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Glossary Adjacent lands Those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan (Government of Ontario 2020). Built Heritage Resource: Means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registers (Government of Ontario 2020). Conserved: Means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments (Government of Ontario 2020). Cultural Heritage Landscape: Means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Cultural heritage landscapes may be properties that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other land use planning mechanisms (Government of Ontario 2020). wood. Page 31 of 147 City of Kitchener Glossary Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Glossary Heritage Attributes: Means the principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritage property's cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property's built, constructed, or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritage property) (Government of Ontario 2020). Protected Heritage Property: Means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites (Government of Ontario 2020). Significant: In regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act (Government of Ontario 2020). Woad. Page 32 of 147 City of Kitchener Introduction Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Description and Location of Property Wood PLC (Wood) was retained by the City of Kitchener to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in support of the rehabilitation of Doon Village Road Bridges #1 and #2 (Bridge ID #802 and 803). The Study Area, consisting of Doon Bridges #1 and #2, is located on Doon Village Road approximately 60 m west of Doon South Drive, in the City of Kitchener, within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Both bridges are owned by the City of Kitchener. An HIA is required because both bridges are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD), which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and both bridges were previously identified as having potential cultural heritage value. Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges constructed in 1924 and 1929, respectively. The two almost identical single span bridges each cover 21.3 m across Schneider Creek in an east to west orientation and are 8.1 m wide. The bridges have undergone previous sympathetic rehabilitation and remain in situ. They have geometric decorative inlay along their parapet walls and a single lane driving surface separated from a pedestrian walkway located along the southern elevation. The bridges form a culturally significant group of two rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, as they are the last two of their kind in the City of Kitchener. Both bridges are situated within the Upper Doon HCD, which is protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (Figure 3). 1.2 Objectives This HIA reviews and evaluates the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of the two bridges and includes a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest that identifies the contributing cultural heritage attributes of each bridge. The report then assesses potential impacts of the proposed rehabilitation to the bridges, surrounding protected heritage properties, and to the HCD they are located within. The HIA then provides recommendations on conservation strategies and mitigation measures in accordance with Section 12 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (Region of Waterloo 2014: 12.C.1.23 to 12.C.1.28). This HIA is guided by the City of Kitchener Terms of Reference for preparing HIAs. Additionally, the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) InfoSheet#5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans contained in the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (Government of Ontario 2006) was used to guide the completion of this study. To evaluate the CHVI of the Doon Bridge #1 and #2, they were reviewed using the criteria outlined in Spanning the Generations: A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region, Phase 2 Heritage Assessment (Region of Waterloo 2004:Section 3.2.2 to 3.2.4) and against Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Per the guidance contained in InfoSheet #5, this report contains the following: • Historical research, site analysis, and evaluation • Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource • Description of the proposed development or site alteration wood. Page 33 of 147 City of Kitchener Introduction Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment • Measurement of development or site alteration impact • Consideration of alternatives, mitigation, and conservation methods • Implementation and monitoring • Summary statement and conservation recommendations 1.3 Tasks Completed The tasks completed for the preparation of this HIA, are guided by the documents outlined above and include: • Background Research and Information Gathering: Background research was completed to understand the history of the Study Area. Information gathering with the City of Kitchener, MHSTCI, and the Ontario Heritage Trust was carried out to determine the presence of listed and designated cultural heritage resources in the Study Area. • Field Investigation: Fieldwork was completed to establish the existing conditions of the bridges and identify heritage attributes. • Heritage Evaluation: A full heritage evaluation was completed determine the cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI) of each bridge. The evaluation included a detailed evaluation against each criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and the evaluation criteria contained in Spanning the Generations: A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region (Region of Waterloo 2004). • A Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance was drafted for both bridges once it was determined that they met the criteria to be designated under Part IV of O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act • Impact Assessment: The results of the heritage evaluation determined the bridges had CHVI, as a result an Impact assessment was completed. The impact assessment includes a description of the proposed work and details how the proposed work will impact the heritage attributes of the bridges. The impact assessment was prepared using the guidance set out in the MHSTCI's InfoSheet #5 of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. • Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures, conservation methods, and/or alternative development options are discussed, and recommended mitigation options are provided, including next steps for the Doon Village Road Bridge Rehabilitation Plan. wood. Page 34 of 147 Z Q m HE = C) C) u) o N c C, Qoo z0 O N a a O O ? _ z ZJ�O Wm <— Q w p� r e` c7 O Y UJ W 1 o O N= a po F LL,O-'#0 < j m ` F a i 0 N d 0 ll ❑ U W w O zD 0 C Z iZ0ID fhUr W(n 40_fJw F U) OU z�r W � O N mO U�� 'r LQ¢00 Z7r+<H-q O c Z u° CL U�oW S 11 In ¢ r `—OZ O ca (no m a m O o<omU LL (WE X m w 4- � J� 0 OLry=� w �dONF W X#Y (} z mZo d ^� ❑Mr d Q U O�� �a� d ptfQCj !C S O S �, U W Z0 LL0 ¢ zo O jHo a N W w w U x ++7z eo0 U a t'n a o ¢Y F Q U ¢ Ozw. � Sgv ¢ CZ r m FV_ 0�2 w�y*U =jW O r ea 2 N GO W W z� o a ww CCD Y E U - Z z0 OOG ? �' 3>z° F a C) U) ® OO LU o �m °z �� o z �a �lpa 0 u2d. ? m z g o z z cwa W a `x W J 2 w W 3 L❑ a > W CIL H J z H3Lr ¢ 0 rY0 ❑ ❑ S 009909V OOZ9096 00911096 0066086 0001,086 009£O84 00NO8b 009ZC911CD OObZOBb 7 O� 3 00 7 Z c co IV CD � Q5Syh1AC�'� O N m O CN ?� O a Q� rl 4 d O� 3, o o � o 004 w rz—� 4r 1 � ` C w w ; w o o yap�� OLS U� z OQO� C7 � w 0 14 �s �4u �/ (J ID M tr CL 0 cc ul Lu N o° vQe� z a o LO N 0090084 OOZ9094 0084084 00640811 0004094 009£094 OOZ£084 009ZC84 OO4Z084 b-P'LOOLON-LOOL"QOOL"LLUSOVLZYLI\6018 OVO.4.V\bLgM-U\ebPtp4-0 'Z d L BbPl16 Ptl —0 - I—q.11N 1. FllO - LLOSOYLZYYI\-',110 NOLLWO01 3113 Yid b4'£S:L LZOZ/L/6 :031PO1d 31YO Z m O T x rc c 0 o z=z0 t= -w W. o �QNrG z1Y 6 u� Y v NFa o g yxoF OD 'w o N C z Qi • .�,Zp Tel u..o _ ao�w i� ?w g d) !26 v2a�m �/ o O ammx aw �� oo pp8 0: me m= =g a> xa w Ymo 1 oo� Nozy cwo� O x� m o o� w�zx Owow oz x0 aU i oF� i - �� �Qo 3 o. 44< SjWO a ?��ryw� U 8 .. ZO Q m z N w �m a Z❑ J ¢�¢z� W. w o8a 0 tt�� W m j E SRU O K O gg T k a ` � /bOH1�Os .. - NOOO � 1,1 a a - w w�iw i= i� - �weortzw��wo wa\•vafwsuesiaaervr\�zox\'d apurxl n� wa , �.�... ami✓w :mi ion .�r� 08 E g = e wmo C7 i 0 oo u O �Ym° j J 'o w .w 1 Vo12 fn ��g TV\ d � -LL �w� c7w timo� 0 o N o o p o� w �� a Q)�o L g wxF >>rcm oa"' o yozp O U a o u w a a� aom o�o z .. > 50 GS 'm< o m=o p w a Ymz ooh-wJ� o mom O 2� .. o 5 w ��om z wN= o-� waw �oo 3 a ow q °oma U co0 ¢wz� � p °o _ x W e wgu zo a ?> 'ma ups ..aw o a m rc o may 3 E u o rc O li o J N a x z foo oWo omol ❑: ® = � City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Regulatory Requirements The requirements to consider cultural heritage under the Planning Act process are found in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Government of Ontario 2020) and the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 (Government of Ontario 1990a) 2.1.1 Planning Act Development and land use on privately owned or municipally owned property in Ontario is subject to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (Government of Ontario 1990b). The Planning Act lays out the "ground rules" for land use planning in Ontario and includes direction for the provincial and local administration of planning matters in the province. The Planning Act also enables municipalities to develop Official Plans, which are to set goals, objectives, and policies to manage and direct local land use (Government of Ontario 1990b). Under the Planning Act, planning authorities are responsible for local planning decisions and creating local planning documents (i.e., Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and Heritage Conservation District Plans) that are consistent with the PPS and other applicable provincial legislation, such as the Ontario Heritage Act. 2.1.2 Provincial Policy Statement The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development (Government of Ontario 2020:1). The PPS is applicable to the entire Province of Ontario. Under the PPS, the conservation of cultural heritage is identified as a matter of provincial interest. Section 2.6 of the PPS gives direction on the consideration of cultural heritage and archaeology (Government of Ontario 2020:31). Specifically, the following direction is given regarding built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and protected heritage properties: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. (Government of Ontario 2020) 2.1.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to protect heritage properties and archaeological sites (Government of Ontario 1990a). The Ontario Heritage Act includes two regulations for determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI): O. Reg. 9/06 and O. Reg. 10/06. O. Reg. 9/06 provides criteria to determine the CHVI of a property at a local level while O. Reg. 10/06 provides criteria to determine if a property has CHVI of provincial significance. For this study, O. Reg. 9/06 is used to determine the CHVI of both Doon Village Road Bridges. The criteria for determining CHVI under O. Reg. 9/06 are: 2. The property has design value or physical value because it, wood. Page 38 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 3. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 4. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. (Government of Ontario 2006) 2.2 Planning Policies The development of the City of Kitchener is guided by the City of Kitchener Official Plan (Official Plan) (Region of Waterloo 2014). The Official Plan contains policies for cultural heritage in Section 12, Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans (Region of Waterloo 2014: 12.C.1.23 to 12.C.1.28). Policies relevant to this HIA include: 12.C.1.23 The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.C.4.6 through 13.C.4.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.C.1.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 12.C.1.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.C.1.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum wood. Page 39 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans. 12.C.1.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impact or potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. In addition to the City of Kitchener Official Plan, both bridges are situated in the Upper Doon HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HCD Plan contains one policy that is relevant to the Doon Village Road Bridges: Policy 5.13.3 i) Doon Village Road: The single lane bridges shall be retained. The metal guardrails shall be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green. In addition, the City of Kitchener Official Plan contains policies on public works located in an HCD: 12.C.1.37 The City will ensure that all private and public works projects affecting a cultural heritage resource will be consistent with the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, and where such projects are within or adjacent to a Heritage Conservation District, they will be consistent with the guidelines and the policies of the applicable Heritage Conservation District Plan. Private and public works projects may require the submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment, Heritage Conservation Plan and/or Heritage Permit Application. wood. Page 40 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 2.3 Guidance Documents 2.3.1.1 Identification and Evaluation of Heritage Properties The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, provides a framework for the protection of cultural heritage resources in the Province. It gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to protect heritage properties and archaeological sites. The MHSTCI is responsible for the administration of the Ontario Heritage Act and has developed checklists, information bulletins, standards and guidelines, and policies to support the conservation of Ontario's cultural heritage resources, including built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites. The MHSTCI Ontario Heritage Toolkit gives guidance and information on the heritage conservation process in Ontario (MHSTCI 2017). Specifically, the information sheets contained in the Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 were used to guide the general preparation of this report (MHSTCI 2006). InfoSheet#5 was used to guide the assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed work. The direct and indirect impacts that are assessed in this HIA include: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or significant relationship • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in formerly open spaces • Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource. The results of the impact assessment are presented in Section 6.0 of this report. 2.3.1.2 City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessments Terms of Reference Per the City of Kitchener HIA Terms of Reference, this report is drafted in accordance with the following: 2.1 Present owner contact information for the properties proposed for development and/or site alteration 2.2 A detailed site history to include a listing from the land Registry Office, and a history of the site uses(s) (Note that these are bridges located within the public realm. Original bridge drawings were examined in lieu of land registry research) 2.3 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The description will also include a chronological history of the buildings' development, such as additions and demolitions. wood. Page 41 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest of the subject property as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. If applicable, the statement shall also address the value and significance of adjacent protected heritage property. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details Documentation shall also include where available, current floor plans., and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed repair, alteration or development, its context, and how it will impact the properties (subject property and if applicable adjacent protected heritage properties) including buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping. In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed work on the identified heritage attributes of the properties, shall be assessed. The Heritage impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: repair/alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject properties and adjacent protected heritage property. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resource may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to, preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, integration of all or part of the heritage resource, relocation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. 2.7 A summary of applicable heritage conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. Conservation principles may be found in online publications such as: The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada); Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport); and The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport). 2.8 Proposed repairs, alterations and demolitions must bejustified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighborhood context. 2.9 Recommendations should be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of personal understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation The summary statement should provide a full description of: The significance and heritage attributes of the subject properties The identification of any impact the proposed repair, alteration or development will have on the wood. Page 42 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment heritage attributes of the subject properties, including adjacent heritage protected property. • An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development, or site alteration approaches are recommended. • Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. 4 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject properties are worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support heritage designation then it must be clearly stated as to why the subject property does not meet the criteria as stated in Regulation 9/06. The following questions must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Do the properties meet the criteria for listing on the Municipal Heritage Register as a Non -Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest? 2. Do the properties meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. If the subject properties do not meet the criteria for heritage listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why not. 4. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage listing or designation, do the properties warrant conservation as per the definition the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not. 5. Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact assessment and one digital pdf copy shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard copies and digital copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The HIA will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the HIA by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one digital copy of the final HIA (DRAFT watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final HIA may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting may not be scheduled until the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee has been provided an opportunity to review and provide feedback to the City. HIA's may be subject to peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted HIA will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the HIA may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. (City of Kitchener 2020) 2.4 Background Research Background research was carried out during the preparation of this HIA to gain a thorough understanding of the historical context of the Study Area. Primary sources, secondary sources, historical maps, and aerial photographs were consulted, as appropriate, to identify historical themes relevant to the Study Area. Specifically, research regarding the physiography, survey and settlement, 19th century land use, and 20th wood, Page 43 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment century land use of the Study Area was completed. A review of historical mapping and aerial photographs was also conducted to identify settlements, structures, and landscape features within, and adjacent to, the Study Area. Historical maps from 1861,1881,1916, 1938, and 1958 were reviewed. In addition, aerial photos from 1945,1955, and 1963 and recent Google Earth imagery were reviewed to identify changes within, and adjacent to, the Study Area. The results of the background research are presented in Section 3.0 of this report. 2.5 Information Gathering Information gathering was carried out to identify known and protected heritage properties in the Study Area. For this HIA, the City of Kitchener, Ontario Heritage Trust, and the MHSTCI were contacted directly via email and/or telephone to determine the presence of listed, designated, or protected heritage properties within, and adjacent to, the Study Area. The results of information gathering activities are presented in Section 4.1 of this report. 2.6 Field Review A field review of the Study Area was completed to gain an understanding of the existing conditions of the two bridges. Protected and potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes adjacent to the Study Area were also reviewed. During the field review, the 40 -year 'rule of thumb' was used to identify properties with the potential to have CHVI. The 40 -year rule is generally accepted by federal and provincial agencies as a preliminary screening measure for CHVI. It should be noted, however, that the 40 - year threshold is a guide only and does not imply that all properties of 40 years of age have CHVI. Nor does it exclude properties that are less than 40 years of age and exhibit CHVI. The professional judgement of Wood's Cultural Heritage Specialist was used during the field review to apply the 40 -year rule and identify properties with potential CHVI. The results of the field review are presented in Section 4.2 of this report. 2.7 Mitigation Measures When a property is found to have CHVI under O. Reg. 9/06 and impacts are identified to the heritage attributes of that property, mitigation measures are required. The mitigation measures in MHSTCI InfoSheet#5 present methods of minimizing or avoiding negative impacts to cultural heritage resources. These are: • Alternative development approaches • Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas • Design guidelines that harmonize mass setback, setting, and materials • Allowing only compatible infill and additions • Reversible alterations • Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms In addition to the mitigation measures contained in InfoSheet#5, the general standards for preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada were followed (S&G) (Parks Canada 2010:22). The S&Gs are widely accepted as the guiding document for heritage conservation in Canada. It contains general conservation standards and guidelines that are specific to cultural heritage resource types such as cultural heritage landscapes and buildings. wood. Page 44 of 147 City of Kitchener Methodology Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Where applicable, guidelines from the S&Gs were used in this HIA to recommend mitigation measures that are specific to a resource type. Mitigation measures are presented in Section 6.3 of this report. wood. Page 45 of 147 City of Kitchener Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 3.0 Historical Context In order to gain a thorough understanding of the history of the Study Area, a review of its physiography, survey and settlement, 19th -century land use, and 20th -century land use was completed. A review of historical mapping and aerial photographs was also conducted to identify settlements, structures, and landscape features within, and adjacent to, the Study Area. Historically, the Study Area is in the Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County in part of the Biehns Unnumbered Tract. 