Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 20-13 City 00 = Report to _-;.YT Executive Committee -am. r'^_' :-ii PI E i _ Report Number: PLN 20-13 Date: September 9, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge over the West Duffins Creek on Whitevale Road Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Recommendation: 1. That the Heritage Permit Application submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering, to allow the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge over West Duffins Creek, located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, be approved, subject to the following condition: (a) that staff, in consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee and the Heritage Committee, (i) consider the use of materials other than concrete for the proposed curb and gutter located at the ends of the replacement bridge; (ii) identify appropriate remnants of the former bowstring Arch bridge and the existing Whitevale Bridge for salvage and identify an appropriate location and display to commemorate the history and significance of the existing and former Whitevale Bridges; and (iii) develop an appropriate wording and location for a plaque to commemorate the history and significance of the existing and former Whitevale Bridges. Executive Summary: The Hamlet of Whitevale and surrounding environs is designated as a Heritage Conservation District, under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Location Map, Attachment#1). In addition to other approvals, owners of properties within the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District are required to obtain a Heritage Permit when altering buildings and structures, including demolition and new construction, to ensure that the proposal complies with the Heritage Conservation District Guidelines and respects and complements the character of the District. In July 2008, the Hamlet experienced severe flooding which caused erosion to the banks around the Whitevale Bridge. Temporary repairs to the structure and erosion repairs to the existing banks were undertaken. In 2010, as part of the City's Asset Management Plan, a Bridge Inspection Report was carried out. The report concluded that the Whitevale Bridge required replacement rather than rehabilitation. 1 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 2 Subsequently, the City initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA), which was completed in January 2012, and recommended replacement of the existing two lane bridge with a new two lane bridge. As part of the EA process, a Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared to evaluate the cultural and heritage significance of the Whitevale Bridge. During both the EA and the detailed design process that followed, consultation continued with stakeholders including the Whitevale and District Residents'Association Bridge Committee and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. On May 23, 2013, the City's engineering consultants, GHD, presented the Heritage Permit Application and provided an overview and details of the bridge design to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. The Heritage Committee did not support the bridge design as presented, and remains concerned with the scale and width of the bridge. Staff supports the bridge design. The bridge design reflects the outcome of the EA process. The scale and width of the bridge is in keeping with the heritage features of the existing bridge and complements and blends in with the heritage character of the Hamlet. The bridge design maintains the overall objectives of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District while meeting the current minimum bridge design standards for operation and safety, both vehicular and pedestrian. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the Heritage Permit Application submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering, to allow the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge over West Duffins Creek, subject to the condition noted in the recommendation section of this Report. Financial Implications: There are no direct costs of approving the Heritage Permit. The expenditure funding for the removal and replacement of the Whitevale Bridge was approved by City Council on February 21, 2012, in Report to Council CST 03-12. 1. Background 1.1 An Environmental Assessment was undertaken after severe flooding in 2008 left the Whitevale Bridge over West Duffins Creek in a poor state of repair The Whitevale Bridge is located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and was built to carry Whitevale Road over West Duffins Creek and link the east and west sides of the Hamlet (see Location Map, Attachment#1). Whitevale Bridge is a landmark within the community and forms part of the Seaton Hiking Trail, which follows the banks of West Duffins Creek through this area. 2 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 3 The existing bridge was designed and built in 1929 following the collapse of the previous concrete bowstring Arch Bridge constructed only three years earlier in 1926. The existing bridge is a two span, concrete T-beam bridge with a 32 metre span. This bridge underwent modifications in the 1950s and 1970s for which no details are available. Also, in October 