3.1 Physiography The Study Area is situated in the Waterloo Hills physiographic region of Ontario (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 113). This region is composed of sandy hills consisting of either ridges of sandy till or kame moraines with outwash sands occupying the intervening hollows (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 136). The original forests would have consisted of sugar maple, beech, wild cherry and red oak (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 136). This study is set within an area of sandy washout in a generally undulating topography (Figure 4) 3.2 History of the Study Area 3.2.1 Indigenous Land Use Southwestern Ontario, including the Kitchener area has been occupied by Indigenous peoples for the last 10,000 years. Access to potable water is the prime factor used by archaeologists in determining the potential for past indigenous settlement. Waterways such as Schneider Creek, are seen by archaeologists as an indicator of high potential for the existence of Indigenous archaeological sites. The Grand River and its tributaries are especially known for a high density of archaeological sites (Ellis 1990). This Study Area's location on Schneider Creek, which is a tributary of the Grand River suggests this area may have been used by Indigenous peoples in the past for hunting, camping, and travel. 3.3 Township Survey and Settlement 3.3.1 Waterloo Township, Waterloo County During pre -contact and early contact times, the vicinity of the Study Area would have contained a mixture of deciduous trees, coniferous trees, and open areas. In the early 19th century, Euro -Canadian settlers arrived and began to clear the forests for agricultural purposes. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Study Area and surrounding land were primarily used for agricultural purposes. The Study Area was historically located within the Biehns Tract, in the former Township of Waterloo, Waterloo County. Waterloo Township was once one of the largest townships in Southwestern Ontario. The township was named to commemorate the British victory over Napoleon at Waterloo (Mika & Mika 1983). It was also one of the earliest settled townships. The area corresponding to Waterloo Township, consisting of 94.012 acres of land, was originally purchased from Joseph Brant by Richard Beasley, John Baptiste Rousseaux and James Wilson in 1796 (Hayes 1997: 3). Waterloo Township is bordered to the north by the Township of Woolwich, to the east by the Townships of Guelph and Puslinch, to the south by the Township of Dumfries, and to the west by the Township of Wilmot (H. Parsells & Co. 1881). By 1800, more than 14,000 acres of land were sold to German Mennonites from Pennsylvania and surveyed by August Jones in 1805. In order to not interfere with previously established settlers, the new lots were laid out in an irregular manner (Moyer 1971). wood, Page 46 of 147 City of Kitchener Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 3.3.2 Village of Doon Historically, the Study Area was located within the Village of Doon. Settlement in the Doon area dates to the beginning of the 191h century. The Village of Doon is said to be named for the Doon River in Scotland by Scotsman Adam Ferrie. The Ferries' operated the grist mill, sawmill, distillery, cooper shop, kilns, and a tavern. By the second half of the 19th century Doon had multiple industries in addition to those owned by the Ferrie family and was a thriving community. The largest of these industries was known as the Doon (Perine) flax mill and rope factory. It employed over 200 men and women before a disastrous fire hit the town 1880 almost wiping it out. Additionally, there was a barrel factory, brickyards, a buggy and wagon work, and a wool factory. The Doon train station was busy uploading fright for up to eight trains a day during the height of this industrial boom (Mika and Mika 1977: 558-559). The portion of the Upper Doon HCD in which the Bridge #1 and #2 are located was once at the heart of the local community, with the mill and factory supporting the local industrial economy in the area. The Study Area today sitsjust south of Homer Watson Boulevard, named after the famous landscape artist who was born in the Village of Doon in 1856. The house where Homer Watson was born was originally built in the 1830s by Adam Ferrier near the Grand River. Ferrie erected a large stone sawmill near his home where a little stream enters the Grand River, this location was the subject of one of Homer Watson's early and most important paintings (Plate 1) (Foss 2021). The ruins of this mill, made famous by Homer Watson, burnt down in the 1880s and are situated north of the Study Area. However, the ruins of Doon (Perine) flax mill, which dates to a similar time are present immediately adjacent to the current Study Area (Mika and Mika 1977: 558-559). Plate 1: Homer Watson, The Pioneer Mill, 1880 (Foss 2021) Woad. Page 47 of 147 City of Kitchener 3.3.3 The Doon (Perine Mill) Flax Mill Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment The Doon (Perine) Flax Mill was the first successful flax mill in Upper Canada and was operational from 1853 to 1955 (City of Kitchener Heritage Cultural Interpretive Sign). It lies immediately west of the northern elevation of Doon Bridge #2. An interpretive heritage plaque, rehabilitated stone wall foundations, and stone markers are located adjacently west of the north elevation of Bridge #2 indicating the former location of the mill complex and historic mill race. The flax mill was founded by the Perine brothers and was part of the Doon Twines complex of buildings. The Perine brothers immigrated from New York State and established flax and twine mills in Doon, Floradale, and Conestogo. Doon Twines Ltd. was one of the earliest large manufacturers of twine in Canada. The mill came under ownership of the Krug family in in the 1900s and its name later changed to Canada Cordage During the second half of the 19th century this part of Upper Doon was a thriving industrial centre characterised by several large brick buildings. Several buildings associated with the Doon Mill located near or adjacent to the Study Area and are still standing today. These buildings are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as contributing properties within the Upper Doon HCD. These structures serve as a reminder of the heritage significance of the area and include the Perine Housing Buildings at 1213-1217 Doon Village Road, the former office building located at 1221 Doon Village Road, and the former warehouse located at 1265 Doon Village Road. The Forest View Pentecostal Church located at 1222 Doon Village Road would have supported the community centred around the mill works. (City of Kitchener Heritage Cultural Interpretive Sign). The Doon Bridges were built in 1924 and 1929 and would have been contemporary to the mill when it was under the ownership of the Krug family, but not during the initial 19th century industrial boom in the area. 3.4 Review of Historical Mapping 3.4.1 19th Century Land Use Historical records and mapping were examined to gain an understanding of 19th century land use in the Study Area. A summary of these historical records is presented below in Table 1. Table 1: Review of 19th Century Historical Mapping Year Map Title Historical Feature (s) 1861 Tremaine's Map of the County -The bridges are located within the un -numbered Biehn's Tract (Figure 5) of Waterloo (Tremaine 1861) within the Township of Waterloo east of the Doon Village -boon Bridge Road appears on the map crossing over Schneider Creek in the location of both bridges -There is a fork in Schneider Creek adjacently south of Doon Bridge Road -boon Bridge Road traverses the property of the Honourable Adam Ferrie at the locations of the Doon Bridge crossings -A flax mill is located adjacently north of Doon Bridge #2 1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of -The bridges are located within the un -numbered Biehn's Tract (Figure 6) Waterloo County (H. Parsells & within the Township of Waterloo east of Doon Village Co. 1881) -Doon Bridge Road appears on the map crossing over Schneider Creek in the location of both bridges Woad. Page 48 of 147 City of Kitchener 3.4.2 20th Century Land Use Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment -There is a fork in Schneider Creek immediately south of Doon Bridge Road -The Village of Doon has grown significantly compared to the 1861 map -A flax mill is no longer indicated textually immediately north of Doon Bridge #2, although the area is shaded indicating significant development. The development is likely an expansion of the flax mill. Historical records and mapping were examined to gain an understanding of 20th century land use in the Study Area. While maps from 1916, 1923, 1929, 1936, and 1958 were examined. It was concluded that historic maps from the years 1916 and 1958 best illustrated the evolution of the Study Area through the 20th century. A summary of these historical records is presented below in Table 2. Table 2: Review of 20th Century Historical Mapping Year Map Title Historical Feature (s) 1916 1916 Topographic Map of -Two (2) Bridges located within the Study Area (Figure 7) Ontario, Brampton Sheet -Five (5) Wood Residences within 300 m of the Study Area -The configuration of the Study Area is very stable and little change takes place. (Department of Militia and -Four (4) Brick Residences within 300 m of the Study Area 1963 Defense -One (1) Mill located within 300 m of the Study Area 1916) -One (1) Blacksmith located within 300 m of the Study Area Online Google Earth -Grand Trunk Railway located 200 m to the north of the Study Area -Schneider Creek intersecting the Study Area 1938 1938 Topographic Map of -Two (2) Bridges located within the Study Area (Figure 8) Ontario, Brampton Sheet -Six structures located within the vicinity of the Study Area (Department of Militia and -Grand Trunk Railway located within 200 north of the Study Area Defense -Schneider Creek intersecting the Study Area 1916) A review of recent aerial photographs was completed to gain an understanding of 20th and 21st century land use in the Study Area. A summary of the review is provided in Table 3. Aerial photographs are provided in Appendix A. Table 3: Review of 20th and 21St Century Historical Records Year Features 1945 -Two Bridges (Doon Bridge #1 and #2) located within the Study Area (Appendix A: Plate B1) -Schneider Creek intersecting the Study Area -Doon Village located within 1000m to the northeast of the Study Area 1955 -The configuration of the Study Area is very stable and little change takes place. (Appendix A: Plate 132) 1963 -The configuration of the Study Area is very stable and little change takes place. (Appendix A: Plate 133) Various (2005 to 2021 -The configuration of the Study Area is very stable and little change takes place. Online Google Earth Aerial Imagery) Woad. Page 49 of 147 City of Kitchener Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 3.5 Bridge Drawings Drawings of the original bridge from 1921 are provided in Appendix C and drawings of the bridge rehabilitation work undertaken in 1986 are provided in Appendix D. The 1921 drawings demonstrate that the original bridge design was for a single lane concrete spandrel arch bridge with Herbert Johnston listed as the consulting engineer and G.C. Hagedorn listed as the civil engineer/draughtsman. The 1986 rehabilitation drawings demonstrate that the pedestrian walkway was added to the original single lane bridge during the 1980s. 3.6 Previous Investigations 3.6.1 Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District The Upper Doon HCD Plan was established in 1988 through By-law 88-17 (Hill 1988). The Upper Doon HCD includes Doon Village Road from Homer Watson Boulevard to roughly St. Emilion Place, inclusive of Doonbrook Place, Oregon Drive, Wilfong Drive, Mitierra Drive, and a section of Tilt Drive (Hill 1988:4). All properties contained within the Upper Doon HCD are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act through By-law 88-17. The HCD Plan contains objectives and policies for Schneider Creek and Doon Village Road. The Upper Doon HCD Plan explains that much of the heritage value of the district is derived from the natural environment and its quiet rural character. The 18 heritage buildings within the district comprise a modest portion of the heritage significance. The HCD Plan notes that the varied physiography within the HCD provides a rich variety of tree species characterised by species such as cedar, willow, and aspen within the undeveloped flood plain areas along Schneider Creek and fruit trees, hardwood, and evergreens along the roadside and in local gardens. The HCD Plan lists stated objectives to maintain and enhance the treescape in the village in Section 5.5.2 of the plan. Section 5.7 of the HCD Plan identifies the plant and animal life within the HCD that contributes substantially to the natural heritage character of the area and lists objectives, policies, and implementation strategies to conserve and enhance the natural environment. The HCD is described as a suburban setting lying in a valley traversed by watercourses that acts as an enclave inhabited with a rich natural environment of trees, shrubs, flowers, aquatic and wildlife. The HCD Plan states an objective to maintain and enhance the character of district as defined by: • Setting in valley • Quiet and Peaceful atmosphere • Views of surrounding countryside • Illegible • Watercourses and associated vegetation • Comparatively large lots of varied size • Historic building stock • Industrial heritage sites • Neighbourhood quality • Rural road finish wood. Page 50 of 147 City of Kitchener Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Countryesque streetscapes One policy is directly applicable to the Doon Village Bridges: Policy 5.13.3 i) Doon Village Road: The single lane bridges shall be retained. The metal guardrails shall be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green. 3.6.2 Spanning the Generations (Region of Waterloo 2004) Both bridges were identified in the Spanning the Generations: A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region (Region of Waterloo 2004). In this document, these bridges are named the 'Schneider Creek Bridges' and are both are identified as concrete earth filled arch bridges. These bridges were not included in Phase 2 of the Study and the heritage evaluation results for these two structures are presently unknown to Wood. 3.6.3 Arch Truss and Beam, The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory The Heritage Resources Centre published a report titled Arch, Truss & Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory (2013). In this report, Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are described as Schneider Creek Bridge 1 and 2 (Heritage Resources Centre 2013: 160-163). The report includes a photograph and general description of each bridge as well as an evaluation. The evaluation forms for the bridges included in this report are completed using O. Reg. 9/06, and both bridges are found to have meet the provincial criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. 3.6.4 OSIM (2018) Ontario Structure Inspection Manual -Inspection Forms (OSIM) from 2018 were reviewed for both bridges. The OSIM forms identify that the owner of the bridges is the City of Kitchener. These forms reference MTO Site Number 33-133 and City Site Number 802 for Doon Bridge #1 and MTO Site Number 33-132 and City Site Number 803 for Doon Bridge #2. These forms indicate the location, condition, and original date of construction of the concrete spandrel arch bridges. The forms indicate that Doon Bridge #1 was built in 1924 and Doon Bridge #2 was built in 1929. Doon Bridge # 1 has a total deck length of 20 m and overall structural width of 8 m with one span. Doon Bridge #2 has a total deck length of 18 m and overall structural width of 8 metres with one span. The forms for both bridges indicate that a detailed deck condition survey is required, and no additional further study is recommended. 3.6.5 Structural Survey and Assessment Report Bridge # 802 - Doon Village Road Bridge #1 Amec Foster Wheeler (Amec) prepared Structural Survey and Assessment Reports for Doon Bridge #1 (802) in 2018 (Amec Foster Wheeler 2018a). The report provides a structural evaluation of the bridge condition and makes recommendations on rehabilitation work. Amec also identified that the bridge was rehabilitated in 1986 based on information gathered from bridge drawings. The report proposes short- term rehabilitation work referred to as a "hold and preserve" rehabilitation method. The currently proposed work does not strictly adhere to either the short-term or long-term strategies described in this report. See Section6.1 for a description of the proposed work 3.6.6 Structural Survey and Assessment Report Bridge # 803 - Doon Village Road wood, Page 51 of 147 City of Kitchener Bridge #2 Historical Context Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Amec Foster Wheeler prepared Structural Survey and Assessment Reports for Doon Bridge #2 (803) in 2018 (Amec Foster Wheeler 2018b). The report provides a structural evaluation of the bridge condition and makes recommendations on rehabilitation work. Amec also identified that the bridge was rehabilitated in 1986 based on information gathered from bridge drawings. The report proposes short- term rehabilitation work referred to as a "hold and preserve" rehabilitation method. There are short term and long-term rehabilitation measures laid out in the report. The currently proposed work does not strictly adhere to either the short-term or long-term strategies described in this report. See Section6.1 for a description of the proposed work wood. Page 52 of 147 F- � 4 a LLI Z r. a O C `' o I- vo H N 20 O C5 o 0 j ?LU Z z~OZO �W DO r O M w a wLu C N=0Q Z4 zD m OMm o a LLLC C,) w 00 z _ J w wa:110 0 z� ii p Z V -ti Zp ❑ U)w9 2F 4� Z o o N` -°O U=zw U) LUQ (fi c- O a O O LO CD��_- 1 ip4n (�J�O W Q2 ❑�o Q N _ �r jjO (pOZq�'� O p g d[]mU �� �24o x � � LLI �@ZO ` i '���� � m w D OcvF= =O °?� a "m" m Q O[iw x0=� o 0 (w.0�DY aO ❑alb a w K L0 .}�' Z X00 U a J o a w . �z HQd} U¢ w� 2Dgv a y Zo 0o U U 4) J o Jr OU a �Zn1 w Ocv N F x in ❑ zJwU O� z0� o a vi¢�n Y c z Zp ~ �Zz° a J tw¢� O LU O� z N vi CD K O Z �Uw o m O ❑[D ui w w N�0 [7 w_w Z D z q J W O 20 W J d' W!1 H w � a W F- of Q o 0L w U) ❑ ❑ w vuyyuav w�yvov wo wov vuvvuov vwvuov —.1- vuocuov vvvcvov O ` o C a 4 ok M o � 0o r� — it O } O Ro CO Z o x in 00 Ln •� M �0h 4:94': AVE ORO N `U p Y � •D N O09909b ooZSOBb OOSbORV o0bbOBtr ooatoar 009EO217 OOZEOBb DORM& oo4Z08b ioa-Go0r000ruoso+� oV 1 a5u-ja ua u000 - ,auauoiiN jo A113 - L J :d :NOLLtl007 31IJ wd W607 LZaZ/L/9 :031toi o 14 o a c o x a o LU16 a 0 ? Z ~ n Ir z Ln } o a uW LL W m Q 0 D ° J LU i� f l� M LU H o Z: C) z a av~i Q LL Lf w 0)Inv o cl LL W LU L U ./ L J W 2� Z LL= z p C Z V--�-I rte+ Z O ❑ �wp0 0r OF La p O 0)�Q U D mo O m aQ;W 0 Z0 LLI Q cp0 p V�� �� O Z V Z x r cy _ d z Um�w 00 ¢coo 2 a r 2Or O cait0rn _U U W ffl 0 L J © Y r dOmC=.7 aU K�oo 0 w .. J Q (Li o U❑ 2QNr LU mZo' Q cod F" —(xt�0 Y O LU0 t 20 ❑acs a °D U :t-- �QD x cc C7w❑LL LLJ Oro a N w w >Z U a FQ< 0= LU Ow- rn ¢ o U U �0 0 W o W Q� } ZN to W �W N = 2 m ❑ 4 _� W 0 2 Z O 2000 ZO Q LU Y C O -a, z ZC7�z F a v O v 0� -O o d`wr v < wC p LU Cm w = w w ©C3 wxf z : Z F- U r Oa w W r � IL r w z� S a o �c� o o of 0099094 90Z908V 00£409b 0044094 0004094 D09EO2h OOZ£O94 009Z094 00bZ084 +. wr * 00 ,e� 6 _ im' N � ` . M CD 1 t -AN � n n1 •L ry sw m a o m 0 s0 e ev0 tl� f,t 1 ir opt N GO low k ,• t � too 1.0 • ` t4 • w s � 3004094 009£094 OOZE09V 0092094 00'YZ004 I 'Z S L •6P!,e PJ —a - —4 -ml to Fid - 110®0i1Z191\--W0 p-4a.tl\1Z0Z\:d :NCL1tl001 3111 Yld OL:LL:Z LZOZ/L/9 :amio-ld 31Va 0&P'900 LOU- LOO MOOI'L LO9O> 1ZW1\8019 •Z .p L a5pLj8 pU uooa - J0004011A to F113 - L1090+tZY11\%0a910 A410\sl» La.d\ DOIDOD�-V\LZOZ\:d :NOILVO01 all! Md LZ:£LZ LZOZ/L/9 a311Old 31VO N O Q LU 2 N N E 0 C) m O ry PSV O 0 Z I.-�O} ZO Q O Y 4 0 WmQ� QC' Lll F- J J z0 CO Fn r o O N a C7 LL Lq N=aQ yW F" w�0 UQW w DW L1J zx L :) N C z ./ ``1J r a�Zo • O W — ��= W p ~ O H LO O O D p°r U�Eao r'J y, C) O Q Cd —mw W.� aiz -CO QU oQ LLI CC a cc ' UhQ x oz V oN� (31 o gocc ao O0. Z 20 m Wa Q '4Um J 0 JJ[O ; coQ Q w U O ® a 4-o JCrt+< O U aw 1E� �Oz = U xL-O A <Wzo U1=w 71?Q Lu N z W x Coo F Q Q J l.L = JO~ LU S 2� a d' Q N C] O N U QCJ LO .� M o Lu =�wU coQ2 Y 0 0Z Z 4 u z1- O 4 Lu Y C U C x 4 z r Zp v O— m��a O en a �zz a O� llur u a wrj o OL > i W Qm J W❑ W ��0 OJ 0 LU C LLJ Z Z a H w O K z F-� x ¢ 0 x 0 o o 0099084 OOZS084 0084084 0046084 0004084 009084 006£084 008ZOB17 0042084 ~pa m m o O CO (� n Lin ! Q { M r C o � f } L I o a - , o c 0 � S N 1 r N 0095084 9028084 0084084 0044094 0004094 009£084 006£004 008ZO94 0042084 0&P'900 LOU- LOO MOOI'L LO9O> 1ZW1\8019 •Z .p L a5pLj8 pU uooa - J0004011A to F113 - L1090+tZY11\%0a910 A410\sl» La.d\ DOIDOD�-V\LZOZ\:d :NOILVO01 all! Md LZ:£LZ LZOZ/L/9 a311Old 31VO ZH p co LU x N CL E Q O 0 N o N 0 C Z o O Qztt y�Zp W M Q— OZ Q d H W W a pO a a v n C7 j O Y i17 V) a d F w z 2QNQ 0 Z2q LL 'U� ZU)m Zec O)°'v a C7 w(Y U)WpO U) 4pW� Oz� Q�� of z0 w Z o � o o � z pm ���OQrn "'Z'� � C) 0 � v r a a Z=W dmpm� �QNF O�kY =,F q W O �Ho 4 w �<o X O LL K i, a N Wm0 Q ,WX4 -..._. 00d' Q V)QZ� O �fLJ'O� O W S� m p U O S ❑-5— a ro — U �aco Z otSon � x w LL QWZY0 a M O OH ¢ a �zw w N J? LU � O V = H Cp0 O S V 4. J N 0z Q o (Y < r O O A U Q Z N u, W W N Z_�cL—. 0O� N Y S Z S>W ZUp cv 91 O Q �ZZ ¢ J UWJ O W p Cf m Q L L W w W O O Q W Q W o =aw a ww� LU m a Z w CL z �C a 0 x0co 0 0 ll� 0099094 OOZ9084 0084084 0044084 0004084 009086 008z08b OO4z08b l!OOZ£O84 C 0 ti f o �� ♦ 0 00 * - - v N C3 o . - m o O o A15 ('� � G Or+ Q • � 1 =t * �d O f Ll 0 l �`-� ♦ 0-00 1 _ rCA 4 0094084 OOZ4084 OO8b04b OOb4084 OOM" 009C081, 00ZE084 008zO8b 0042084 5n`P'LOO �Oa-100 x'090 �'uOBO>�zwi\50iv Oa0lina\51�»0�0\a5af,gwl� �Z a L 05Pue va 1000 - A-40IN 30 X80 - L60809LZwi\s90gf0 .0410\043010+d\.c5010a04DJV\LZ9S\:d NOLLa001 37U Ad Lu:gt:z IZOZ/1/9 :031101d 31va E r [ G \ \ 2 CL \ 0- Z e 2 ; §)k2 /�) (\ f ( ® ^ §���G �_@/ §(< § § e®� , m;mLC al \§\§ 62§ \§ \ o § §_\\ \\/_ g \cu® ƒkb ;° 0 __- 266° ..