1954, as a result of damage from Hurricane Hazel which caused West Duffins Creek to overflow, the bridge was temporarily closed for repairs. In July 2008, the Hamlet of Whitevale experienced a severe rain storm, which caused erosion to the banks around the existing bridge structure. The engineering consulting firm at the time determined that a temporary repair was required for the northwest abutment of the structure. In the fall of 2008, a contractor was hired to install a steel beam to support the abutment, and erosion repairs to the existing banks were carried out. In 2010, Engineering Services initiated a City-wide Municipal Structure Inspection. The Bridge Inspection Report concluded that the Whitevale Bridge required replacement, rather than rehabilitation. As a result of the recommendations of the Bridge Inspection Report, the City initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA). The City retained the engineering firm GHD to undertake the EA to identify and evaluate alternatives for addressing deficiencies. The alternatives considered for the project included: • do nothing • restrictive signage/traffic diversion • removal of the bridge ▪ replacement with a one-lane bridge; and • replacement with a two-lane bridge The alternatives took into consideration the natural, social, economic and cultural environments, and the problems and opportunities associated with the poor condition of the bridge. The EA was completed and filed January 2012. A request for a Part II Order to require an individual EA was submitted to the Minister of the Environment by the Whitevale and District Residents'Association Bridge Committee due to their concern with the scale and width of the proposed bridge. It was concluded that an individual Environmental Assessment was not required and the Minister denied the Part II order. Based on the decision of the Minister, the City can now proceed with the project subject to obtaining other required permits and approvals. The EA recommended replacing the existing two-lane bridge with a new two-lane bridge with design characteristics that mitigate impacts. As part of the EA process, a Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared to evaluate the cultural and heritage significance of the bridge. The Heritage Impact Assessment concluded that the bridge retains moderate historical associations with the historical development of Whitevale given its sole link between.the east and west sides of the Hamlet and as a focal meeting place within the community. 3 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 4 The bridge retains strong contextual values resulting from its landmark status within the community, contribution to the heritage character of the Hamlet through its current scale and grade, its role as a traditional river crossing, and its relationship with the former bridge that previously carried Whitevale Road over West Duffins Creek. Given the identified heritage value of the bridge, mitigation measures and strategies were recommended through the EA process. The design characteristics were developed based on a review of existing practices identified in the Ontario Heritage Bridge Program Guidelines as well as those developed by other municipalities when replacing heritage bridges located in Heritage Conservation Districts. 1.2 The details of the replacement bridge design were recommended through the Environmental Assessment The EA recommended the following Preferred Solution bridge design and characteristics (see Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation, Attachment#2): • a two lane bridge with a total span of 36 metres • maximum lane widths of 3.2 metres which match the existing laneway widths on the bridge and on the approaches to the bridge • introduction of a 0.5 metre recovery zone (a safety requirement for pedestrians and vehicles, which provides additional space between the travel lane and the sidewalk) • a north sidewalk having a width of 1.5 metres, whereas currently no sidewalk exists on the north side (there is an existing ledge of approximately 0.6 metres) • a 2.0 metre wide sidewalk on the south side replacing the existing 1.5 metre sidewalk • sidewalks will extend the entire length of the bridge • a bridge width of 7.4 metres between sidewalk faces and an overall bridge width of 11.5 metres • exterior precast concrete girders that are infilled to recreate the appearance of the existing bridge T-beams • a railing design known as a Texas Classic Railing • native plantings and materials The revised detailed design has resulted from consultation with the Whitevale and District Residents' Association (WDRA) Bridge Committee, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and other stakeholders. 4 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 5 1.3 Council's approval of a Heritage Permit Application is required to remove and replace the Whitevale Bridge The bridge structure is located within the boundaries of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. A heritage permit is required for both the removal, and the replacement, of the bridge. A Heritage Permit Application was submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering, on May 15, 2013. The Permit Application included the Heritage Impact Assessment, a detailed plan of the proposed bridge design and supporting documentation. A copy of the Heritage Permit Application is available for review in the City Development Department. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council may consent to the application, with or without terms and conditions, or refuse the application. 2. Comments from Key Stakeholders were not supportive 2.1 The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee did not support the Heritage Permit Application On May 23, 2013, the City of Pickering's consultants from GHD, including John Semjan, Bridge Manager (Roads and Bridges) and Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator presented the Heritage Permit Application to the Heritage Advisory Committee (see Excerpts of Minutes of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, Attachment#4). The consultants provided an overview of the bridge replacement project including the EA process and the consultation that was undertaken with stakeholders including the WDRA Bridge Committee, approval agencies such as the TRCA, and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The City's consultants described the bridge design in detail and the refinements that have occurred to minimize the overall scale and width of the Bridge since the preliminary design. The consultants also explained the technical constraints involved in bridge design and the City's responsibility to meet minimum safety requirements. The consultants responded in detail to the questions and comments from the Committee members. Despite completion of the EA, the Heritage Committee remains concerned with the design and does not support the approval of the Heritage Permit. The Heritage Committee provided the following comments for Council's consideration: • construct a new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge and consider reducing the width of the proposed bridge • remove the north sidewalk • reduce the length of guiderail • concern with guiderail adjacent to the trail • reduce speed on the bridge 5 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 6 • consider alternative material to concrete curb • support the railing style • support the native plantings proposed and flower planters • request City staff work with the Heritage Committee to install a plaque to commemorate the Bridge • request City staff work with the Heritage Committee to determine the location of salvage remnants of the former bridge from West Duffins Creek Lloyd Thomas, representative of the WDRA Bridge Committee was present at the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting and expressed the concerns from the Residents' Association which were primarily with respect to the scale and width of the bridge and the length of the guiderail. 2.2 The Whitevale and District Residents' Association Bridge Committee also expressed concerns with the design of the bridge The WDRA Bridge Committee had two formal meetings with City staff and staff from GHD in September 2011 and December 2012 on the replacement Bridge project. In addition, the WDRA Bridge Committee provided a letter dated May 21, 2013 to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for their consideration (see Attachment#5). An overview of the Bridge Committee comments and suggestions include: • design the new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge as closely as possible • develop a sympathetic design of the heritage replacement bridge, ensuring that it retains a heritage feel and does not resemble a standard bridge • design the Bridge to limit the impact on the surrounding natural and historic environment 3. Staff Comments 3.1 The Bridge design was refined through the Environmental Assessment and design process to minimize the scale and width within practical engineering and technical requirements of the approval agencies The recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, the comments from the WDRA Bridge Committee and the requirements to meet minimum Bridge design standards for operations and safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, were taken into consideration during the development of the preferred solution through the Environmental Assessment and detailed design processes. The recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and WDRA Bridge Committee generally included the request to design the bridge to match the scale and width of the existing bridge as closely as possible and developing a sympathetic design ensuring that it retains a heritage feel and to blend in with the heritage character of the Hamlet. 6 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 7 The dimensions of the bridge including the length and width were developed and refined through the EA and design process to minimize the scale and width within practical engineering and technical constraint requirements of the approval agencies (see Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation, Attachment#2). Specific negotiations and refinements to the bridge design were conducted with the TRCA. TRCA's original requirement included a bridge span of 112 metres. The'project team consulted with the TRCA and recommended a minimum technically feasible span of 36 metres. This will ensure that: minimum safety standards are met; the span of the bridge will accommodate the flow and channel migration as required by TRCA; and the span of the bridge will provide terrestrial passage along the western bank of West Duffins Creek as requested by the TRCA. 3.2 The bridge width was reduced in response to comments from the Whitevale Bridge Committee The study team refined the original design recognizing the concerns expressed by the Whitevale Bridge Committee where possible (see Cross Section of Preliminary Preferred and Revised Preferred Solutions, Attachment#3). The study team's Preliminary Preferred Solution recommended two lanes, each at 3.5 metres wide, whereas the existing bridge has two lanes each at 3.2 metres wide. In response to concerns, the lane width was reduced to 3.2 metres in the Revised Preferred Solution. The existing bridge does not include a recovery zone which is a safety requirement. The design team originally proposed a recovery zone of 1.0 metre on each side of the bridge. It was reduced to a minimum acceptable width of 0.5 metres on each side. Currently, there is a 1.5 metre sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. The Preliminary Preferred Solution proposed 2.0 metre wide sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the bridge. The WDRA Bridge Committee requested the removal of the north sidewalk in an effort to reduce the total width of the bridge. The study team investigated the request, and concluded that the removal of the sidewalk would be at the expense of public safety. The removal of the sidewalk would result in the narrowing of the Bridge by 0.8 of a metre, not by 1.5 metres, as removal of the sidewalk necessities an increase in the recovery zone from 0.5 metres to 1.2 metres. The Revised Preferred Solution proposed a 2.0 metre wide sidewalk on the south side of the bridge and 1.5 metre on the north side. The City is of the opinion that the benefit of maintaining the sidewalk on the north side provides a safe refuge for pedestrians who regularly use the bridge to view West Duffins Creek. This includes Whitevale residents, Seaton trail uses, tourists, club and community and school groups. Additionally, the City's sustainability policies encourages walkable neighbourhoods and where possible, providing sidewalks on both sides of all roads. 7 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 8 3.3 The guiderail design and length is the most appropriate from the available options taking into consideration safety objectives Concerns regarding the guiderail length and the guiderail adjacent to the Seaton Hiking Trail were expressed from the Whitevale Bridge Committee and the Heritage Committee. A steel beam guiderail is necessary to ensure safety for pedestrians and vehicles. The guiderails are shown on the Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation, provided as Attachment#2. The length of guiderail extending from each corner of the bridge is as follows: 16 metres in the north-west; 29 metres in the south-west; 16 metres in the north-east; and 7 metres in the south-east. The design team investigated reducing the length of the guiderail during detailed design, and as a result; the proposed guiderails are as short as possible. The guiderails will be connected directly to a concrete a pillar, not directly to the bridge so as to not disrupt the design of the bridge. Staff supports the guiderails as proposed. 3.4 Staff supports commemorating the former bridge by salvaging historic remnants and relocating them to a community park The Heritage Impact Assessment recommended commemorating both the former bowstring Arch and the existing bridges. The City is committed to working with the WDRA Bridge Committee and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to develop appropriate wording for a commemorative plaque and incorporating elements of the existing and former bridges into a community park. It is proposed that removal of remnants from the creek bed of the original pre-1929 bowstring Arch bridge and railing from the existing Whitevale Bridge be salvaged. Representative remnants can be salvaged and placed in an appropriate location to be determined by the City in consultation with the Bridge Committee and the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. The Heritage Impact Assessment also suggested that flower planters be designed to fit over the railings of the new bridge. Any design or installation of planters will be determined by the City in consultation with Bridge Committee and Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. 3.5 A request to consider a reduction to the speed limit on Whitevale Bridge is not supported The Heritage Committee requested that the speed limit on Whitevale Bridge be reduced from its current 40 kilometres (km) per hour. There is a relationship between the speed on a bridge and the width of the recovery zone between the travel lane and the sidewalk. The selected design is already using the minimum width of 0.5 metres. 8 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 9 Unreasonably low posted speeds are frequently, but not always, ignored. This • leads to greater variability in the speeds between vehicles travelling on the same road — a common cause of accidents. Whitevale Road has traffic calming on both sides of the bridge to address speeding and a posted speed limit of 40 km per hour. It is appropriate to retain the same posted speed on the bridge. 