§ F- FX �?e -@@m § § R�& —«Z° m o Boz` 2±)? %/[ )§\k® § E§\ ƒ °@°°� & [{ =Eo �u a=o` _ U 7S/§ 2 LL \w)g§ 5ƒ2 zem$ 0 ) _\)k 01 00 § _LL eee \-&q.. 24 m m ®;2 «azo oeE « \§\w@ )§ o _ £oo b]f ~\3 § ;¥�2 q ( m©� 2 w�®§ 2 g /j§,�§j E u / < =s§ § \;)q)co )zz § 2 §0° - . (5e§#�2® c §E k m c�olmL§ c m § (0 11 _ co w § § /GES®w§/ K » § a z &«&§!o, e e § } a£,�NDUn �==:_za: m _ City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 4.0 Existing Conditions 4.1 Information Gathering The City of Kitchener, Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT), and the MHSTCI were contacted to gather information on known heritage properties within, and adjacent to, the Study Area. The results of information gathering activities are included in Appendix B. A response was received from Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener, on 10 May 2021. Ms. Grohn reported that Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon HCD. This communication included links to the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District and the City's Municipal Register. The email also provided the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for HIA's. A response was reviewed form Kevin DeMille, Natural Heritage Coordinator, Ontario Heritage Trust, on 21 May 2021. This email confirmed the Trust did not have any conservation easements within the Study Area and that there were no Trust -owned properties within or adjacent to the Study Area. A response was received from Karla Barboza, Acting Team Lead at the MHSTCI, on 10 May 2021. This email identified that no properties within the Study Area had been designated by the Minister and that the MHSTCI was not aware of any provincial heritage properties located within or adjacent to the Study Area. 4.2 Field Review Results Field review consisted of photo documenting Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 as well as the surrounding landscape. This was completed by Luke Fischer, Cultural Heritage Specialist at Wood, and Chelsea Dickinson, Cultural Heritage Technician at Wood, on 23 April 2021. The weather was mild and sunny and did not impede fieldwork in any way. 4.2.1 Doon Bridge #1 (802) Doon Bridge #1 (Bridge #802, also known as Schneider Creek Bridge 1) is located on Doon Village Road, 160 m south of Homer Watson Boulevard and 60 m west of Doon South Drive in the City of Kitchener. It is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge built in 1924. The single span bridge covers 21.3 m across Schneider Creek on an east -west orientation and is 8.1 m wide (Amec Foster Wheeler 2018a) (Plate 2 to Plate 7). Doon Bridge #1 is located approximately 35 m west of Doon South Drive, which is a larger and more modern road than Doon Village Road (Plate 8, Plate 13, and Plate 14). Approximately 175 m west of Doon Bridge #1 sits Doon Bridge # 2, which is an almost identical bridge (Plate 11). Both bridges cross Schneider Creek, which forks into two creeks 60 m south of Doon Village Road before progressing northeast where it empties into the Grand River. Both bridges are located within the Upper Doon HCD. The single lane expanse of Doon Bridge #1 acts a gateway between the more developed Doon South Drive into the quiet area surrounding Doon Village Road which ends in a dead end (Plate 8). As one turns off Doon South Drive onto Doon Village Road the single laned bridge acts as an abrupt indicator of the older and less developed nature of the surrounding area, as there are no sidewalks flanking the Doon Village road except for along the south elevation of the bridges themselves. The light posts lining the Doon Village Road are adorned with banners indicating the areas heritage status. The ravine associated with Schneider Creek creates a picturesque natural landscape along the entirety of the area to the south wood. Page 58 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment and along the creek north of the bridges (Plate 9 and Plate 12). Approaching Doon Bridge #1 from the east one exits Doon South Drive and almost immediately crosses the one lane bridge. Long modern metal guard rails protrude west several metres past the eastern elevation of the bridge. New and older residences are present to the north significantly set back from the road while the landscape to the south is wooded ravine (Plate 3, Plate 8, and Plate 14). Approaching Doon Bridge #1 from the west one drives through a portion of historic Doon Village lined with a mix of heritage structures and new structures on both sides of the road. One drives over Doon Bridge #2 and at which point a mix of heritage structures and new residential structures are present significantly set back to the north and a wooded ravine is seen to the south. On closer approach to the bridge long modern metal guard rails protrude west several metres past the western elevation of the bridge (Plate 2, Plate 15, and Plate 16). The bridge superstructure consists of a deck surface approximately 8.1 m wide, including a sidewalk and three parapet walls, one on each side of the bridge and one separating the sidewalk from the road surface (Plate 19). The bridge deck driving surface is 5.3, m wide and 21.3 m long. The driving surface is composed of an asphalt top layer over gravel and concrete construction (Plate 20 and Plate 21). Concrete curbs run along the interior of the north parapet wall and the north elevation of the centre parapet. No expansion joints or drainage infrastructure is present on the bridge deck. Overall, the bridge has a low profile that allows for views of Schneider Creek while driving over the bridge or walking along the protected sidewalk (Plate 22 and Plate 23). All the parapet walls are festooned on both sides with a simple rectangular inlay that give the bridge a finished symmetrical look. There are cracks evident in the parapet walls, and concrete curb, although the asphalt driving surface and sidewalk appear in good condition. There is evidence of repair on the parapet walls, where plaster has been parged to cover and repair cracks. Some of this repair has been completed in a colour that does not match the colour and texture of the original bridge. The original bridge is still in situ and is generally consistent with its original form (Plate 24). The substructure of the bridge is composed of a concrete earth filled spandrel arch. The parapets discussed above sit atop the earth filled concrete span, as does the asphalt driving surface and concrete pedestrian sidewalk (Plate 32). The northern elevation dates to the original construction of the bridge, while the southern elevation of the bridge dates to the to 1986 when the bridge was widened by 2 m to accommodate the pedestrian sidewalk. The substructure of the bridge is set into the surrounding slope on the north elevation and the south elevations, slope protection in the form of a rock retaining wall is present on the east bank of the south elevation (Plate 26 to Plate 29). wood. Page 59 of 147 City of Kitchener Plate 2: West bridge approach of Doon Bridge #1 . - r Plate 4: Oblique view of the south elevation of Doon Bridge #1 ''rte A'r:-4r _ -A3 Plate 6: Oblique view of north elevation of Doon Bridge #1 Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 3: East bridge approach of Doon Bridge #1 Plate 5: South elevation of Doon Bridge #1 Plate 7: North elevation of Doon Bridge #1 wood. Page 60 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 8: Approach to Doon Bridge #1 from Doon South Drive (Note the stone "boon Mills Heritage Community" sign) Plate 9: View of retention walls and sign denoting entrance in the wooded ravine southeast of Doon Bridge #1 Plate 10: Schneider Creek south of Doon Plate 11: Streetscape facing west from Doon Bridge #1 Bridge #1. Note the lack of sidewalks, wooded area to the south (left), and driveways proceeding to houses substantially set back from the street to the north (right). Also note deer are crossing in front of Doon Bridge #2. wood. Page 61 of 147 City of Kitchener Plate 12: Schneider Creek north of Doon Bridge #1 X Plate 14: Intersection of Doon South Drive and Doon Village Road. Plate 16: Western approach to Doon Bridge #2. Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 13: Doon South Drive east of Doon Bridge #1. Four lane road with a centre divider and sidewalks. Plate 15: View of approach to Doon Bridge #1 taken from pedestrian crossing of Doon Bridge #2. Plate 17: Oblique view showing the eastern approach to Doon Bridge #1. Note the steel guard rails. wood. Page 62 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 18: Western approach of Doon Bridge #1 showing metal guard rails, three parapet walls, concrete pedestrian sidewalk and asphalt driving surface. / Ao-, Plate 19: View showing superstructure of Doon Bridge #1. F'AIJ Plate 20: View showing pedestrian walkway of Doon Bridge #1. Plate 21: View showing driving surface of Doon Bridge #1. Plate 22: View looking north from driving deck. wood. Page 63 of 147 City of Kitchener Plate 23: View looking south from southern pedestrian walkway. Al` Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 24: View of bridge parapets showing decorative rectangular inlay. Plate 25: Oblique view of the northern elevation of Doon Bridge #1 showing the spandrel arch and expansion joint linking the parapet wall to the bridge substructure. Plate 26: South elevation of Doon Bridge #1 showing gabion wall on the east bank of Schneider Creek. Plate 27: South elevation of Doon Bridge #1 showing the eroding sandy bank on the east side of Schneider Creek Plate 28: North elevation of Doon Bridge #1 showing erosion on the east bank of Schneider Creek. wood. Page 64 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 29: North elevation of Doon Bridge #1 showing the inset of the bridge into the west bank of Schneider Creek. 4.2.2 Doon Bridge #2 (803) Doon Bridge #2 (Bridge 803, also known as Schneider Creek Bridge 2) is located on Doon Village Road, approximately 215 m south of Homer Watson Boulevard and 245 m west of Doon South Drive in the City of Kitchener. It is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge built in1929. The single span bridge covers 21.3 m across Schneider Creek on an east west orientation and is 8.1 m wide (Plate 30 to Plate 35). Doon Bridge #2 is located approximately 245 m west of Doon Bridge #1 on Doon Village Road. Doon Bridge #2 is situated east of several buff brick historic industrial buildings that represent the industrial heritage of the HCD. These buildings include designated structures such as the Perine Mill Housing building (1213-1217 Doon Village Road), the Perine Mill Office (1221 Doon Village Road), the Forest View Pentecostal Church (1222 Doon Village Road), and the Perine Mill Warehouse (1265 Doon Village Road) (Plate 36 to Plate 39). Doon Bridge #2 is located immediately east of the Doon Flax Mill ruins, which are indicated by cultural interpretive signage, a refurbished stone wall, and stone markers. The creek north of the bridge shows evidence of channelisation possibly related to the former mill infrastructure (Plate 40 to Plate 43). The ravine associated with Schneider Creek in the area creates a picturesque natural landscape that supports local wildlife, contributing to the character of the HCD (Plate 44). Approaching Doon Bridge #2 from the east one crosses Doon Bridge #1 after exiting Doon South Drive. A wood. Page 65 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment mix of heritage homes and newer builds substantially set back from the road are visible to the north while the south is comprised of forested ravine. On closer approach long modern metal guard rails protrude several metres beyond the bridge deck on Doon Village Road (Plate 11 and Plate 45). There are no sidewalks present along the roadway, other than along the southern elevation of the bridge itself. The light posts that line the street are adorned with banners indicating the heritage of the area. Approaching Doon Bridge #2 from the west one drives past several 19th century buildings, and a church mixed with newer builds on a quaint picturesque street. An interpretive heritage sign and accompanying rehabilitated stone walls and stone markers commemorate the location of the Doon Flax Mill immediately west of the bridge on the north side of the road. On closer approach, long modern metal guard rails extend several metres beyond the bridge deck on Doon Village Road (Plate 30 and Plate 36 to Plate 40). The superstructure of the bridge is comprised of three concrete parapet walls, one wall runs the length of the north elevation and one runs the length of the southern elevation, while the third acts a divider between the driving surface and a pedestrian walkway. The pedestrian walkway is located beside the southern elevation of the bridge. The driving surface is composed of asphalt, while the pedestrian sidewalk is concrete. Concrete curbs run the length of the driving surface at the interface between the parapet walls and asphalt on the inside of the northern elevation and along the interior of the centre parapet. No expansion joints or drainage infrastructure is present on the bridge deck (Plate 46 to Plate 48). The bridge has a low profile that allows for views of Schneider Creek while driving over the bridge or walking along the protected sidewalk (Plate 49 to Plate 50). All the parapet walls are festooned on both sides with a simple rectangular inlay that give the bridge a finished symmetrical look (Plate 51). There are many cracks evident in the concrete, parapet walls, and concrete curb, although the asphalt driving surface and sidewalk appear in good condition. The bridge has undergone substantial repair as evidenced by plaster that has been parged to cover and repair cracks on the parapet walls. Some if this repair has been completed in a colour that does not match the colour and texture of the original bridge form. However, the bridge remains in situ and generally in the same form that it would have been at the time of construction (Plate 52 and Plate 53). The substructure of the bridge is composed of a concrete earth filled spandrel arch. The parapets discussed above sit atop the earth filled concrete span, as does the asphalt driving surface and concrete pedestrian sidewalk. A seam can be seen between the substructure and the parapet walls of the superstructure when looking at the elevation of the bridge (Plate 32). The northern elevation dates to the original construction of the bridge, while the southern elevation of the bridge dates to the rehabilitation 1986 when the bridge was widened along the south elevation by 2 m to accommodate the pedestrian sidewalk (Plate 32 to Plate 35 and Plate 51 to Plate 53). The substructure of the bridge is set into the surrounding slope on the north elevation and the south elevation. Slope protection in the form of concrete and masonry is present along the north elevation, but not along the south elevation. This concrete and other masonry along the east and west bank of the north elevation may be related to the historical mill race that was once present on the west bank of the river near the north elevation of the bridge (Plate 54 to Plate 56). wood, Page 66 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 30: East approach of Doon Bridge #2 Plate 31: West approach of Doon Bridge #2 Plate 32: Oblique view of the north elevation of Doon Bridge #2 _, Plate 33: North elevation of Doon Bridge #2 Plate 34: South elevation of Doon Bridge Plate 35: South elevation of Doon Bridge #2 #2 wood. Page 67 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions l +yrw 14 Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment R �! P i it6 4 Plate 36: The Perine Mill Housing Building Plate 37: Buff brick structure located west (1213-1217 Doon Village Road). Georgian of Doon Bridge #2. style brick building representing the early industrial history of the area located within 200 m of Doon Bridge #2 Plate 38: Former Perine Mill Warehouse Plate 39: View from Doon Bridge #2 (1265 Doon Village Road). This buff brick showing the Former Perine Mill building is located immediately west of the Warehouse adjacent to the west (left). south elevation of Doon Bridge #2. wood. Page 68 of 147 City of Kitchener Plate 40 View of interpretive sign immediately west of the north elevation of Doon Bridge #2. This sign and accompanying refurbished stone wall mark the remnants of the Doon Mill that once stood at this location. Additional signage and stone markers are present along a trail located northwest of the bridge. Plate 42: View of the eastern bank of Schneider Creek lined with interlocking concrete bricks Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 41: View looking southeast towards Doon Bridge #2 taken from a pedestrian bridge on a trail system that traverses the area. Note the interlocking concrete bricks that line the eastern bank of Schneider Creek. Plate 43: View of concrete sluice emptying into the western back of Schneider Creek adjacently north of Doon Bridge #2. wood. Page 69 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 44: View of deer crossing Schneider Plate 45: East approach to Doon Bridge Creek south of Doon Village Road. #2 { Plate 46: View of the Doon Bridge #2 showing the steel guard rails, asphalt driving surface, and concrete pedestrian sidewalk on the south elevation of the bridge. Note the three concrete parapet walls. Plate 47: View of the metal guard rails and asphalt driving surface of Doon Bridge #2 wood. Page 70 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 48: View of the concrete sidewalk separated from the driving deck by a parapet wall. Plate 49: View facing south taken from the pedestrian walkway on the south elevation of Doon Bridge #2. Plate 50: View facing north showing Schneider Creek from the north side of Doon Bridge #2 1 �'.t 1 ` •---ter--r- -- Plate 51: West view showing the rectangular inlay present on parapet walls. r Plate 52: View showing parging of concrete Plate 53: View showing wear and cracking parapet walls and uneven wear. on parapet wall and curb. wood. Page 71 of 147 City of Kitchener Existing Conditions Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment SAY Plate 54: Concrete reinforcement of the Plate 55: interlocking concrete blocks east bank of Schneider Creek near the reinforcing the western bank on the north north elevation of Doon Bridge #2. side of the bridge. Note the degraded condition of the bridge substructure and reinforcement. Plate 56: Condition of the bank along the south elevation of Doon Bridge #2 wood. Page 72 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 5.0 Heritage Evaluation To evaluate the CHVI of the Doon Bridge #1 and #2, they were assessed using the criteria outlined in Spanning the Generations, A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region, Phase 2 Heritage Assessment: Section 3.2.2 to 3.2.4 (Spanning the Generations) and against O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. These evaluations are provided below. 5.1 Spanning the Generations Evaluation The table below uses the criteria outlined in Spanning the Generations, to assess the CHVI of Doon Bridges #1 and #2. These bridges were included in the first phase of the Spanning the Generations document, but an assessment was not included in the Phase 2 document. Spanning the Generations, Section 3.2.4 notes that criteria in the table below is comprehensive except for one criterion. This criterion not included in the table is a yes or no proposition termed Bridge Group. The term Bridge Group interprets whether the bridge in question is part of a group or cluster of bridges. The explanation of this criterion notes that if a bridge is determined to be part of a group efforts must be made to retain and preserve the bridges identified in the group regardless of the score attained in the table below. Doon Bridge #1 and #2 meet the Bridge Group criteria as they are two rare survivors of concrete spandrel arched bridges in the area. While bridges of this type were commonly built in the area during the early 20th century, most of them have been removed. These are the last two of their type in Kitchener (Heritage Resource Centre 2013). These bridges are almost identical in form and are oriented on the same access within 200 m of one another crossing Schneider Creek within the Upper Doon HCD. Both bridges provide views of the surrounding heritage and natural enclave within the HCD. Since the bridges meet the Bridge Group criteria, efforts must be made to retain and preserve the bridges regardless of the score attained in the table below. Since the bridges are essentially identical, the table below evaluates Doon Bridges #1 and #2 simultaneously. Spanning the Generations, Section 3.2.5 notes that a bridge with a score of 50 or higher is a heritage bridge. Results of the evaluation below indicates both bridges receive a score of 69, thereby meeting the threshold of a heritage bridge. Table 4: Spanning the Generations Heritage Assessment of Doon Bridges #1 and #2 Criterion Maximum Assigned Comments • Points Points Documentation Builder Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Unknown 0 0 Site Specific Note: Original bridge drawings identify Herbert b) Known; undetermined 2 2 contribution Johnston as the consulting engineer and G.C. Hagedorn as the civil engineer/draughtsman for c) Known; prolific builder 4 0 the Doon Bridge design. Herbert Johnston is contribution also known to have been the engineer for the Haysville Bridge (now demolished) (Region of d) Known; Unusual Designer 6 0 Waterloo 2004:47). Woad. Page 73 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Criterion Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points Age Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points Pre 1880 14 1880-1900 12 1901-1910 10 1911-1920 8 1921-1930 6 6 Doon Bridge #1 built in 1924 and Doon Bridge #2 built in 1929 1931-1940 4 1941-1950 2 Technology Material Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Wrought Iron 4 0 Notes on Application of Criteria from Spanning Generations: Steel Bridges are comparatively rare in this b) Stone 4 0 c) Other (not normally in use) 4 0 Region, therefore, steel bridges score 4 points in c) Other (not normally in use). Site Specific Note: Concrete arched earth filled bridges were a common bridge type in the early 20th century. These bridges were built late in the popularity of this bridge type and is are rare survivors of this form. However, they do not meet the criteria to score points in this category. Design Style Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Unique 16 Notes on Application of Criteria from Spanning Generations: There are only nine steel truss bridges in b) Typical, but rare as a survivor 16 16 c) Unusual 16 Waterloo Region. Their scarcity justifies b) Typical but rare as a survivor. Site Specific Note: Many single lane earth filled concrete bridges have been removed in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern traffic needs. Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are the only surviving earth filled concrete arched Bridges in the City of Kitchener, as such, they meet the criteria for b) Typical but rare as a survivor (Heritage Resource Centre 2013). Prototype Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Prototype 10 0 Notes on Application of Criteria from Spanning Generations: Any bridge in the inventory that is earlier by more than 10 years than others of its type was given b) Early Example. Woad. Page 74 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Criterion Maximum Assigned Comments • Points .• ints Site Specific Note: These bridges to not meet this criterion. b) Early example 10 0 Structural Integrity Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) No significant modifications 10 Site Specific Notes: Documentation has indicated that the b) Sympathetic modification 5 5 pedestrian walkway on the southern elevation of both bridges was a modification made in 1986. This modification does not negatively impact the CHVI of the bridges. Bridge Aesthetics and Environment Visual Appeal Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Design Merits 10 10 Site Specific Notes: The arched design and simple rectangular inlay b) Ornamentation 2 2 on the parapet walls of these bridges contribute to their visual appeal. The spatial orientation of the low -profile bridges over the picturesque natural environment of Schneider Creek also contributes to the bridges design merit. Integrity Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) At original location 4 4 Site Specific Notes: These bridges remain in situ at their original locations. Landmark Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Physical prominence 6 Site Specific Notes: These bridges connect the community and are b) Public perception 6 6 well used by pedestrians. Gateway Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Entrance/exit occurrence 4 4 Site Specific Notes: Bridge #1 acts a gateway from the more developed surrounding area into the natural and heritage enclave of Doon Village Road. It serves to restrict traffic flow into quite community. Bridge #2 signals to drivers existing Doon Village road that they are close to leaving the quiet confines of Doon Village Road. When travelling west Doon Bridge #2 signals entry into the area that was formally dominated by early industry in the area and is now populated by many heritage properties relating to this industrial past. Character Condition Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points Woad. Page 75 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Criterion Maximum Assigned Comments Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and Points Points most of the early activity in concrete bridge or construction method 4 4 Site Specific Notes: solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre The character and condition of the bridges is 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was generally intact. Historical Association Maximum Assigned Comments Points Points a) Associated with person/group 10 These bridges are associated with the surrounding HCD. They are mentioned in the b) Associated with event 10 adequate foundations. Built in 1924, Doon Bridge #1 is a late example of this HCD plan and contribute to the natural and heritage character that the HCD is intended to protect. c) Associated with theme 10 10 d) Associated with former bridges 10 Total 69 Additional Criteria Bridge Group Yes/No Yes Doon Bridge #1 and #2 meet the Bridge Group Is the bridge part of a group of criteria as they are two rare survivors of similar bridge structures? concrete spandrel arched bridges in the area. While bridges of this type were commonly built in the area during the early 20th century, most of them have been removed. These are the last two of their type in Kitchener (Heritage Resource Centre 2013). These bridges are almost identical in form and are oriented on the same access within 200 m of one another crossing Schneider Creek within the Upper Doon HCD. Both bridges provide views of the surrounding heritage and natural enclave within the HCD. 5.