3.6 A request to consider the use of alternate materials instead of concrete curbs is being considered in some locations The Heritage Committee requested the City consider the use of alternate materials to concrete curbs. The curbs on the bridge (which are in the front face of the sidewalk) can be only concrete. However, concrete curbs and gutter were proposed at the ends of the bridge to direct stormwater off the bridge into the valley. For these locations, in response to Committee's comments, City staff are investigating options to use alternate curb treatment and materials that would be in keeping with the rural nature of Whitevale Road, such as natural rock. 4.0 Staff recommends approval of the Heritage Permit Application submitted by GHD, on behalf of the City of Pickering The outcome of the ongoing consultation with the stakeholders and agencies has resulted in a bridge design that is sensitive to the historic rural context of the District. The bridge design addresses recommendations made in the Heritage Impact Assessment and the objectives of the conservation district guidelines, which encourage new development to respect and complement the character of the Hamlet. The scenic road quality has not been sacrificed while still meeting the current minimum bridge design standards for operation and safety, both vehicular and pedestrian. Council is requested to approve the application, with a condition exploring the use of natural materials as an alternative to concrete for the proposed curb and gutter, salvaging remnants of the existing and former bridges for relocation and display, and erecting a plaque commemorating for the existing and former bridges. Attachments 1. Location Plan 2. Whitevale Bridge Replacement Plan and Elevation 3. Cross Section of Preliminary Preferred and Revised Preferred Solutions 4. Excerpts of Minutes of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee May 23, 2013 5. Whitevale and District Residents' Association Letter dated May 21, 2013 9 Report PLN 20-13 September 9, 2013 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Whitevale Bridge Page 10 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: __ , t__.--- - (//111/ f( :-/-../--,. 1;3—`,...„ Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, PP Senior Planner— Development Review Chief Planner & Heritage A , „. / / ,,,.- Darrell Selsky, CET, CMM III Thomas Melym , M °, RPP Manager, Capital Projects Director, City De el••ment & Infrastructure i / I .:w/ r• Ric rd Holb!'n, P.Eng. Director, Engineering & Public Works CC:Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci , ■ ouncil I / / � l . 2.7, 2-0(3 / � Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 10 ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT # PL-N r&o-13 1 ..--— / r--- , . WHITEVAL 1 'STRE• iMill. \ CH '�� �`I - •r1.::.i:;1^.em 0..II i I -_ ■5 - IIInaI1 InII inID ■A.r Rem I. . 1111► = •IDGE i \ —1 r-.)? '--1 iv Location Map Chi 4 FILE No: Heritage Permit -IC11 -r — - ` u - APPLICANT: GHD on Behalf of the City of Pickering ES�i W S Or PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Whitevale Bridge City Development DATE Aug.2,2013 Department Data SoYroom €it l wC.1 w N. /I rp Q hbnR wl E. Not a Pr1 d eSYry yn o1 "rv"- SCALE 1:10,000 PN-R 11 ._.--,...... .... R I - , ■ , c.II() I I ATTACHMENTS zT01 I € . i22 w <5 ■ 1 `,,t' REPORT # PD g . ' )—-- --, ....,..?, 1 [ 1 1 o, I '' ,...• n 1 / , , <S2 i s ger ..... 't m. 11_. I \ I tti E' 2 ,. 3t ., .g N d :-. . p ?5.i g E i • . i:, r, 5,,,1 I i g e ir 11111 a. 111" 1 I L 1!.1 ti. //I 1 1,, & i X 1 e i i' i , Li g ,2 5- 5 - is---1 e.., 1 1 i 1 Q, o z - ■ I , ,,,, , 111 tu■ 7 . , g 1 ,,,,,,,, ...,i i I C ' I L ify4--- -, , . , 1 g \•-- i I g\ I "...i ■ ' ,--- Ig 7 ' I 9g I I I , LI 1 .. - ' — .—t'' - 1 \ • g i • 1 1±1 i 4 111 T 3 1 N. ... l., itil VII —- , 'I .5 aim 2 --...., I I ..., 1 = I • II, , il - 4 ig • , , ; ,I _._.. i. il -.:::_a• - A I 2 ....... E.--. 1 6 S ' VI II z' I 0 wi ce ,.... ' 1 § _ — _ _ .„,. " — s... :...... _ _ 0 — pl 5 6 w er , -f-----.-- F J- 1 . _ ...,.„..... ..., . i I Ed- - '...., , --,-- he of .., 1/J.Try,0011341 ' I L3 `p -- 1 --1 I 0 - s 1 ' ff. I I t: ' to 1 6 ■ ,--..._ i' .{... ' ' ... ... -- _ , I (n Zr--_ .... 1 i § g z it I 1 - F. F.•• ... .... — ,.... _ _ ,r. .. - _---L--.1711:-‘-'-' .. — w'—- -- vfeli f" 1 .. t# 1 , I i El " — — 414 1,1 .. ,„,. .., _ i i 1. 4'1 ,44 I - _ *el A , .,. --F . /II"- I & = - +.-- °,1' I i.$ '.:i 0 j , 47...!, •.0 . I 4,' _ _ =0,m . q I 1 ,T '-on Pe4-;M: - _ - ..„*.,,,,I,?„,c7,'010",,... !.,s./.. a - 6a _ :4,...,............ ,i ,___ -. .._ ( ,I A 7 -1 .`"'I l - gi, / - — .., / ''.. , ,--, 1 I I --1 Tsc,,,,c,.."' s ...... / t g I 41 I , t I kl 0 t vs...3 . a *I I . , ..) ■ r.. , 1 R6 I ... 1 . ......4.k.s....... . I 1 1 12 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # PLN a0-t?. Preliminary Preferred Solution WHTTEVALE IL RIGHT OF i WAY RD. WAY 10.065m 10.065m 13.6m 0.3m 2.0m 1.• 3.5m 3.5m .0 2.0m 0.3m LANE LANE ,, CONCRETE PARAPET N ASPHALT WALL AND ' j STEEL RAIL / -- I CI CI I REINFORCED CONCRETE GIRDERS DECK REINFORCED CONCRETE PIER Revised Preferred Solution > RIGHT of IL WHITEVALE RIGHT OF WAY I RD. WAY 10.0ESm 10,065m __ 11.5m 0.3m 1.5m 3.2m 3.2m 2.0m 0.3m :'fir LANE LANE SDEWAIX 0.5m O.5m CONCRETE PARAPET r ASPHALT WALL AND / STEEL RAIL 1 // PRECAST-- � C REINFORCED GIRDERS 111111111111111111111111111111 DECK REINFORCED K CONCRETE N PIER Figure 9 ' Cross-Section of Preliminary Solution and Revised Preferred Solution 13 ATTACHMENT# 11- TO REPOR1 # PL-N ac-i- . C;tq of A Excerpts of Minutes ill_; Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee = ,- May 23, 2013 I7:00 pm T. Main Committee Room Attendees: Councillor Rodrigues S. lyer W. Jamadar R. Lattouf E. Mason T. Reimer D. Rundle C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage D. Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Absent: T. Besso M. Sawchuck S. Sheehan Guests: John Semjan, Bridge Manager, GHD Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator, GHD Wayne Cassidy, Cassidy & Company Architectural Technologist Jessie & Jodie Gray Lloyd Thomas Don Anderson Item 1 Details.& Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) • • Status (include deadline as • appropriate) 3.0 Delegations 2. Whitevale Bridge Heritage Permit C. Celebre introduced the City of Pickering's consultants from the Sernas Group Inc. as well as Darrell Selsky, Supervisor, • Engineering, City of Pickering, who were in attendance to provide an overview of the bridge replacement project and heritage permit application for the Whitevale Bridge. She advised that under the Ontario Heritage Act, Council shall consult with the Heritage Advisory Committee prior to • considering the Heritage Permit application. John Semjan, Bridge Manager, The Sernas Groups Inc. (GHD) and Lynn Collins, Senior Environmental Project Coordinator, appeared before the Committee. Through the aid of a power point presentation and a handout of the plans Page 1 14 ATTACHMENT# Li TO REPORT# Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status . (include deadline as appropriate) for the bridge replacement, Mr. Semjan outlined the proposed bridge design elements and materials to be used. He noted the existing bridge width is 8.6 metres and the proposed width is 11.6 metres. Mr. Semjan noted the bridge span is currently 32 metres with 36 metres being proposed. TRCA had requested a 112 metre span. He noted that the Environmental Assessment had been completed and the recommendations contained in the report had been accepted. He stated that a public open houses had been held and that ongoing meetings were being conducted with the public as well as the Whitevale Bridge Committee. He provided background information and outlined mitigation strategies including the following; • Erection of plaque to commemorate the site • Incorporate elements of the existing bridge into the community park • Salvage of remnants from the old bridge and railings with location to be determined by the City in consultation with the Whitevale Bridge Committee • ensure design of new bridge will respect the character of the hamlet of Whitevale Mr. Semjan outlined the modifications of the design considerations which have been made as a result of the consultation process. He explained the design elements considered to address the visual character of the site, as well as the materials to be used. He also explained the safety standards in place to protect all users of the road. A detailed question and answer period ensued with Mr. Semjan and Ms. Collins providing clarification as required. C. Sopher questioned whether there were any design alternatives for the guardrails that would meet safety requirements and requested that pictures of alternatives be forwarded to him. He noted the importance of being complimentary to the community. He also questioned the construction of a separate pedestrian bridge. Discussion ensued with respect to a pedestrian bridge and the importance of this to help minimize the impact from construction as well as allowing a safe crossing for hikers. E. Mason questioned whether there was any recourse now that the EA has been completed. Page 2 15 ATTACHMENT# � TO REPORT # PL-N ao-i5 Item ! Details & Discussion &Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include.deadline as appropriate) Lloyd Thomas noted that the concerns from the Whitevale and Distrcit Residents' Association were mainly with respect to the width of the bridge and length of the guardrails. He noted that TRCA would like hikers to walk up and not climb over the guardrails for safety reasons. D. Selsky, Supervisor of Engineering, noted that the pedestrian bridge is an entirely separate project, He also C. Celebre to explained that the current extent of deterioration of the bridge action which presents significant safety concerns, and the need to move ahead with the project. Ms. Collins noted that TRCA has confirmed they support the EA as approved. Comments and recommendations are noted as follows: Members were in support of the Texas classic railing, green rock protection planted with native shrubs proposed and filling in of precast beam webs. Suggestions and comments included; • Alternatives to steel guide rails • Construct new bridge to match the scale of existing bridge • Remove the north sidewalk • Reduce width of bridge • Reduce length of guiderails • Use alternate material to concrete for curbs • Construct a pedestrian bridge • Concerns with guiderail adjacent to the trail • Reduce speed on bridge • Work with City to erect a plaque to commemorate the site • Work with future Whitevale Plaque Program • Work with City to install flower planters • Investigate the salvage of remnant materials from former bridge and incorporate into community park Moved by R. lyer Seconded by R. Lattouf That the recommendations noted above be forwarded to Council for consideration of the Heritage Permit application. Page 3 16 ATTACHMENT# T To REPOR1 # Pj-N PL-N &' - I?3 Item ! Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as a•.ro.riale Carried C. Celebre explained the process involved with the heritage permit application. She advised that she would summarize the Committee's recommendations in a report for Council's consideration of the Herita.e Permit application. • Page 41 7 ATTACHMENT# J TO REPORT # Pi-c a 't 3 VYL2T 0p WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT ¶y7TTTT7V L 4 RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION J Whitevale,ON ‘� :j LOH 1M0 AiMay 21, 2013 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee RE:Whitevale Bridge Replacement—Heritage Permit It is our understanding that a Heritage Permit Application was submitted by Sernas Group Inc. on behalf of the City of Pickering on May 15, 2013 with respect to the replacement of the Whitevale Bridge. We have also learned that this permit will be discussed at your upcoming Advisory Committee meeting on May 23, 2013. Although City staff haven't forwarded the permit application to the WDRA Bridge Committee, we would like to take this opportunity to bring a few items to the attention of the Heritage Committee. The WDRA Bridge Committee was formed shortly after news was received that the existing Whitevale Bridge would be replaced. Since its inception, one of the primary goals of the Bridge Committee has been to ensure that the design of the replacement bridge is in keeping with the historic character of the village. The Bridge Committee has reached out to the City throughout the entire design process in an effort to have input into the final bridge design and has been granted two face-to-face meetings; one in September 2011 towards the end of the Environmental Assessment phase and one in December 2012 at the beginning of the Detailed Design phase. We were assured that we would be given other opportunities to comment on the design throughout the detailed design process, but haven't been given a chance for many months now. Historic Context The.current Whitevale Bridge was constructed in 1929 to replace the previous bridge (built only three years earlier and noted as the "pride of the village")that was washed out in a heavy flood. The opening of the bridge on November 30, 1929 was marked with a celebration which included residents of Whitevale and prominent officials including the Minister of Highways and previous Pickering reeves. The bridges of Whitevale have always held a special place in the hearts of the villagers because they serve as a focal point in the community and they are what link the two halves of the village together; the bridges have allowed for the village to grow and prosper. The Whitevale Bridge is consistent with the architectural evolution of the Hamlet,which is well known as one of the few hamlets in the province that has retained the overall 19th century character established during its humble beginnings in the early 1800's and later grew into a busy industrial area in the 1870's. The current Whitevale Bridge has survived at least two flood events (Hurricane Hazel in 1954 and a heavy rainfall in the summer of 2008). Although the bridge has survived for nearly 85 years, it has been neglected by the City in recent years and has now deteriorated to a point where the City says it needs to be replaced. ZPage I of 5 18 '� WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION ATTACHMENT# TO Heritage Impact Assessment REPORT# Pi_ -i 3 The Whitevale Bridge Heritage Impact Assessment report was completed in 2011 by Archaeological Services Inc. Although the bridge was not recommended for inclusion in the Ontario Heritage Bridge List, the report states that it meets one of the criteria for Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act and may be considered for municipal designation under that act. The bridge was also noted to have strong contextual associations with Whitevale through its current scale and grade. The report has the following comments about the bridge: "The rural character of Whitevale is rooted in the nineteenth century, and it has riot changed considerably over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Vestiges of its earlier role as an industrial and commercial centre are present with the village, as demonstrated by the remnants of a former mill site located on the east banks of the river adjacent to the bridge. The bridge and remnants of the former concrete bowstring bridge still present underneath the east span of the structure contribute to the character of this village given their role as a traditional bridging point, which has direct associations with the historical development of Whitevale." "The bridge is considered a landmark feature given its important role within the local • community for providing a link between the east and west sections of the hamlet of Whitevale." The report also suggested the following mitigation strategies to be followed during the replacement of the bridge: • Erection of a plaque to commemorate the site • Incorporate elements of the existing bridge and former bowstring arch