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act The two tables below present the O. Reg. 9/06 evaluations of Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2. If a one or more of the criteria listed in the table applies the bridge is considered to have CHVI. According to the assessments in the tables below both bridges possess CHVI. Table 5: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation of Doon Bridge #1 Criteria of • 0, YIN Comments Design/Physical Value i) Is it rare, unique, representative, or early Y Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and example of a style, type, expression, material, most of the early activity in concrete bridge or construction method construction in Ontario was focused on the earth -filled, solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was an easy to build and cost-effective design. The popularity of this design declined after 1919, although they continued to be built into the 1930s because it was still an economic structure type under the right circumstances, where solid ground permitted adequate foundations. Built in 1924, Doon Bridge #1 is a late example of this type of bridge construction in Ontario and a rare Woad. Page 76 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Criteria of 0. Reg. 06 Y/N Comments survivor. Many earth filled concrete bridges have been removed in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern traffic needs. Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are the only surviving earth filled concrete arched Bridges in the City of Kitchener. Doon Bridge #1 is the earliest surviving example of this bridge type in Kitchener. ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or N Common. artistic merit iii) Demonstration a high degree of technical or N This type of bridge was once very common. scientific achievement Historic Associative Value i) Has a direct association with a theme, event, N The bridges post-date the earliest settlement in the belief, person, activity, organization, or area. institution that is significant to a community ii) Yields, or has the potential to yield, Y This bridge is part of a rare set of two concrete earth information that contributes to an understanding filled spandrel arched bridges set within an HCD of a community or culture known for its early industrial land use and as enclave for nature and wildlife within the City of Kitchener. Doon Bridge #1 is the earliest earth -filled concrete arch bridge in the City of Kitchener and is one of only two surviving bridges of this type in the city, along with Doon Bridge #2. As a rare surviving example of this bridge type, Doon Bridge #1 may yield information on local bridge construction techniques during the early 20th century. iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of Y Original bridge drawings from 1921 identify that an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist Herbert Johnston was the consulting engineer and who is significant to a community G.C. Hagedorn was the civil engineer/draughtsman for the `Plan of Doon Bridge'. Herbert Johnston is also known to have been the engineer for the Haysville Bridge (now demolished) (Region of Waterloo 2004:47). Contextual Value i) Is important in defining, maintaining, or Y This bridge contributes to the distinctive identity of the supporting the character of an area Upper Doon Village HCD. The Upper Doon HCD is characterised by the remnant buildings of its early industrial land use as well as the fact that it acts as an enclave supporting natural landscape and associated wildlife. This bridge is one of two single lane bridges -oriented east -east crossing Schneider Creek, just north of where the creek splits in two directions. Doon Bridge #1 acts as a gateway to the quiet enclave through its single Ianed architecture that restricts the flow of traffic into the area, thereby conserving its character. The bridge signals a gateway into the quieter natural heritage enclave. Doon Bridge #2 is more entrenched within the HCD, closer to the historic buildings and ruins that contribute to the historic character of the neighbourhood. Both bridges act to decrease the circulation of vehicular traffic throu h the area and allow for pedestrians to Woad. Page 77 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Criteria of 0. Reg. 06 Y/N Comments Y Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and travel over and appreciate the natural beauty of most of the early activity in concrete bridge Schneider Creek. construction in Ontario was focused on the earth -filled, The spatial orientation of these bridges to one another, solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre the HCD, and as a gateway to the area beyond the 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was HCD make them essential to defining and maintaining an easy to build and cost-effective design. The the character of the area. ii) Is physically, functionally, visually, or Y Doon Bridge # 1 is functionally and visually connected historically linked to its surroundings they continued to be built into the 1930s because it to its surroundings. This single land bridge was still an economic structure type under the right functionally restricts high -levels of vehicular traffic from circumstances, where solid ground permitted accessing the Upper Doon HCD and associated adequate foundations. natural enclave. The restriction of vehicular traffic Built in 1929, Doon Bridge #2 is the second earliest allows for the area to better maintain the quite natural example of this bridge type in the City of Kitchener and beauty associated with the HCD. These bridges also is one of only two surviving earth filled concrete allow for residents to and visitors to drive and out of arched bridges in Kitchener (Heritage Resource the area and for pedestrians to cross Schneider Centre 2013). This bridge is a late example of this type Creek. of bridge construction in Ontario and a rare survivor. The bridges offer vantage points to take in the natural Many earth filled concrete bridges have been removed viewsheds surrounding Schneider Creek. in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern Doon Bridge #1 has a strong visual link to Doon traffic needs. Bridge #2, which is a near identical bridge that was N Common. constructed approximately 175 m to the west in 1929. iii) Is a landmark N Not a landmark. Table 6: O. Reg. 9/06 Evaluation of Doon Bridge #2 Criteria of Reg. 0, Y/N Comments Design/Physical Value i) Is it rare, unique, representative, or early Y Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and example of a style, type, expression, most of the early activity in concrete bridge material, or construction method construction in Ontario was focused on the earth -filled, solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was an easy to build and cost-effective design. The popularity of this design declined after 1919, although they continued to be built into the 1930s because it was still an economic structure type under the right circumstances, where solid ground permitted adequate foundations. Built in 1929, Doon Bridge #2 is the second earliest example of this bridge type in the City of Kitchener and is one of only two surviving earth filled concrete arched bridges in Kitchener (Heritage Resource Centre 2013). This bridge is a late example of this type of bridge construction in Ontario and a rare survivor. Many earth filled concrete bridges have been removed in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern traffic needs. ii) Displays a high degree of craftsmanship N Common. or artistic merit iii) Demonstration a high degree of technical N This type of bridge was once very common. or scientific achievement Historic Associative Value Woad. Page 78 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment i) Has a direct association with a theme, N The bridges post-date the earliest settlement in the event, belief, person, activity, organization, area. or institution that is significant to a community ii) Yields, or has the potential to yield, Y This bridge is part of a rare set of two concrete earth information that contributes to an filled spandrel arched bridges set within an HCD understanding of a community or culture known for it's early industrial past and as an enclave for nature and wildlife within the City of Kitchener. Doon Bridge #2 is the second earliest earth -filled concrete arch bridge in the City of Kitchener and is one of only two surviving bridges of this type in the city, along with Doon Bridge #1. As a rare surviving example of this bridge type, Doon Bridge #2 may yield information on local bridge construction techniques during the early 20th century. iii) Demonstrates or reflects the work or Y Original bridge drawings from 1921 identify that ideas of an architect, artist, builder, Herbert Johnston was the consulting engineer and designer, or theorist who is significant to a G.C. Hagedorn was the civil engineer/draughtsman for community the `Plan of Doon Bridge'. Herbert Johnston is also known to have been the engineer for the Haysville Bridge (now demolished) (Region of Waterloo 2004:47). Contextual Value i) Is important in defining, maintaining, or This bridge contributes to the distinctive identity of the supporting the character of an area Upper Doon Village HCD. The Upper Doon HCD is characterised by the remnant buildings of its early industrial land use as well as the fact that it acts as an enclave supporting natural landscape and associated wildlife. This bridge is one of two single lane bridges -oriented east -east crossing Schneider Creek just north of where the creek splits in two directions. Doon Bridge #2 is located adjacently east of the ruins of the Doon (Perine) Mill, where there is a cultural interpretive sign located. Doon Bridge #2 is entrenched within the HCD, there are historic buildings associated with the former mill and reinforcement of the banks of Schneider Creek that are possibly associated with the mill serving to entrench the bridge with the surrounding heritage landscape. This bridge, along with Doon Bridge #1 act to decrease the circulation of vehicular traffic through the area and allow for pedestrians to travel over and appreciate the natural beauty of Schneider Creek. The spatial orientation of these bridges to one another, and to the HCD, make them essential to defining and maintaining the character of the area. ii) Is physically, functionally, visually, or Y Doon Bridge # 1 is functionally and visually connected historically linked to its surroundings to its surroundings. Doon Bridge #2 provides the function of restricting high levels of vehicular traffic into the surrounding HCD and associated natural enclave. The restriction of vehicular traffic allows for the area to better maintain the quite natural beauty associated with the HCD. Woad. Page 79 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 5.3 Summary of Evaluation Doon Bridge #1 and #2 have CHVI as they meet the criteria outlined in Spanning Generations, A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region, Phase 2 Heritage Assessment: Section 3.2.2 to 3.2.3 and the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The bridges form a culturally significant group of two rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, as they are the last two of their kind in the City of Kitchener. They are almost identical in form and are spatially related as they both cross Schneider Creek approximately 175 m apart and are both located within the Upper Doon HCD. Both bridges are functionally and visually linked to their surroundings, as they provide pedestrian and vehicular transportation over Schneider Creek and facilitate views of the surrounding historic environment and natural enclave that characterises the Upper Doon HCD. The single lane form of the bridges and pedestrian walkways facilitate the restriction of vehicular traffic along Doon Village Road, which is a dead- end street that features several heritage designated structures set amongst a quaint natural environment. The pedestrian walkway acts to allow pedestrians to circulate through the rich heritage environment. Doon Bridges #1 and #2 have a strong visual link to each other since they are near identical and only located 175 m apart. The bridges remain in situ and have undergone only sympathetic modifications. They exhibit attractive rectangular inlay on the parapet walls complementing the spandrel arched geometry of the substructure. Their attractive and understated design coupled with interconnectedness in the landscape serves to maintain and support the heritage character of the area. 5.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 5.4.1 Doon Bridge #1 5.4.1.1 Description of the Property Doon Bridge #1, also known as Bridge #802 and Schneider Creek Bridge 1, forms a pair of essentially identical bridges situated along Doon Village Road crossing Schneider Creek within the Upper Doon HCD, the second bridge being Doon Bridge #2. Doon Bridge #1 is located on Doon Village Road, approximately 160 m south of Homer Watson Boulevard and 60 m west of Doon South Drive in the City of Kitchener. It is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge built in 1924. The single span bridge wood. Page 80 of 147 This bridge also allows for residents and visitors to drive or walk in and out of the area. The bridges separated pedestrian walkway and low profile offer vantage points to take in the natural viewsheds surrounding Schneider Creek. The arched form with understated rectangular inlay along the parapet walls contributes to the bridges visual appeal from the natural surroundings that it is set within. Doon Bridge #2 has a strong visual link to Doon Bridge #1, which is a near identical bridge that was constructed approximately 175 m to the west in 1924. iii) Is a landmark N Not a landmark. 5.3 Summary of Evaluation Doon Bridge #1 and #2 have CHVI as they meet the criteria outlined in Spanning Generations, A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region, Phase 2 Heritage Assessment: Section 3.2.2 to 3.2.3 and the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg) 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The bridges form a culturally significant group of two rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, as they are the last two of their kind in the City of Kitchener. They are almost identical in form and are spatially related as they both cross Schneider Creek approximately 175 m apart and are both located within the Upper Doon HCD. Both bridges are functionally and visually linked to their surroundings, as they provide pedestrian and vehicular transportation over Schneider Creek and facilitate views of the surrounding historic environment and natural enclave that characterises the Upper Doon HCD. The single lane form of the bridges and pedestrian walkways facilitate the restriction of vehicular traffic along Doon Village Road, which is a dead- end street that features several heritage designated structures set amongst a quaint natural environment. The pedestrian walkway acts to allow pedestrians to circulate through the rich heritage environment. Doon Bridges #1 and #2 have a strong visual link to each other since they are near identical and only located 175 m apart. The bridges remain in situ and have undergone only sympathetic modifications. They exhibit attractive rectangular inlay on the parapet walls complementing the spandrel arched geometry of the substructure. Their attractive and understated design coupled with interconnectedness in the landscape serves to maintain and support the heritage character of the area. 5.4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest 5.4.1 Doon Bridge #1 5.4.1.1 Description of the Property Doon Bridge #1, also known as Bridge #802 and Schneider Creek Bridge 1, forms a pair of essentially identical bridges situated along Doon Village Road crossing Schneider Creek within the Upper Doon HCD, the second bridge being Doon Bridge #2. Doon Bridge #1 is located on Doon Village Road, approximately 160 m south of Homer Watson Boulevard and 60 m west of Doon South Drive in the City of Kitchener. It is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge built in 1924. The single span bridge wood. Page 80 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment covers 21.3 m across Schneider Creek on an east to west orientation and is 8.1 m wide. 5.4.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Doon Bridge #1, also known as Bridge #802 or Schneider Creek Bridge 1, has cultural heritage value or interest for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. Doon Bridge #1 is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge that was built in 1924 (Plate 57). The design/physical value of Doon Bridge #1 is based on its early construction date, simple design finishes, and rare relationship to Doon Bridge #2, which is an essentially identical bridge. Built in 1924, Doon Bridge #1 is the earliest remaining earth filled spandrel arched bridge in the City of Kitchener. Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and most of the early activity in concrete bridge construction in Ontario was focused on the earth -filled, solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was an easy to build and cost-effective design. The popularity of this design declined after 1919, although they continued to be built into the 1930s because it was still an economic structure type under the right circumstances, where solid ground permitted adequate foundations. Many earth filled concrete bridges have been removed in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern traffic needs. Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are the only surviving earth filled concrete arched Bridges in the City of Kitchener and Doon Bridge #1 is the earliest surviving local example of this bridge type. Doon Bridge #1 includes simple, yet striking design finishes, including three concrete parapet walls with simple rectangular inlays, which lend some design appeal to the structure. The modest rectangular inlay along the parapet walls of the bridges coupled with the arched form of the substructure create an attractive understated design that blends with the surrounding heritage character of the area allowing for unobstructed views of the natural beauty of Schneider Creek and the surrounding wooded area, central to the character of the surrounding Upper Doon HCD. The historical/associative value of Doon Bridge #1 relates to the fact that this is the earliest earth filled spandrel arched bridge in the City of Kitchener. As the earliest example of this bridge type, Doon Bridge #1 may yield information on early 20th century bridge construction techniques in the City of Kitchener. In addition, original bridge drawings from 1921 identify that Herbert Johnston was the consulting engineer and G.C. Hagedorn was the civil engineer/draughtsman for the 'Plan of Doon Bridge'. Herbert Johnston is also known to have been the engineer for the Haysville Bridge (now demolished) (Region of Waterloo 2004:47). The contextual value of Doon Bridge #1 relates to its functional and visual links to its surroundings. Functionally, Doon Bridges #1 and #2 form a culturally significant pair of rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, that were once common in the area, but have since almost all been removed. Together, these bridges, effectively restrict traffic levels and speed along Doon Village Road, which helps to preserve the quaint historical character of the Upper Doon HCD. The separated pedestrian walkways located on the south side of the bridges also enable pedestrian circulation over Schneider Creek. Doon Bridge #1 has a strong visual link to Doon Bridge #2, which is located 175 m to the east and is nearly identical in design. Doon Bridge #1 is located within the Upper Doon HCD, an HCD distinguished as a picturesque natural enclave featuring several brick heritage structures related to the 19th century industrial boom in the area attributed primarily to the Doon (Perine) Flax Mill (1853-1955). The natural beauty of the Upper Doon HCD is encapsulated by the wooded ravine surrounding Schneider Creek adjacent to the bridges and its industrial past is represented by heritage structures and the ruins of the Doon (Perine) Mill located wood. Page 81 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment adjacent to Doon Bridge#2. The single lane expanse of Doon Bridge #1 acts a gateway between the more developed Doon South Drive into the quiet confines of Doon Village Road, which has only one entrance and exit. The superstructure of the bridge includes an asphalt driving deck and three parapet walls, one wall on the north elevation, one on the south elevation, and one near the south elevation that acts to separate the vehicular driving deck from the concrete pedestrian sidewalk running the length of the southern elevation. The bridge has a low -profile facilitating views of the surrounding HCD while driving or walking over the bridge. The rectangular festooning on both sides of each parapet wall coupled with the arched substructure of the bridge give it an understated finished symmetrical look that serves to maintain and support the heritage character of the area. Plate 57: Representative photograph of Doon Bridge #1, north elevation 5.4.1.3 Heritage Attributes Heritage attributes that contribute to the design/physical value of Doon Bridge #1: • The current location of the bridge on an east -west orientation crossing Schneider Creek • The earth filled spandrel arched construction. • The three concrete parapet walls including the rectangular inlay on both sides of the three parapet walls. • The separated pedestrian walkway along the south elevation of the bridge that allows for pedestrian circulation through the area and appreciation of the historic and natural surroundings. • Single lane configuration wood. Page 82 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage attributes that contribute to the contextual value of Doon Bridge #1: • Spatial relationship to Doon Bridge #2, which together form a rare pair of surviving single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges • The views north and south of Schneider Creek from the bridge deck. 5.4.2 Doon Bridge #2 5.4.2.1 Description of Property Doon Bridge #2, also known as Bridge #803 or Schneider Creek Bridge 2, forms a pair of essentially identical bridges situated along Doon Village Road crossing Schneider Creek within the Upper Doon HCD, the second being Doon Bridge #1. Doon Bridge #2 is located on Doon Village Road, approximately 215 m south of Homer Watson Boulevard and 175 m west of Doon Bridge #1 in the City of Kitchener. It is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge built in1929. The single span bridge covers 21.3 m across Schneider Creek on an east to west orientation and is 8.1 m wide. 5.4.2.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Doon Bridge #2, also known as Bridge #803 or Schneider Creek Bridge 2, has cultural heritage value or interest for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. Doon Bridge #2 is a single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridge that was built in 1929 (Plate 57). The design/physical value of Doon Bridge #2 is based on its early construction date, simple design finishes, and rare relationship to Doon Bridge #1, which is an essentially identical bridge. Built in 1929, Doon Bridge #2 is the second earliest remaining earth filled spandrel arched bridge in the City of Kitchener, with Doon Bridge #1 being the oldest. Arched bridges are one of the oldest bridge forms and most of the early activity in concrete bridge construction in Ontario was focused on the earth -filled, solid spandrel arch form (Heritage Resources Centre 2014:163). This bridge type gained popularity as it was an easy to build and cost-effective design. The popularity of this design declined after 1919, although they continued to be built into the 1930s because it was still an economic structure type under the right circumstances, where solid ground permitted adequate foundations. Many earth filled concrete bridges have been removed in Ontario as they are too narrow to meet modern traffic needs. Doon Bridge #2 and #1 are the only surviving earth filled concrete arched Bridges in the City of Kitchener. Doon Bridge #2 includes simple, yet striking design finishes, including three concrete parapet walls with simple rectangular inlays, which lend some design appeal to the structure. The modest rectangular inlay along the parapet walls of the bridges coupled with the arched form of the substructure create an attractive understated design that blends with the surrounding heritage character of the area allowing for unobstructed views of the natural beauty of Schneider Creek and the surrounding wooded area, central to the character of the surrounding Upper Doon HCD. The historical/associative value of Doon Bridge #2 relates to the fact that it is the second earliest earth filled spandrel arched bridge in the City of Kitchener and spatially related to the oldest, which is Doon Bridge #1 located a short distance away on the same street. As the second earliest example of this bridge type, Doon Bridge #2 may yield information on early 20th century bridge construction techniques in the City of Kitchener. In addition, original bridge drawings from 1921 identify that Herbert Johnston was the consulting engineer and G.C. Hagedorn was the civil engineer/draughtsman for the 'Plan of Doon Bridge'. Herbert Johnston is also known to have been the engineer for the Haysville Bridge (now demolished) (Region of Waterloo 2004:47). Wood, Page 83 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment The contextual value of Doon Bridge #2 relates to its functional and visual links to its surroundings. Functionally, Doon Bridges #2 and #1 form a culturally significant pair of rare surviving examples of single lane reinforced concrete spandrel arched bridges, that were once common in the area, but have since almost all been removed. Together, these bridges, effectively restrict traffic levels and speed along Doon Village Road, which helps to preserve the quaint historical character of the Upper Doon HCD. The separated pedestrian walkways located on the south side of the bridges also enable pedestrian circulation over Schneider Creek. Doon Bridge #2 has a strong visual link to Doon Bridge #1, which is located 175 m to the west and is nearly identical in design. Doon Bridge #2 is located within the Upper Doon HCD, an HCD distinguished as a picturesque natural enclave featuring several brick heritage structures related to the 19th century industrial boom in the area attributed primarily to the Doon (Perine) Flax Mill (1853-1955). The natural beauty of the Upper Doon HCD is encapsulated by the wooded ravine surrounding Schneider Creek adjacent to the bridges and its industrial past is represented by heritage structures and the ruins of the Doon (Perine) Mill located adjacent to Doon Bridge#2. The single lane expanse of Doon Bridge #2 acts slow traffic along the quiet confines of Doon Village Road, which has only one entrance and exit. The superstructure of the bridge includes an asphalt driving deck and three parapet walls, one wall on the north elevation, one on the south elevation, and one near the south elevation that acts to separate the vehicular driving deck from the concrete pedestrian sidewalk running the length of the southern elevation. The bridge has a low -profile facilitating views of the surrounding HCD while driving or walking over the bridge. The rectangular festooning on both sides of each parapet wall coupled with the arched substructure of the bridge give it an understated finished symmetrical look that serves to maintain and support the heritage character of the area. wood. Page 84 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Plate 58: Representative photograph of Doon Bridge #2, north elevation 5.4.2.3 Heritage Attributes Heritage attributes that contribute to the design/physical value of Doon Bridge #2: • The current location of the bridge on an east -west orientation crossing Schneider Creek • The earth filled spandrel arched construction. • The three concrete parapet walls including the rectangular inlay on both sides of the three parapet walls. • The separated pedestrian walkway along the south elevation of the bridge that allows for pedestrian circulation through the area and appreciation of the historic and natural surroundings. • Single lane configuration Heritage attributes that contribute to the contextual value of Doon Bridge #1: Spatial relationship to Doon Bridge #1, which together form a rare pair of surviving single lane reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arched bridges The views north and south of Schneider Creek from the bridge deck. wood. Page 85 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 6.0 Impact Assessment The MHSTCI InfoSheet #5 gives guidance on how to complete impact assessments for cultural heritage resources in the land use planning process. This assessment considers two categories of impacts: • Direct Impact: A permanent or irreversible negative affect on the CHVI of a property that results in the loss of a heritage attribute. Direct impacts include destruction or alteration. • Indirect Impact: An impact that is the result of an activity on or near a cultural heritage resource that may adversely affect the CHVI and/or heritage attributes of a property. Indirect impacts include shadows, isolation, direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas, a change in land use, or land disturbances. It should be noted that land disturbances, as defined in MHSTCI InfoSheet #5, apply to archaeological resources. An archaeological assessment is beyond the scope of this study since recommendations regarding archaeological resources must be made by a professional archaeologist licensed by the MHSCTI. An archaeological assessment for this project has been undertaken under separate cover. 6.1 Description of the Proposed Work The proposed work is comprised of the rehabilitation of Doon Bridges #1 and #2, including: • Doon Bridge #1 (Bridge 802) o Remove existing asphalt and granular material o Remove waterproofing from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from parapet wall o Remove deteriorated concrete from retaining wall o Remove deteriorated concrete from soffit and abutment o Remove loose aggregate from soffit o Remove deteriorated concrete from fascia o Remove damaged sidewalk panels o Remove existing steel beam guider rail on approach o Patch repair parapet wall o Patch repair fascia o Patch repair walls and soffit and abutment o Patch repair retaining wall o Apply Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI) to concrete parapet walls o Apply layer of pigmented sealer over MCI o Place new waterproofing granular material and asphalt o Place 75mm concrete overlay with Galvanic CP Anodes over central 12m of deck wood. Page 86 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment o Repair deck o Install new steel beam guide rail on approach • Doon Bridge #2 (Bridge 803) o Remove existing asphalt and granular material o Remove waterproofing from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from deck o Remove deteriorated concrete from parapet wall o Remove deteriorated concrete from retaining wall o Remove deteriorated concrete from soffit and abutment o Remove loose aggregate from soffit o Remove deteriorated concrete from fascia o Remove damaged sidewalk panels o Remove existing steel beam guider rail on approach o Replace retaining wall on south east corner o Patch repair parapet wall o Patch repair fascia o Patch repair walls and soffit and abutment o Patch repair retaining wall o Apply Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI) to concrete parapet walls o Apply layer of pigmented sealer over MCI o Place new waterproofing granular material and asphalt o Install new concrete sidewalk panels where removed o Place 75mm concrete overlay with Galvanic CP Anodes over central 12m of deck o Repair deck o Install new steel beam guide rail on approach A drawing of the proposed work is included in Appendix E. 6.2 Assessment of Potential Impacts Doon Bridges #1 and #2 have CHVI since both bridges met the criteria for determining cultural heritage value in the Spanning the Generations and O. Reg. 9/06 evaluations. Accordingly, an assessment of potential impacts resulting from the proposed work to the identified heritage attributes of these bridges is required. The evaluation of impacts to Doon Bridge # 1 is presented in Table 7 and Table 8. The evaluation of impacts to Doon Bridge #2 is presented in Table 9 and Table 10. wood. Page 87 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Table 7: Evaluation of Potential Direct Impacts to Doon Bridge #1 ImpactDirect o Doon Bridge Destruction of any, or part of any, significant The proposed work will not result in the destruction of heritage attributes or features. any, part of any, significant heritage attributes or feature or plantings, such as a garden. features. The proposed work for Doon Bridge #1 will be Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding focused on rehabilitation efforts, which will result in the environment context or a significant relationship. removal of deteriorated bridge materials and replacement in kind. Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is The proposed work includes coating Doon Bridge #1 in incompatible, with the historic fabric and Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI). To conceal the MCI appearance. a layer of pigmented sealer will be applied which will effectively appear as a coat of paint over the concrete A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield parapet walls. This will obscure the natural concrete from open space to residential use, allowing new finish of the bridge. In addition, the removal and development or site alteration to fill in the formerly replacement of the metal guard rails is proposed. While open spaces. not identified as heritage attributes, the metal guard Land disturbances such as a change in grade that rails are subject to a policy contained in the Upper alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely Doon Village HCD. affect an archaeological resource. Accordingly, mitigation measures are required. Table 8: Evaluation of Potential Indirect Impacts to Doon Bridge #1 ImpactIndirect o Doon Bridge Shadows created that alter the appearance of a No shadows will be created as part of the proposed heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural bridge rehabilitation work. Accordingly, no shadow feature or plantings, such as a garden. related impacts are anticipated. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding No heritage attributes will be isolated as part of the environment context or a significant relationship. proposed bridge rehabilitation work. Accordingly, no isolation related impacts are anticipated. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or Views north and south of Schneider Creek from the vistas within, from, or of built and natural features. Doon Bridge #1 bridge deck were identified as part of the O. Reg. 9/06 heritage evaluation. These views will not be obstructed as part of the proposed work. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield No change in land use is proposed since Doon Bridge from open space to residential use, allowing new #1 will be retained and rehabilitated to continuing development or site alteration to fill in the formerly functioning in its current capacity. open spaces. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that The proposed work is limited to the rehabilitation of alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely Doon Bridge #1. No land disturbance is proposed as affect an archaeological resource. part of this work. Accordingly, no land disturbance impacts are anticipated. Table 9: Evaluation of Potential Direct Impacts to Doon Bridge #2 Direct Impact Relevance to Doon Bridge Destruction of any, or part of any, significant The proposed work will not result in the destruction of heritage attributes or features. any, part of any, significant heritage attributes or features. The proposed work for Doon Bridge #2 will be focused on rehabilitation efforts, which will result in the removal of deteriorated bridge materials and replacement in kind. Woad. Page 88 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment ImpactDirect Doon Bridge Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is The proposed work includes coating Doon Bridge #2 in incompatible, with the historic fabric and Migratory Corrosion Inhibitor (MCI). To conceal the MCI appearance. a layer of pigmented sealer will be applied which will No heritage attributes will be isolated as part of the effectively appear as a coat of paint over the concrete proposed bridge rehabilitation work. Accordingly, no parapet walls.This will obscure the natural concrete isolation related impacts are anticipated. finish of the bridge. In addition, the removal and Views north and south of Schneider Creek from the replacement of the metal guard rails is proposed. While Doon Bridge #2 bridge deck were identified as part of not identified as heritage attributes, the metal guard the O. Reg. 9/06 heritage evaluation. These views will rails are subject to a policy contained in the Upper not be obstructed as part of the proposed work. Doon Village HCD. No change in land use is proposed since Doon Bridge Accordingly, mitigation measures are required. Table 10: Evaluation of Potential Indirect Impacts to Doon Bridge #2 ImpactIndirect o Doon Bridge Shadows created that alter the appearance of a No shadows will be created as part of the proposed heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural bridge rehabilitation work. Accordingly, no shadow feature or plantings, such as a garden. related impacts are anticipated. Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding No heritage attributes will be isolated as part of the environment context or a significant relationship. proposed bridge rehabilitation work. Accordingly, no isolation related impacts are anticipated. Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or Views north and south of Schneider Creek from the vistas within, from, or of built and natural features. Doon Bridge #2 bridge deck were identified as part of the O. Reg. 9/06 heritage evaluation. These views will not be obstructed as part of the proposed work. A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield No change in land use is proposed since Doon Bridge from open space to residential use, allowing new #2 will be retained and rehabilitated to continuing development or site alteration to fill in the formerly functioning in its current capacity. open spaces. Land disturbances such as a change in grade that The proposed work is limited to the rehabilitation of alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely Doon Bridge #2. No land disturbance is proposed as affect an archaeological resource. part of this work. Accordingly, no land disturbance impacts are anticipated. 6.2.1 Summary of Potential Impacts Potential direct impacts to Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are anticipated as part of the rehabilitation work. These include: Direct Impacts: Alterations to Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are anticipated since both bridges will be coated in pigmented sealer and the existing metal guardrails will be replaced. Indirect Impacts: No indirect impacts were identified to Doon Bridges #1 or #2. 6.3 Mitigations Measures Mitigation measures are required when impacts are anticipated to a property with CHVI. In the case of Doon Bridges #1 and #2, direct impacts are anticipated to both bridges since these structures will be coated with corrosion inhibiting sealer. In addition, the metal guard rails will be replaced. While not identified as heritage attributes, the metal guard rails are subject to a policy in the Upper Doon HCD: Policy 5.13.3 i) Doon Village Road: The single lane bridges shall be retained. The metal wood. Page 89 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment guardrails shall be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green. To minimize these impacts, the mitigation measures contained in InfoSheet#5 were evaluated for relevance and the guidelines specific to circulation routes contained in the S&G were reviewed. Table 11 presents the evaluation of mitigation measures from InfoSheet#5 and further conservation guidelines are discussed in Section 6.3.1. Table 11: Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Doon Bridges #1 (802) and #2 (803) Alternative development N/A approaches Isolating development and site N/A alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas Design guidelines that harmonize The proposed work will result in the rehabilitation of Doon Bridges #1 mass, setback, setting, and materials and #2. The majority of the work involves the removal of deteriorated material and replacement in kind. However, both bridges will be coated in MCI. The MCI itself would be visible and unattractive so a layer of pigmented sealer will be applied over the MCI. This will effectively give the bridges the appearance of being painted and will cover the natural concrete finish. The colour of the pigmented sealer should be carefully selected to be light grey and be as close to the original concrete as possible. In addition, the Upper Doon HCD Plan notes that the metal guardrails for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 should be rebuilt in stone or painted dark green. The use of stone for guardrails is not advised due to associated health and safety risks. Applying a green pigment to the rails may create undue potential for required early maintenance due to possible pealing and cracking of the paint. Accordingly, new guardrails should use like materials to the current stainless-steel guardrails with timber posts. Alternatively, the metal portion of the guardrail can be painted green if a pigment is available that is proven to be high quality and long lasting in this application. Limiting height and density N/A Allowing only compatible infill and N/A additions Reversible alterations N/A Buffer zones, site plan control, and Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon HCD. other planning mechanisms Accordingly, there are a number of heritage properties in the immediate vicinity of Doon Bridges #1 and #2. It is recommended that the locations of existing heritage properties in the vicinity of the bridges be noted on project drawings so that project staff and construction crews are aware of the locations of these heritage properties. Heritage properties that should be noted on project drawings include: • 1252 Biehn Park • 1265 Doon Village Road Woad. Page 90 of 147 City of Kitchener 6.3.1 Discussion of Mitigation Measures Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment The evaluation of mitigation measures contained in InfoSheet#5 determined that design guidelines and site plan controls are appropriate mitigation measures for the anticipated impacts to Doon Bridges #1 and #2. In addition, the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (S&Gs) were reviewed to determine whether additional mitigation measures should be implemented guidelines (Parks Canada 2010. Wood determined that the Section 4.1.4 Constructed Elements (Bridges) and Section 4.5.4 Concrete were applicable to the rehabilitation of Doon Bridges #1 and #2. Full copies of Sections 4.1.4 and 4.5.4 of the S&Gs are included in Appendix H. Key guidelines from these sections include: Section 4.1.4 Constructed Elements (Bridges) • (10) Protecting constructed elements through appropriate regular maintenance • (14) Balancing the need to alter constructed elements to meet current safety codes and standards (to allow continued use) with the need to preserve the heritage value of the work's functionality and operation • (15) Retaining sound constructed elements or deteriorated constructed elements of engineering works that can be repaired • (18) Repairing deteriorated parts of constructed elements in a manner that is physically and visually compatible with the engineering work • (20) Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of constructed elements using physical and documentary evidence as a model for reproduction. The new work should match the old as closely as possible in form, materials, and have adequate strength. Section 4.5.4 Concrete • (3) Protecting and maintaining concrete by preventing moisture penetration; maintaining property drainage; improving water shedding; and by preventing damage due to the overuse of ice -clearing chemicals. • (8) Reapplying compatible paint or coatings, if necessary, that are physically and chemically compatible with the previous surface treatment, and visually compatible with the surface to which they are applied • (9) Selecting an appropriate approach to corrosion protection to minimize damage to the concrete, including regular inspection and maintenance • (10) Retaining sound and repairable concrete elements that contribute to the heritage value of the historic place • (12) Repairing deteriorated concrete by patching or consolidating using appropriate conservation methods • (14) Cleaning concrete before repair to remove contaminants, dirt and soil, so that new concrete patches match the cleaned surface. • (15) Sealing inactive cracks in concrete by pointing with a cementitious mortar, or injecting epoxies to prevent moisture from entering the concrete mass. • (18) Replacing in kind an irreparable concrete element, based on documentary and physical wood. Page 91 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment evidence. • (19) Applying appropriate surface treatments, such as breathable coatings, to concrete as a last resort, only if repairs, alternative design solutions, or flashings have failed to stop water penetration and if a maintenance program is established for the coating. 6.3.1.1 Design Guidelines The proposed rehabilitation work for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 involves the removal of deteriorated bridge components and replacement in kind with new elements. In addition, the concrete parapet walls willbe coated in MCI and pigmented sealer to seal the concrete and prevent further deterioration of this material. Repairs completed to the bridge should be physically and visually compatible with the existing structure and should be designed in a manner that retains the existing physical form of the bridge. The colour selected for the pigmented sealer should be light grey in keeping with the existing colour of the bridge. In addition, new guard rails are proposed for the bridge approaches. Policy 5.13.3 of the Upper Doon HCD Plan states that the guardrails should be painted green or re -built-in stone. However, the use of stone for guardrails is not advised due to associated health and safety risks. Applying a green pigment to the rails may create undue potential for required early maintenance due to possible pealing and cracking of the paint. Accordingly, new guardrails should use like materials to the current stainless-steel guardrails with timber posts unless a suitable high quality and durable paint is available and is proven to be long lasting in this application. 6.3.1.2 Site Plan Control Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon HCD. Accordingly, protected heritage properties are located in the immediate vicinity of Doon Bridges #1 and #2. The locations of protected heritage properties in close proximity to the planned work should be noted on project documents so that project personnel and construction crews are aware of the presence of these heritage properties. Heritage properties in close proximity to the proposed work that should be noted on project documents include: • 1252 Biehn Park • 1265 Doon Village Road The following note should be included on project drawings: Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD). All properties in the Upper Doon HCD are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Use caution during construction to avoid historical buildings and landscape features (trees, watercourse, historical plaques) in this area. wood. Page 92 of 147 City of Kitchener 7.0 Recommendations Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Wood PLC (Wood) was retained by the City of Kitchener to conduct an HIA in support of the restoration of Doon Village Road Bridges #1 and #2. These bridges are owned by the City of Kitchener and are located in the Upper Doon HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. This HIA reviewed and evaluated the CHVI of the two bridges and drafted a Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest that identified the heritage attributes of each bridge. The potential impacts of the proposed rehabilitation to the bridges, surrounding protected heritage properties, and the HCD are also addressed. This report also includes recommendations on conservation strategies and mitigation measures in accordance with Section 12 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (Region of Waterloo 2014: 12.C.1.23 to 12.C.1.28) and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2011). Following background research, information gathering, and evaluation against the criteria outlined in Spanning Generations and the criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, it was determined that Doon Bridge #1 and #2 have CHVI for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual reasons. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made: 1) Regarding the proposed rehabilitation work for Doon Bridges #1 and #2 involving the removal of deteriorated bridge components and replacement in kind with new element: i. The application pigmented sealer should be physically and visually compatible with the existing structures. The colour selected for the sealer should be light grey in keeping with the existing colour of the bridges. ii. Rehabilitation measures should be designed in a manner that retains the existing physical form of the bridge and uses a "like for like" strategy where possible. 2) Regarding new guard rails proposed for the bridge approaches: i. The current guardrails are stainless steel with timber posts. New guardrails should use like materials or be painted green if a high quality and durable green paint is available and is proven to be long lasting in this application. This recommendation gives due consideration to Policy 5.13.3 of the Upper Doon HCD Plan. 3) Regarding Doon Bridges #1 and #2 location within the Upper Doon HCD. i. The locations of protected heritage properties in close proximity to the planned work should be noted on project documents so that project personnel and construction crews are aware of the presence of these heritage properties. Heritage properties in close proximity to the proposed work that should be noted on project documents include 1252 Biehn Park and 1265 Doon Village Road. Staging areas for the rehabilitation work should avoid these properties. ii. The following note should be included on project drawings: Doon Bridges #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District (HCD). All properties in the Upper Doon HCD are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Use caution during construction to avoid historical buildings and landscape features (trees, watercourse, historical plaques) in this area. 4) One heritage alteration permit detailing the proposed interventions to both bridges must wood. Page 93 of 147 City of Kitchener Recommendations Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment be submitted and approved prior to commencement of work on the Doon Bridges. The City of Kitchener heritage permit application is available online. wood. Page 94 of 147 City of Kitchener 8.0 Assessor Qualifications Assessor Qualifications Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment This report was prepared and reviewed by the undersigned, employees of Wood. Wood is one of North America's leading engineering firms, with more than 50 years of experience in the earth and environmental consulting industry. The qualifications of the assessors involved in the preparation of this report are provided in Appendix G. wood. Page 95 of 147 City of Kitchener 9.0 Closure Closure Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Kitchener and is intended to provide a Heritage Impact Assessment of the Study Area. The Study Area consists Doon Bridge #1 and#2, located on Doon Village Road, within the City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of the third party. Should additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from Wood will be required. With respect to third parties, Wood has no liability or responsibility for losses of any kind whatsoever, including direct or consequential financial effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs. The report is based on data and information collected during the Heritage Impact Assessment conducted by Wood. It is based solely a review of historical information, a property reconnaissance conducted in April 2021 and data obtained by Wood as described in this report. Except as otherwise maybe specified, Wood disclaims any obligation to update this report for events taking place, or with respect to information that becomes available to Wood after the time during which Wood conducted the Heritage Impact Assessment. In evaluating the Study Area, Wood has relied in good faith on information provided by other individuals noted in this report. Wood has assumed that the information provided is factual and accurate. In addition, the findings in this report are based, to a large degree, upon information provided by the current owner/occupant. Wood accepts no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in this report as a result of omissions, misinterpretations or fraudulent acts of persons interviewed or contacted. Wood makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be reviewed with legal counsel. This report is also subject to the further Standard Limitations contained in Appendix H. We trust that the information presented in this report meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. wood. Page 96 of 147 City of Kitchener Respectfully Submitted, Wood Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of Wood Canada Limited Prepared By: C � A x � �ez- Chelsea Dickinson, B.A. (R1194) Cultural Heritage Technician Prepared By: Luke Fischer, M.A., CAHP, (P219) Cultural Heritage Specialist Closure Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Reviewed By: Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP Built and Landscape Heritage Team Lead wood. Page 97 of 147 City of Kitchener 10.0 Sources Sources Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Amec Foster Wheeler 2018 Kitchener Condition Assessments, Structural Survey and Assessment Report, Bridge #802 — Doon Village Road Bridge #1. Report on file at Wood. 2018 Kitchener Condition Assessments, Structural Survey and Assessment Report, Bridge #803 — Doon Village Road Bridge #2. Report on file at Wood. Chapman, L.J. and D. F. Putnam 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto University Press, Toronto. City of Kitchener 2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Health Kitchener. Available online: City of Kitchener Official Plan - A Complete & Healthy Kitchener. Last Accessed June 28, 2021. 2021 Heritage Impact Assessment -Terms of Reference. Document on file at Wood. City of Kitchener (The Doon [Perine] Flax Mill) Cultural Interpretive Sign, Located adjacently west of the north elevation of Doon Bridge #2 on Doon Village Road Department of Militia and Defense, Canmap 1916 Topographic Map of Ontario, Galt Sheet, Streetfiles V2008. 4. 1938 Topographic Map of Ontario, Galt Sheet, Streetfiles V2008. 4. 1958 Topographic Map of Ontario, Galt Sheet, Streetfiles V2008. 4. Ellis, J Chris and Ferris, Neal 1990 The Archaeology of Southern Ontario To A.D. 1650, Occasional Publication of the London Chapter Ontario Archaeological Society, Number 5. Foss, Brian 2021 Homer Watson Life and Work, Art Institute of Canada. Online document: https://www.aci- iac.ca/art-books/homer-watson/. Last accessed June 15, 2021. Google Earth 2005-2018 Various aerial images of the Study Area. Government of Ontario 1990a Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18. Last amendment: July 1, 2019. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90ol8. Last accessed February 18, 2021. 1990b Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13. Last amendment: December 8, 2020. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. Last accessed February 18, 2021. 2006 O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Electronic document: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. Last accessed February 18, 2021. wood. Page 98 of 147 City of Kitchener Sources Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment 2020a Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.6 Cultural heritage and archaeology. Electronic document: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02- 14.pdf Last accessed February 18, 2021. Hayes, Geoffrey 1997 Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Waterloo Historical Society, Waterloo, Ontario. Heritage Resource Centre 2013 Arch, Truss & Beam, The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory. Available online: environment.uwaterloo.ca?research/hrc/. Last accessed June 28, 2021. Mika, Nick and Helma Mika 1977 Places in Ontario: Their Names Origins and History, Volume 2. Mika Publishing Company, Bellville. 1983 Places in Ontario: Their Name Origins and History, Volume 3. Mika Publishing Company, Bellville. Moyer, Bill 1971 This Unique Heritage: The Story of Waterloo County. CHYM Radio: Kitchener. Nicholas Hill, Architect Planner, London 1988 Upper Doon, a Heritage Conservation District Plan. Available online: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Heritage Plan U1212er Doo n.pdf. Last accessed June 28, 2021. Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Available online: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage Tool Kit Heritage PPS infoSheet.pdf. Last accessed February 18, 2021. 2014 Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Heritage Identification and Evaluation Process. Document on file at Wood. 2017 Ontario Heritage Toolkit. Available online: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage toolkit.shtml. Last accessed February 18, 2021. 2011 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Available online: https://www.historicploces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. Last accessed February 24, 2021. Ontario Structure Inspection Manual -Inspection Form (OSIM 2018) 2018 MTO Site Number 33-133, Doon Village Road Bridge #1. Document on file at Wood. 2018 MTO site Number 33-132 Doon Village Road Bridge #2. Document on file at Wood. Parks Canada 2011 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Available online: https://www.historicl2laces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf. Last accessed June 10, 2021. Wood, Page 99 of 147 City of Kitchener Sources Doon Village Road Bridges Heritage Impact Assessment Parsells, H & Co. 1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo, Township of Waterloo. Available online: https://digital.library.mcgiII.ca/CountyAtlas/Images/Maps/TownshipMaps/wat-m-waterloo.ipa. Last accessed June 28, 2021. Region of Waterloo 2004 Spanning the Generations: A Study of Old Bridges in Waterloo Region. Available online: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/exploring-the- region/resources/Documents/BridgePhase21.pdf. Last accessed June 28, 2021. G.R. & G.M. Termaine 1861 Tremaine's Map of Waterloo County. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=47f430Oeb9ba4be3a4d2fba8aefc5 89a. Last accessed June 28, 2021. University of Waterloo 1945 Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Available online: Kitchener -Waterloo Air Photo : IMB10 I Geospatial Centre I Library I University of Waterloo (uwaterloo.ca). Last accessed June 28, 2021. 1955 Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener -Waterloo. Available online: Kitchener -Waterloo Air Photo : IMB10 I Geospatial Centre I Library I University of Waterloo (uwaterloo.ca). Last accessed June 28, 2021. 1965 Digital Historical Air Photos of Kitchener Waterloo. Available online: Kitchener -Waterloo Air Photo IMB10 I Geospatial Centre I Library I University of Waterloo (uwaterloo.ca). Last accessed June 28, 2021. wood. Page 100 of 147 Appendix A: Aerial Photographs wood. Page 101 of 147 IL 4k1L BRIDGE2 y y; 6 -*Pao %, I Aerial Photograph Dated: 1945 Doon Village Road Bridges, Heritage Impact Assessment, Bridge #1 and Bridge #2 (Bridge ID #802 and #803) Plate: 131 wood. Page 102 of 147 Aerial Photograph Dated: 1955 Doon Village Road Bridges, Heritage Impact Assessment, Bridge #1 and Bridge #2 (Bridge ID #802 and #803) Plate: B2 wood. Page 103 of 147 WO V. _ * 411 -.r. BRIDGE24W . Jw a �nw4� e -BI �•w-.e +ms's Aerial Photograph IT Dated: 1963 Doon Village Road Bridges, Heritage Impact Assessment, Bridge #1 and Bridge #2 (Bridge ID #802 and #803) Plate: B3 wood. Page 104 of 147 Appendix B: Information Gathering wood. Page 105 of 147 From: Barboza. Karla (MHSTCI) To: Fischer. Luke Cc: Schoof. Heidv; Registrar (MHSTCI) Subject: MHSTCI Response: Information Request - Doon Bridges HIA Date: Monday, May 10, 2021 12:39:43 PM Attachments: imaae003.Dna IM21408011 Doon Bridges HIA Consultation Letter .Ddf CAUTION: External email. Please do not click on links/attachments unless you know the content is genuine and safe. MHSTCI File 0014187 - Doon Bridges #1 and #2, Doon Village Road Hi Luke, I hope this email finds you well. As you may know, the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) developed screening checklists to assist property owners, developers, consultants and others to identify known and potential cultural heritage resources: • Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential • Criteria for Evaluating Marine Archaeological Potential • Criteria for Evaluating Potential for Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes I have used the document above (Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes) in order to respond to your question: • Question 3a. i. Is the property (or project area) identified, designated or otherwise protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value e.g. a property that is designated by order of the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries as being of cultural heritage value or interest of provincial significance [s.34.5]? MHSTCI Response: To date, no properties have been designated by the Minister. • Question 3a.v. Is the property (or project area) identified, designated or otherwise protected under the Ontario Heritage Act as being of cultural heritage value included in the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' list of provincial heritage properties? MHSTCI Response: At this time, MHSTCI is not aware of any provincial heritage properties within or adjacent to the study area. Please note that if the subject lands or parts of the subject lands are owned or controlled by an Ontario Ministry or Prescribed Public Body (PPB) on behalf of the Crown (the list of PPBs is available as 0. Reg. 157/10), a Ministry or PPB may have responsibilities under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. Regarding other protected heritage properties within or adjacent to the study area, you should contact the Ontario Heritage Trust, Provincial Heritage Registrar at registrar(@heritagetrust.on.ca or Page 106 of 147 416-212-7104 and City of Kitchener's heritage planner. It seems that these bridges are also known as the Doon Village Road East and West (see the historicbridges.org website) or the Schneider Creek Bridge 1 and 2 (see Arch. Truss & Beam. The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventory). MHSTCI would appreciate if any technical cultural heritage studies (e.g. Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Heritage Impact Assessment) be sent for our review as part of the environmental assessment process. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions or if you need further advice for this proposed undertaking. Regards, Karla Karla Barboza MCIP, RPP, CAHP I (A) Team Lead, Heritage Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries Heritage, Tourism and Culture Division I Programs and Services Branch I Heritage Planning Unit T.416.314.71201 Email: karla.barboza4ontario.ca From: Fischer, Luke <1uke.fischer@wood plc.com> Sent: May -07-21 2:29 PM To: Barboza, Karla (MHSTCI) <Karla.Barboza@ontario.ca> Cc: Schopf, Heidy <heidy.schopf@woodplc.com> Subject: Doon Bridges HIA CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Hello Karla, Wood is conducting an HIA for two bridges in Kitchener (Donn Bridge #1, and #2). I've attached a letter with more detail on the project. Any information or input you can supply would be greatly appreciated. Kind Regards, Luke Luke Fischer, MA, CAHP Heritage Specialist Mobile: 226-376-2968 www.wood Ip c.com wood. Page 107 of 147 This message is the property of John Wood Group PLC and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and is intended only for the named recipient(s). Its contents (including any attachments) may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. Unauthorized use, copying, distribution or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. We assume no responsibility to persons other than the intended named recipient(s) and do not accept liability for any errors or omissions which are a result of email transmission. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email to the sender and confirm that the original message and any attachments and copies have been destroyed and deleted from your system. If you do not wish to receive future unsolicited commercial electronic messages from us, please forward this email to: unsubscribe@woodplc.com and include "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. If applicable, you will continue to receive invoices, project communications and similar factual, non-commercial electronic communications. Please click http://www.woodplc.com/email-disclaimer for notices and company information in relation to emails originating in the UK, Italy or France. As a recipient of an email from a John Wood Group Plc company, your contact information will be on our systems and we may hold other personal data about you such as identification information, CVs, financial information and information contained in correspondence. For more information on our privacy practices and your data protection rights, please see our privacy notice at https://www.woodplc.com/policies/privacy-notice Page 108 of 147 From: Kevin DeMille To: Fischer, Luke Cc: Schopf, Heidv Subject: Re: Doon Bridges HIA Date: Friday, May 21, 2021 8:30:33 AM Attachments: image003.g_na CAUTION: External email. Please do not click on links/attachments unless you know the content is genuine and safe. Good morning Luke, Thank you for your information request related to a Heritage Impact Assessment for Doon Bridge #1 and Doon Bridge #2 located on Doon Village Road in Kitchener. I've reviewed the study area against our database of OHT easements and properties. We can confirm that the OHT does not have any conservation easements or Trust -owned properties within or adjacent to the study area provided in your map. I don't have any additional information on the historical/contextual background of the Doon bridges. I recommend you check for Trust Plaques at the following link https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/index.php/pages/tools/data-inventories to verify the presence of plaques. Additionally, I recommend you check the Trust's register (available online) http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/index.php/pages/tools/ontario-heritage-act- register and contact the local municipality to verify no local heritage properties are present within the identified study area. As described in Section 23 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Trust holds and maintains the provincial Ontario Heritage Act Register of properties that have been designated by municipalities under sections 29 and 41 of the Act as well as properties designated under the Act by the Minister. We rely on municipalities to send us information and it is advisable to check with the clerk's office to verify information. Under Section 27 of the Act (OHA) the clerk of a municipality is required to maintain a local register of all designated properties. Section 27 also states that municipalities may keep a register of property that has not been designated, but that the municipality has determined to be of cultural heritage value or interest. These are often referred to as "listed" properties. These non -designated heritage properties are not reflected in the OHA Register. Kind regards, Kevin De Mille Page 109 of 147 Kevin De Mille Natural Heritage Coordinator Telephone: 437-246-5854*NEW From: Fischer, Luke <1uke.fischer@wood plc.com> Sent: May 7, 20212:27 FM To: Kevin DeMille <Kevin.DeMille@heritagetrust.on.ca> Cc: Schopf, Heidy <heidy.schopf@woodplc.com> Subject: Doon Bridges HIA CAUTION: External mail. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content. Hi Kevin, Wood is conducting an HIA for two bridges in Kitchener (Donn Bridge #1, and #2). I've attached a letter with more detail on the project. Any information or input you can supply would be greatly appreciated. Kind Regards, Luke Luke Fischer, MA, CAHP Heritage Specialist Mobile: 226-376-2968 www.wood Ip c.com wood. This message is the property of John Wood Group PLC and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates and is intended only for the named recipient(s). Its contents (including any attachments) may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. Unauthorized use, copying, distribution or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. We assume no responsibility to persons other than the intended named recipient(s) and do not accept liability for any errors or omissions which are a result of email transmission. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email to the sender and confirm that the original message and any attachments and Page 110 of 147 copies have been destroyed and deleted from your system. If you do not wish to receive future unsolicited commercial electronic messages from us, please forward this email to: unsubscribe@woodplc.com and include "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. If applicable, you will continue to receive invoices, project communications and similar factual, non-commercial electronic communications. Please click http://www.woodplc.com/email-disclaimer for notices and company information in relation to emails originating in the UK, Italy or France. As a recipient of an email from a John Wood Group Plc company, your contact information will be on our systems and we may hold other personal data about you such as identification information, CVs, financial information and information contained in correspondence. For more information on our privacy practices and your data protection rights, please see our privacy notice at https://www.woodplc.com/policies/privacy-notice Page 111 of 147 Fran: Victoria Groh, Ta: Fivhar I,ka Ci: Michelle Drake sutrj— W. Doo, Bridges HIA D1- Monday, May 10, 2021 111 1 PM Atrechmerts: HIA 1. I. -ow, 1.10.odf CAUTION: External email Please do not click on links/attachments unless you know the content is genuine and safe. Good aftemoon Luke, Doon Bridge #1 and #2 are located within the Upper Doom Heritage Conservation District. A link to the Upper Doon HCD Plan can be retrieved from the City's website here: haps://urldefmse.pmofpoint.CGni/v2/url? u=https-3A_www.kitchemr.ca_en_resourcesGenernl_Documents_DSD-5FPLAN-5FHeritage-5FPlan-5FUpper- 5FDoon. pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=Z W Y66gCYUTYUcOev9C2G1DEcKuYKmW DVNR_L93Z9mQ&r=f8Tpl4ggQ 1TsSVhGjmV 19y8QuT71 pzA2ez1f5S20r1M&m=FhtkBCLH628m2_KAbitjFJ7hiNiYfHHLkEH- ogtdHC08�fbs5lhnkpAal f4BmiZfODSpFGmEUCFPdzNJADTE1c&e= . Additionally, the City's Municipal Heritage Register can be accessed through the following links: hffps://wtdefense.proofpGint.cGm/v2/wt?u=https-3A www.kitchener.ca_en_dewtopm M-2Dmd-2Dconstmction_heritage-2Dproperties-2Dand- 2Ddistricts.aspx&d=DwIGaQ&c=ZWY66gCYUTYUcOev9C2G1DEcKuYKmVV DVNR_L93Z9mQ8a=f8Tp14ggQ1TsSVhGjmV19y8QuT71pzA2ezjf5S20r1M&m=FhtkBCLH628m2_KAbitjFJ7hiNiYfHHLkEH- ogtdHCO&s=X5GA3Dc.Dt.FF_dAf20-G9hD_Tb4_ySW CV C4lvO WZA&e= hffps://wtdefense.prMfpGint.com/v2/wt?u=hffps-3A www.kitchener.ca_em_resourcesGeneral_Documents_COR-5FLEC-5FPa-5FV-5FCon- 5FDisuicts.pdf&d=DwIGaQ&c=ZWY66gCYUTYUcOev9C2GIDEcKuYKzoWDVNR_L93Z9mQ&r=f8Tpl4ggQ1TsSVhGjmV 19y8QuT71pzA2ezjf5S20r1M&m=FhtkBCLH628m2_KAbitjFJ7hiNiYfHHLkEH- ogtdHCO&s=12rsWyKK9g8gOHaEkuUAD2Ho2ngh6ivGtjja 4hiTyY&e= I have also attached to this email our standard Terms of Reference for HLAs. I trust that this information is helpful. Should you require additional information or clarification, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself directly. Best regards, Victoria Victoria Grohn, BES Heritage Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 70411 TTY1-866-969-9994victmia.grohn@kitchlenecca ---Original Message --- From: noreply@esohnionsgroup.ca —ply@esolutionsgroup.ca> On Behalf Of Luke Fischer Sent: Friday, May 7, 20212:36 PM To: Heritage (SM) <Heritage@kitchener.ca> Subject: Doon Bridges HIA Wood is conducting an HIA for two bridges in Kitchener (Donn Bridge #1, and #2). I've attached a letter with more detail on the project. Any information or input you can supply would be greatly appreciated. Kind Regards, Luke Origin: https://urldefense.proofpoint.corn/v2/url?u=hnps-3A_www.kitchener.ca_en_development-2Dand-2DcGnstmction_cultural-2Dheritage-2Din- 2Dkitchener.aspx&d=DwIGaQ&c=Z W Y66gCYUTYUcOev9C2G1DEcKuYKmWDVNR_L93Z9mQ&r=f8Tpl4ggQ 1TsSVhGjmV 19y8QuT7 1pzA2ezjf5S20r1M &m=FhtkBCLH628m2_KAbitjFJ7hiNiYfHHLkEH- ogtdHCO&5 ojb4DvfOlfa9B014 jxf8PXxzgzLFzMX_Xgy7nnh5c&e= This email was sent to you by Luke Fischer<luke.fischler@woodplccom> through https://urlderenw.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u–hups- 3A_w .kitchen r.m&d=DwIGaQ&c=ZWY66gCYUTYUcO-9C2G1DEcKuYK-WDVNR_L93Z9mQ&r--f8Tpl4ggQ1TsSVhGjmV19y8QuT71pzA2ezjf5S20r1M&m=FhtkBCLH628m2_KAbitjFJ7hiNiYtHHL.kEH- ogtdHCO&r 95a7d2Z6bXzdH1GF_cZnCEXcR5tPXEMo7RZhH9o_il8&e=. Page 112 of 147 Appendix C: Original Bridge Drawings wood. Page 113 of 147 Appendix D: Bridge Rehabilitation Drawings (1986) wood. Page 115 of 147 e 1 3 3 qh- J a O, .2,dLLD LL; EFZ p —2 'may"ar¢�Xooa;F y:z Trill q ,m'3 °- � ) Y\r T[Q o-�'� o�Fw = oorAOo-41' o m MAFIA a; 21pd 0 of �uO.pd ly9oo'U'. m � d Z oil fog, g 041 0 0 3 c` a s odve ,v Q�OaoFJib r�aF; a s 4 r a w � � Id = r � •� FII Q � � ��' � ;' L(�Z«.pP GF Qi. T .I �.N z�7 ILL O J Ao 73, a 0 r all - 40 ,"to r L' .• Z'o _ J F c u I 2 u AIS G 9a •� ,r �a of c N r 3 n q -- - a! Sao 1 d ¢ a i it nil W i �I II it � o C� alb i a T c -nv��a ...012 J I ? 0 — l e��a 2aif 2 r � o �� zTw zoLb { a mrn 7 a _ tics trcz Z 2 e�tb �Wq ZzLL¢ 45 �o „� o¢ p SET. Z; w2 N �11 1` ¢ Q �_ Z I \ O�iLb 54 Lb kZ" i F 2 0¢1 Q 0 I J o url U> I al "3. •P 4u 43� E�rA lQa sN LL�F�! �� him °a i - x r. 3 r - Y zi y. oX,53 BE i ria �n 1UI a z - s ��.n - � �'o � ea es `�' � 0,. p w2� oFZr �zZ rz loop r w `r':F OX !`. upr�if A a - ice / ZiG� -F ti6eb �-, `l >�Z oy.sb 7 d>. o� wy 3goz i Z� Zr _ Al�, aMV v u �veb Z > � F hA< ab `o ¢ kc, F - �Ir, r Z v O'QI 001 ��' � ,JN dd ul, �lpil i o F w m Vi Y .dio1QA -r� op.�.33za�go rc m a� uj OZ �Zqq , o Q��o z z yrs; r w 81 "T C to Z d I� J ul 2 LL Q- 01 U U' zpZ LI ��ur •� �'°'aozo4����7� W z m`. I �IQz�p� o �F:�u0 z�i.�c°rZ W o r t,3 O w 13 �ozZ° 0°�o�o��ne.r- Lt ltd oUu�o S azJd�p3� on Q �r� z2U4 EcZ4 �z�� �� i .� 9Z �!ou1J ��iZo 06"rdra a 3 �-- � � Z r � a 'e m � i •x 0 d N m' p x y 0( -/ It 8 Zelr U I` F c o Q!� 0 �I F r �•� 2 UI.. :` d v '" ull r us LIQ j�� rz t F zo s�> r C ;L,L��o FrA pOZ�-._ _ v Q aG deo li s z ¢ rd x Y uI ��- z z o °d 7 Z ql 10 r zr�g ! E1c ,3 Iss �I dQ3 �� 0 ah �E� ! Q n ¢� pa ��f li �F D> zseb U} w II ��• o r� ���n° ��i °a' II'i��� I ',� � 7 �� a �p 5 n Z� o ;: Z q Z F LLi o4 0 p� r� otros i \ r'z Iua• �wbe a 71 l a• ..,p Q � c 3 rl z �� e„ a� z 4 � �! o Q� � r � I s �r ,oz 7 i ZE Z Q I x r as 66 Q Z G C[ Z rs.� Q3dQr - Z,. Z. —� st. ,J Z I- >. - o s / 'I / iI d : 13I a� be LL � 3 r O / I Q � �� oo � � I T - � •J C1 NpG j' ZI� � �> ,yl ,z 3 Z2�J .rn 4tr' cx�7-�•aN-°ao ooi a_ I� oo al5f > 0 r 4" LDN, IXl?�•, _ Q¢xm¢ o� ,�Iru� aAp o�Oi o OI of SGA r�Q S Appendix E: Proposed Work wood. Page 123 of 147 F - z H U) OZ LU LLWz o 12 az o w c LU > c p L ------ Z _j > LU z Z --- -11 No ----- in E H 44 A H 2 7 E I al —M, -A d Gao 3o rc�cpiaaao3�3 va3�o �o'a�amaoo�aZ rc�r v�ara �azo �H < O II S 1. E �i.L OW- < A 'n < V) 2 2�- > 0 __j F- cn x E p /` Nod y z12 c o is o aF v a CD of z o a t -i El GNo Q - K aorc u`,moGao3orc�cpia aao3�3 va3�o�o'a �amaoo�aZrcor v�o ara �a x 9 I N UC - Q�— J F"FY o9NE° O Z \a I I o 9 oso�r E3z LLW ooz }= N UC ro W F"FY o9NE° O Z o Z o � � oso�r E3z ro W $ W o Z § / t a � a a \ a IIS O h J > W _ _ W =; W H o O5 oso�r E3z ro W $ W o Z § a _j > W =; W o oso�r E3z Appendix F: Conservation Standards and Guidelines wood. Page 126 of 147 4.4.1 CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS These guidelines provide direction when the constructed elements of an engineer- ing work are identified as character - defining elements of an historic place. Constructed elements are the distinct constructions that were built, erected or fabricated for the operation or use of the engineering work. Constructed elements can also be associated with the evolution of the work or with the transformation of the landscape resulting from the creation or operation of the work, which can include remnants, such as ore tailings from mining or dredging operations. The deteriorated heavy timber bow gantry frame of Dredge No. 4, in Dawson City, YK, was dismantled and replaced in kind with a new frame, built from new timbers sized to match the original timbers and reusing all original metal brackets and fixtures. The bow gantry, which supports the digging ladder, is a significant constructed element in the dredge's operational design. The types of constructions that can be considered constructed elements are extremely varied, including, for example: ■ Structures that housed a warehouse, mill, factory, refinery, cannery or hydro -generating station; ■ Landforms such as earth embankments and retaining walls of a dry ditch at a fort; ■ Bridge superstructures; ■ Tunnels, rock cuts and fills for a railway or highway right-of-way; ■ Locks, dams and weirs of a canal system; ■ Industrial machinery at a factory, or operational equipment inside a refinery, such as piping and steam tunnels; ■ Ships such as paddle steamers or dredges; and, ■ Ancillary equipment such as liquid or gas storage tanks, ore bins, cranes, derricks, chutes, conveyors or smokestacks at a factory. Constructed elements offer a physical record of the work; its purpose, operation and evolution; the engineering innovation and design it embodies; and its impact on the environment. Their form, scale, massing, materials and construction type can all have heritage value, because they illustrate the purpose, operation and use of the work. Constructed elements help to illustrate and demonstrate the process, operation or activity that is, or once occurred, in the work. The condition of the constructed elements (including patina, graffiti and signs of wear) and the remnants or by-products from their operation (such as debris), can also hold value by demonstrating the evolution and function of the work in its environment. 1941 GUIDELINES FOR ENGIfUEAR%�AWKV 147 These guidelines focus on stationary constructed elements; that is, character - defining machinery and ancillary equipment that are fixed in place. Movable equipment and artifacts are not covered under these guidelines, although they are often indispensable in helping to explain, interpret and illustrate the distinct stages of processes that once occurred in the works. These guidelines provide general recom- mendations for constructed elements of an engineering work. When the constructed element is a building or part of a building, a built feature in a cultural landscape or an archaeological resource, also refer to the corresponding guidelines when appropriate. For recommendations on specific materials that make up con- structed elements, refer to the Guidelines for Materials. The Eagle Creek Cement Bridge in Saskatchewan is a good example of the nearly 90 reinforced concrete bowstring bridges that were constructed during the 1920s and 1930s as part of a comprehensive road building program in southern Saskatchewan. The graceful bowstring arches of these bridges, which blended functional engineering technology with aesthetically pleasing design, are character -defining elements. Repair or replacement of any parts of the bowstring arches should carefully designed for compatibility, matching the original form, materials and detailing of the arches. Completed in 1904, the tall wood frame Clearwater Canadian Pacific Railway Water Tower in Manitoba is an excellent example of an intact railway water tower. Twelve thick timbers are set on concrete bases and are strengthened with cross -braces that support the cedar -lined water tank, which occupies the top half of the structure. The water tower retains many of the original pipes, valves and controls used in filling and using the tank. When ceasing operation at a work such as this, the character defining pipes, valves and controls should continue to be subjected to regular maintenance to prevent their deterioration. Fully understanding the complexity and behaviour of a constructed element, such as pumps at the Kingston Dry Dock and Pumphouse can include determining its original design, purpose, operating theory, construction, operation, evolution over time, structural behaviour, structural performance over time including load history, performance under environmental loads, current condition and the deterioration mechanisms of its construction and materials. Before beginning project work, the form, materials and condition of engineering works should be documented. Heritage recording of the Powerscourt Covered Bridge, National Historic Site of Canada in Powerscourt, QC, the only surviving bridge that uses the McCallum inflexible arch construction, included detailed measurements and a photographic record. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC R909 IW&Q DJ47 195 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION 1 Understanding the constructed element and how it contributes to the heritage value of the engineering work. 2 Understanding the construction history, theory, functional basis and design behind the constructed element. 3 Documenting the form, materials and condition of the constructed element before undertaking an intervention. 4 Documenting the operation and maintenance of constructed elements in sufficient detail to fully understand their operational characteristics. This can include obtaining an oral history of operation procedures, recording the machinery in operation or preserving records associated with the engineering work, and making these available for future research. 5 Assessing the overall condition of constructed elements early in the planning process so that the scope of work is based on current conditions. 6 Determining the appropriate level of investigation and analysis required to understand the overall condition of constructed elements, and analyzing the constructed elements in sufficient detail to fully understand their complexity and behaviour. 7 Determining the physical condition of constructed elements or their components, including the causes of distress, damage or deterioration through investigation, analysis, monitoring and minimally invasive or non-destructive testing techniques. 8 Testing constructed elements or their components in place to determine their characteristics, provided the appropriate precautions are taken to avoid their failure or destruction. 9 Taking into account the past performance and load history of constructed elements or their components when determining their present or future capacity. 10 Protecting constructed elements through appropriate and regular maintenance. Undertaking an intervention that affects a constructed element without first documenting its existing character and condition. Carrying out a level of intervention that exceeds what is required, or taking action based on assumptions or rules of thumb. Using highly destructive probing or sampling techniques that damage or destroy constructed elements or their components. Carrying out a repair that does not treat or address the cause of the problem. Failing to adequately maintain constructed elements on a cyclical basis, causing their components to deteriorate. 1961 GUIDELINES FOR ENGIfUEAgft VIA991<4f 147 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION 11 Protecting evidence of the evolution process or operation of constructed elements that contribute to the heritage value of the engineering work, including protecting patinas, soiling or debris, wear patterns and graffiti, resulting from the operation of the work or its associated machinery. For example, cleaning machin- ery just enough to reduce deterioration and danger to the public, rather than attempting to clean it to a "like new" condition. 12 Preserving the method of operation of an engineering work or its constructed elements that are important in defining the overall heritage value of the historic place. For example, continuing to hand -operate a canal lock gate mechanism, rather than switching to a motor. 13 Imposing limits on the acceptable use of constructed elements, Subjecting constructed elements to uses that could based on their actual characteristics and capacities to protect overload existing systems, such as installing equipment them from damage. There is a need to balance present and or systems that undermine the heritage value of the anticipated usage demands with heritage value, and to avoid, engineering work. if possible, any use that would damage or destroy the constructed elements. 14 Balancing the need to alter constructed elements to meet current safety codes and standards (to allow continued use) with the need to preserve the heritage value of the work's functionality and operation. 15 Retaining sound constructed elements or deteriorated constructed elements of engineering works that can be repaired 16 Stabilizing deteriorated constructed elements on an interim basis by structural reinforcement, weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until any additional work is undertaken. 17 Adapting interim stabilization interventions to the anticipated lifespan of the constructed element, so that they remain as reversible as possible. 18 Repairing deteriorated parts of constructed elements in a manner that is physically and visually compatible with the engineering work. Replacing or rebuilding constructed elements that can be repaired. Neglecting to treat known conditions that threaten the constructed elements of engineering works. Failing to undertake necessary repairs, resulting in the loss of constructed elements. Replacing an entire constructed element when repair or limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC R9(9I!9IJ3QQfDJ47� 197 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION 19 Protecting adjacent character -defining elements and components of constructed elements from accidental damage or exposure to damaging materials during maintenance or repair work. 20 Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of Replacing an entire constructed element when limited constructed elements using physical and documentary evidence replacement of deteriorated and missing parts is possible. as a model for reproduction. The new work should match the old as closely as possible in form, materials and detailing, and have adequate strength. 21 Testing proposed interventions to establish appropriate replace- ment materials, quality of workmanship and methodology. This can include reviewing samples, testing products, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock-up. Testing should be carried out under the same conditions as the proposed intervention. 22 Operating and using a functioning engineering work or its constructed elements appropriately and according to applicable codes, to preserve the functional purpose of the work that is important in defining the overall heritage value of the historic place. For example, maintaining a canal route open to navigation, or reinforcing a highway bridge so that it can remain in service. 23 Documenting all interventions that affect constructed elements, and ensuring that this documentation will be available to those responsible for future interventions. Ceasing to use or altering the functional purpose of a functioning work, or its constructed elements, that is important in defining the overall heritage value of the historic place. Operating and using a functioning engineering work without providing appropriate and timely maintenance, or without appropriate safety equipment, guards or training. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS ■ Recommended Not Recommended 24 Repairing constructed elements or their components using Failing to undertake necessary repairs, resulting in the loss recognized conservation methods. Repairs might include the of constructed elements. limited replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate Replacing or demolishing an entire constructed element, substitute material, of irreparable or missing components, when repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or based on physical or documentary evidence. missing parts is possible. 25 Proof -testing repairs to reinforce constructed elements or Reinforcing constructed elements or their components, their components in place, to confirm their actual rather than without verifying the effectiveness or the level of benefit theoretical performance, provided the appropriate precautions achieved by the reinforcement work. are taken to avoid their failure or destruction. 1981 GUIDELINES FOR ENGIfUE99A AAKgf 147 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS 26 Replacing in kind an entire constructed element that is too Replacing a constructed element with one that does not deteriorated to repair, using physical and documentary evidence follow the same engineering concept as the original. For as a model for reproduction. The new work should match the old example, replacing a character -defining mass masonry as closely as possible in form, materials and detailing, and have retaining wall with a reinforced concrete retaining wall adequate strength. faced with stone. 27 Replacing missing historic features by designing and installing Creating a false historical appearance by replacing a new constructed element based on physical or documentary a constructed element with one that is based on evidence, or one that is compatible in size, scale, material, style insufficient physical and documentary evidence. or colour. ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS 28 Designing additions for a new use in a manner that is ' compatible with the constructed element and respects the heritage value of the engineering work. 29 Building an addition to a constructed element that retains as many of the historic materials as possible, and ensures that the constructed elements are not obscured, damaged or destroyed, or the heritage value undermined. 30 Designing a new addition to a constructed element in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic and what is new. 31 Considering the design of an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the engineering work. The design for the new work may be contemporary or refer to design motifs from the historic place. In either case, it should be compatible in terms of massing, materials and colour, yet be distinguishable from the historic place. Introducing additions to constructed elements that are incompatible with the character of the engineering or that alter the historic relationships of the work. Duplicating the exact form, material, style and detailing of the original constructed element so that the new work appears to be part of the historic place. Designing and building new additions that negatively affect the heritage value of the engineering work, including its design, materials, workmanship, location or setting. 32 Placing a new addition on a non -character -defining elevation Designing a new addition that obscures, damages or and limiting its size and scale in relation to the engineering work. destroys constructed elements, or undermines the heritage value of the engineering work. 33 Undertaking soil mechanics studies and limiting new Carrying out excavations or re -grading that could cause excavations adjacent to constructed elements to avoid constructed elements or adjacent historic structures to undermining the structural stability of the engineering work settle, shift or fail, or that could damage archaeological or adjacent historic structures. Archaeological investigations resources. should be undertaken before any excavation to avoid damaging potential archaeological resources. Refer to the Guidelines for Archaeological Sites for additional recommendations on excavation work. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC R909 I14�nfDJ47199 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS ■ Recommended 34 Correcting the structural deficiencies of constructed elements when preparing for a new use in a manner that preserves their character -defining elements and the overall heritage value of the engineering work. 35 Designing and installing new mechanical or electrical systems or equipment when required for the new or continued use, in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the constructed elements. 36 Adding a new structural system to a constructed element when required for the new or continued use, in a manner that does not obscure, damage or destroy character -defining elements. 37 Creating a habitable space when required for the new use, in a manner that assures that character -defining elements will be preserved. 38 Removing non character -defining constructed elements when required by the new use. Removing, relocating and displaying non character - defining constructed elements in a new location, creating a false impression of the engineering work. 2001 GUIDELINES FOR ENGIfUE99A IAMf 147 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 39 Adding new features to meet health, safety or security requirements, in a manner that conserves the constructed elements and minimizes impact on the heritage value of the engineering work. 40 Working with code specialists to determine the most Making changes to constructed elements, without first appropriate solution to health, safety and security requirements exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that with the least impact on the character -defining elements and may be less damaging to the character -defining elements overall heritage value of the engineering work. of the engineering work. 41 Protecting constructed elements against loss or damage by dentifying and assessing specific risks, and by implementing an appropriate fire protection strategy that addresses those specific risks. 42 Installing sensitively designed fire -suppression systems, such as sprinklers, that retain the character -defining elements and respect the heritage value of the engineering work. 43 Applying fire retardant or protective materials that do not damage or obscure constructed elements. For example, applying fire -retardant, intumescent paint to a deck to further protect its steel. 44 Removing hazardous materials from engineering works, their constructed elements or their components, only after thorough testing has been conducted and less -invasive abatement methods have been shown to be inadequate. Where applicable, archaeological work to collect data should be carried out before the site is disrupted by soil decontamination operations. Implementing a generic fire protection strategy or one that does not appropriately address the specific fire risks of the engineering work. Installing fire -suppression systems in a manner that damages or destroys character -defining elements. Covering flammable, character -defining constructed elements or their components with fire-resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their appearance. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC 8909 Ij`C4f kDJ47 201 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS ■ Recommended ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS 45 Introducing a new feature to meet accessibility requirements in a manner that conserves the constructed element and respects the overall heritage value of the engineering work. 46 Working with accessibility and conservation specialists and Altering character -defining constructed elements without users to determine the most appropriate solution to accessibility consulting the appropriate specialists and users. issues with the least impact on the character -defining elements and overall heritage value of the engineering work. SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 47 Complying with energy -efficiency objectives in upgrades to the Damaging or destroying constructed elements and constructed elements in a manner that respects the engineering undermining the heritage value of the engineering work work's character -defining elements. while making modifications to comply with energy - efficiency objectives. 48 Working with specialists to determine the most appropriate Making changes to constructed elements, without first solution to energy efficiency requirements with the least impact exploring alternative energy efficiency solutions that may on the character -defining elements and overall heritage value of be less damaging to the character -defining elements and the engineering work. CEASING OPERATION OF AN ENGINEERING WORK 49 Following appropriate mothballing procedures when ceasing operation of an engineering work so as to maintain the potential for future operation of the work or its constructed elements, including installing appropriate safety shut -offs, and carrying out regular maintenance on the shut -down mechanisms to prevent their deterioration. overall heritage value of the engineering work. 2021 GUIDELINES FOR ENGIfUEA91 , Kgf 147 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR RESTORATION PROJECTS 50 Repairing constructed elements from the restoration period Replacing an entire constructed element from the using a minimal intervention approach, such as patching, restoration period when the repair of materials and limited splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing its materials and replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible. improving weather protection. 51 Replacing in kind an entire constructed element from the Removing an irreparable constructed element from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair using the restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it physical evidence as a model to reproduce the element. The with an inappropriate new element. replacement should have the same form, appearance and material properties as the replaced element, and have adequate strength or load-bearing capabilities. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. REMOVING EXISTING FEATURES FROM OTHER PERIODS 52 Removing or altering a non character -defining constructed element or component from a period other than the restoration period. Failing to remove a non character -defining constructed element or component from another period that confuses the depiction of the engineering work's chosen restoration period. Removing a feature from a later period that serves an important function in the engineering work's ongoing use, such as an emergency exit door, or signage associated with a new use. RECREATING MISSING FEATURES FROM THE RESTORATION PERIOD 53 Recreating a missing constructed element from the restoration Installing a constructed element that was part of the period, based on physical or documentary evidence. engineering work's original design but was never actually built, or a constructed element that was thought to have existed during the restoration period but for which there is insufficient documentation. RESTORING OPERATION TO AN ENGINEERING WORK 54 Restoring operation to an engineering work that is important Keeping an engineering work in a non -operational state 1 in defining its heritage value. when the operation of the work is important in defining its heritage value. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PL9,9I!9 Ij36Q Dj47 203 4 ■ 5 ■/� These guidelines provide direction when .7 �F concrete is identified as a character-defin- CO N C R E T E ing element of an historic place. They also give direction on maintaining, repairing and replacing concrete elements. Early uses of concrete were typically utilitarian and formed part of structures that were hidden from view. The earliest concrete was massive, un -reinforced, cast - in -place construction containing variable aggregates that were obtained from local sources. Beginning in the early 1900s, the use of concrete as an aesthetic material became more common and was fully em- braced by the middle of the 201 century. Reinforced concrete began appearing in the early 1900s, introducing more efficient designs of concrete members and struc- tures. This, in tum, allowed for increased spans and the creation of architectural features, such as sculptural staircases and organic roof forms. Pre -cast concrete, where the members are fabricated off-site and brought to the site for erection, was first used in the 1930s. This coincided with the increased use of concrete as an exposed architectural, decorative and functional element, such as paving tiles and exterior wall cladding. Cape Race Lighthouse, on the southernmost tip of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland and Labrador, is Canada's most prominent landfall marker. Built in 1906-1907, Cape Race was the first Canadian lighthouse to be constructed in reinforced concrete and probably the second lighthouse constructed in reinforced concrete in the world. Special formwork or chemical or mechanical treatments can create a wide variety of concrete finishes, such as these pre -cast panels with exposed Laurentian granite aggregate at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa. Recreating these finishes when repairing or replacing -in-kind should be preceded by a mock up to ensure that the new work will be compatible with the historic place. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC 8909 114X kDJ47 229 Architectural uses for concrete include exterior cladding, flooring and paving. The aesthetic qualities of concrete can include the texture created by formwork, such as smooth or board formed, and the colour and finish, such as exposed aggregate or terrazzo. Finding recognized conservation tech- niques for concrete can be a challenge because these are part of a relatively new area of conservation. Some repair techniques may not have been thoroughly tested. A significant industry exists in Canada for repairing recent concrete structures; however, commonly used repair techniques and materials are usually not suited to historic concrete. The monolithic nature of concrete compli- cates its repair. High-quality workmanship and compatible materials are necessary in any repair to reduce the abrupt altering of the properties of the matrix, which could lead to shrinkage cracking. These guidelines provide general recom- mendations for concrete and should be used in conjunction with 4.5.1, All Materials. Because concrete can also form part of the structure or cladding of a building or engineering work, also refer to Structural Systems or Exterior Walls in the Guidelines for Buildings. Deterioration of concrete is a significant conservation issue, particularly in the Canadian climate. Deterioration typically results from environmental factors, such as moisture, temperature and the presence of salts and carbon dioxide, which can corrode the steel reinforcements. Durability factors related to the original materials and workmanship, and improper maintenance, can also significantly affect concrete. In the early 20th century, concrete was still an experimental material. The early designers and fabricators did not have full knowledge about the properties and characteristics of the concrete or its performance in the Canadian environment. Early examples of concrete construction often have inherent problems, are in poor condition and can require considerable conservation work. Important properties to match when patching concrete can include the modulus of elasticity, cement to aggregate ratio, aggregate gradation, compressive and shear strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion. In this case the coarse aggregate in the repair patch does not match that of the original concrete. The skills and expertise to repair or replace sections of cracked and chipped terrazzo flooring are still available. These specialised skills should be sought our when repairs are needed. The colourful, decorative and functional finish of this crest in the floor at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch N° 1 in Regina is an important character -defining feature of the building. 2301 GUIDELINES FONPAiW15 M 147 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION Understanding the properties and characteristics of the concrete of the historic place. Documenting the form, composition, strength, colour, texture, details and condition of the concrete before undertaking an intervention. For example, identifying the particular characteristics and source of the type of aggregate used. 3 Protecting and maintaining concrete by preventing moisture penetration; maintaining proper drainage; improving water shedding; and by preventing damage due to the overuse of ice -clearing chemicals. m 4 Cleaning concrete, only when necessary, to remove heavy soiling or graffiti. The cleaning method should be as gentle as possible to obtain satisfactory results. 5 Testing cleaning methods in inconspicuous areas before cleaning the entire concrete surface, and observing the results of the cleaning tests over a sufficient period of time to determine their immediate and long-term effect. 6 Inspecting painted concrete surfaces to determine whether repainting is necessary. Removing damaged or peeling paint, using the gentlest method possible before repainting. Undertaking an intervention that affects concrete, without first documenting its existing character and condition. Failing to identify, evaluate and treat the various causes of concrete deterioration. Applying water-repellent coatings to above -grade concrete to stop moisture penetration, when the problem could be solved by repairing failed flashings or other mechanical defects. Over -cleaning concrete surfaces to create a new appearance, thus introducing chemicals or moisture into the concrete. Using a cleaning method that involves water or liquid chemical solutions when there is a possibility of freezing temperatures. Cleaning with chemical products that damage the concrete. Failing to rinse off and neutralize appropriate chemicals on concrete surfaces after cleaning. Blasting the concrete with abrasives that permanently erode the surface and damage soft or delicate materials adjacent to it. Applying coatings or paint over the concrete to present a uniform appearance. Removing paint that is firmly adhered to concrete. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC R909 IJ`CRQ DJ47 231 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVATION, REHABILITATION AND RESTORATION Reapplying compatible paint or coatings, if necessary, that are Removing paint from historically painted concrete unless physically and chemically compatible with the previous surface it is damaging the underlying concrete. treatment, and visually compatible with the surface to which Removing stucco or cement parging from concrete that they are applied. was historically never exposed. Selecting an appropriate approach to corrosion protection to Introducing a corrosion protection system for the minimize damage to the concrete, including regular inspection concrete, without verifying the effectiveness or the and maintenance. level of benefit achieved by the work, or without taking appropriate steps to address the cause of the corrosion. 10 Retaining sound and repairable concrete elements that contribute to the heritage value of the historic place. 11 Stabilizing deteriorated concrete elements by structural reinforcement and weather protection, or correcting unsafe conditions, as required, until repair work is undertaken. 12 Repairing deteriorated concrete by patching or consolidating, using appropriate conservation methods. 13 Minimizing damage to early concrete by limiting the size of the chipping equipment to better control the degree of removal, remembering that the compressive strength of early concrete may be much lower than modern concrete. 14 Cleaning concrete before repair to remove contaminants, dirt and soil, so that the new concrete patches match the cleaned surface. Removing deteriorated concrete that could be stabilized or repaired. Repairing concrete without treating the cause of deterioration. Replacing an entire concrete element when selective repair or replacement is possible. Using coatings or finishes to cover and hide surface repairs. 15 Sealing inactive cracks in concrete by pointing with a Sealing active cracks with hard mortars or other hard cementitious mortar, or injecting epoxies to prevent moisture materials that could prevent seasonal movements. from entering the concrete mass. Repairing cracks in concrete elements, without first determining the cause or significance of the crack. 16 Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of Using replacement material that is incompatible with concrete elements, based on documentary and physical evidence. adjacent concrete work Recreating formwork finishes, such as form lines, wood grain, or knots, using grinders or trowels. 2321 GUIDELINES Fc�WT IQ129f 147 ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS 17 Repairing and reinforcing deteriorated concrete by encasing it in a jacket of new concrete, using appropriate conservation methods. 18 Replacing in kind an irreparable concrete element, based on documentary and physical evidence. Failing to maintain the proportions or form of deteriorated concrete elements, when repairing by jacketing with new concrete. Removing an irreparable concrete element and not replacing it, or replacing it with an inappropriate new element. 19 Applying appropriate surface treatments, such as breathable Applying coatings to concrete instead of correcting coatings, to concrete as a last resort, only if repairs, alternative the problem that caused the damage. design solutions, or flashings have failed to stop water penetration, and if a maintenance program is established for the coating. HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 20 Removing hazardous materials from concrete by using the least -invasive abatement methods and only after thorough testing has been conducted. ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR RESTORATION PROJECTS 21 Repairing deteriorated concrete from the restoration period by patching or consolidating, using recognized conservation methods. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible and identifiable on close inspection for future research. Removing concrete from the restoration period that could be stabilized and conserved. Replacing an entire concrete element from the restoration period when repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing parts is possible. Using a substitute material for replacement that neither conveys the same appearance as the surviving concrete, nor is physically or chemically compatible. 22 Replacing in kind a concrete element from the restoration Removing an irreparable concrete element from the period that is too deteriorated to repair, based on documentary restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it and physical evidence. The new work should be well documented with an inappropriate new element. and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC 8909 IIAWDJ47 233 Appendix G: Assesor Qualifications wood. Page 142 of 147 ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS Peter Popkin, Ph.D., CAHP, MClfA — Associate Archaeologist Dr. Popkin is an Associate Archaeologist at Wood based in Wood's Richmond Hill office. Peter has over 20 years of professional experience in both consulting and academic archaeology within Canada and internationally. In Ontario, he has successfully undertaken hundreds of consultant archaeology projects and has acted as Senior Reviewer (QA/QC) for numerous Cultural Heritage Reports. Dr. Popkin has lectured in archaeology at York University, the University of Toronto and Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, as well as University College London, King's College London, and Birkbeck College, in the UK. Dr. Popkin holds a Professional Archaeological Licence (P362) from the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, is a Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and is a full Member of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (MCIfA). Dr. Popkin received his Ph.D. from the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK (2009). Heidy Schopf, MES, CAHP — Built and Landscape Heritage Team Lead Heidy Schopf the Built and Landscape Heritage Team Lead at Wood. She has over ten years' experience in Cultural Resource Management. She is a professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). She has worked on a wide variety of projects throughout Ontario, including: cultural heritage resources assessments, heritage impact assessments, documentation reports, cultural heritage evaluations, strategic conservation plans, heritage conservation district studies and plans and archaeological assessments. Ms. Schopf has extensive experience applying local, Provincial, and Federal heritage guidelines and regulations to evaluate protected and potential cultural heritage properties. She is skilled at carrying out impact assessments and developing mitigation measures to conserve the heritage attributes of properties where changes are proposed. Luke Fischer, M.A. — Cultural Heritage Specialist - Mr. Fischer is an intermediate Heritage Specialist and Senior Archaeologist who has been working in the Cultural Heritage field since 2002. In addition to his experience in Ontario, he has worked on linear corridor studies in Alberta, British Columbia, and Illinois. Mr. Fischer has successfully authored and managed the production of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and Heritage Impact Assessments for multiple clients during his time at Wood. Mr. Fischer is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and sits on the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH). Mr. Fischer's graduate studies included the examination of Ontario architecture and built landscape as it applies to social themes common to anthropological discourse. Mr. Fischer holds a Professional Archaeology License (P219) issued by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Chelsea Dickinson, B.A — Cultural Heritage Technician Ms. Dickinson holds an Honours B.A. Degree in Near Eastern and Classical Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University, and a Post -Graduate Certificate in Geographical Information Systems from Fanshawe College, she has been working in the field of archaeological consulting since 2015. Ms. Dickinson holds an Applied Research license (License R1194) in Archaeology from the Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. Ms. Dickinson has conducted all aspects of Stage 1 to 4 archaeological assessments (AAs) throughout Ontario, including environmental assessments (EA) conducted for the development of wind and solar farms, hydro line corridors and municipal roadway improvements. Ms. Dickinson has been the co-author on a multitude of archaeological assessment reports and has experience working on cultural heritage assessment reports, heritage impact assessments, and documentation reports specializing in historical background research spanning across Southern Ontario. wood, Page 143 of 147 Ms. Dickinson has had the privilege of working alongside a multitude of First Nation community members while conducting archaeological assessments in both Northern and Southern Ontario. Ms. Dickinson has experience using high precision GPS technologies, specifically Top Con Hi SR and FC5000 positioning systems, used to map in architectural features, diagnostic artifacts, as well as topographical anomalies and site boundaries. Ms. Dickinson has experience using ArcGIS in addition to Collector for ArcGIS while conducting archaeological assessments. wood. Page 144 of 147 Appendix H: Limitations wood. Page 145 of 147 Limitations 1. The work performed in the preparation of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and the conclusions presented are subject to the following: (a) The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Professional Services Contract; (b) The Scope of Services; (c) Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and, (d) The Limitations stated herein. 2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented. 3. The conclusions presented in the report are based, in part, on visual observations of the Study Area. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the Study Area which were not reasonably available, in Wood Environment & Infrastructure's opinion, for direct observation. 4. The potential and protected cultural heritage resources encountered at the Study Area were assessed, within the limitations set out above, having due regard for applicable heritage regulations as of the date of the inspection. 5. Services including a background study and fieldwork were performed. Wood Environment & Infrastructure's work, including archival studies and fieldwork, were completed in a professional manner and in accordance with the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries' guidelines. It is possible that Cultural heritage resources not visible from the public realm may be within, or adjacent to the Study Area. 6. The utilization of Wood Environment & Infrastructure's services during the implementation of any further cultural heritage work recommended will allow Wood Environment & Infrastructure to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained the CHRA. Wood Environment & Infrastructure's involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as they are encountered. 7. This report is for the sole use of the parties to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon, or decisions made based on any information of conclusions in the report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood Environment & Infrastructure accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein. 8. This report is not to be given over to any third -party other than a governmental entity, for any purpose whatsoever without the written permission of Wood Environment & Infrastructure, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. wood. Page 146 of 147