bridge into the community park • Ensure that the new bridg e is sympathetically designed to respect the former bridge crossings and to blend in with the heritage character of the hamlet of Whitevale through the incorporation of certain design considerations: o aesthetic bowstring arch o open concept concrete railing design o flower planters o chamfered soffit and tapered pier as extant in current structure Finally,the report recommends that: "Where engineering or other considerations permit, the character-defining elements...should be retained and treated sympathetically during future repair/rehabilitation work or considered in the designs of the new structure". gift OF 0 .1111.I Page 2of5 19 WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT R ESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION 4094.• • �_ ATTACHMENT# - TO Useful Guides for Design REPORT # PLt' ab- i 3 The Bridge Committee has brought forward several design references/guides to the City's attention in an effort to assist the engineers in coming up with creative solutions for the design of the replacement structure. 1) The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide states: "Public Works projects, such as road construction, sidewalks, storm drainage, street lighting and utility servicing, have the potential to cause profound disruption to the fabric of the Whitevale Heritage District. in order to minimize the adverse effects on the district, the following general principles should be considered prior to the design and implementation of public infrastructure works: • • The road character of the district should be preserved • Suburban development standards would be inappropriate in the district • The narrow pavement, shoulder treatments and grass ditches are essential to the district character and should be maintained • When projects in the interest of public safety must be undertaken, they should be reviewed carefully so that the scenic road quality is not sacrificed." 2) The Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines list eight conservation options for bridges; the last resort option being: "Bridge removal and replacement with a sympathetically designed structure" which is then further qualified by stating, "...project teams should be mindful of context,scale, massing, and materials of the original structure. Further, the overall style and character of the original should be preserved or reflected using similar materials and design elements where possible.' 3) The Aesthetic Guidelines for MTO Bridges offers suggestions for bridge design relating to the size and scale of the bridge: "A bridge should be designed with sensitivity to its context. Its physical setting greatly affects its appearance. The same bridge that appears appropriate and aesthetically pleasing in one setting will not necessarily evoke the same response in a different environment. Appropriate precedents for similar situations in the vicinity or elsewhere should always be analyzed for their aesthetic strengths and weaknesses. These lessons should be applied by the designer in order to ensure that the new bridge makes a positive contribution to its context, visually as well as functionally." "in a natural setting, the bridge will be the most conspicuous object in the landscape. The eye will always be drawn to it. it is very important that the structure is sensitive to and does not visually overwhelm the setting. Efforts should be made to convey a visual impression of lightness." The overriding message when designing a new bridge to replace a historic structure is to design it in such a way that it blends into the existing historic environment and matches the existing structure as closely as possible. Furthermore, this specific bridge is located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, which was established to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the special character of Whitevale. 1 Page 3 of 5 20 WHITEVALE AND DISTRICT RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION ATTACHMENT# C? TO Bridge Committee Suggestions REPORT # Pi-N1 Jo-I?� Through this process the Bridge Committee has been assured by staff that the City of Pickering values the historic character of Whitevale and is committed to working with the residents of both Whitevale and Pickering to provide a design which meets the needs of the community while not detracting from the heritage character of the Hamlet. During every communication with the City, we have made it clear that heritage is of extreme importance to the Hamlet of Whitevale and have made numerous suggestions with respect to the bridge design. Some of the suggestions put forward by the Bridge Committee include: • Design the new bridge to match the scale of the existing bridge as closely as possible; suggestions to achieve this included: o constructing a one-lane bridge; o providing a separate pedestrian bridge to allow for a reduction in the number and size of the sidewalks; o exploring exceptions to normal bridge design practices, which is acceptable for bridges on low speed and low volume roads;and o reducing the proposed width of the south sidewalk and eliminating the proposed and unnecessary north sidewalk altogether. • Develop a sympathetic design for the heritage replacement bridge, ensuring that it retains a heritage feel and doesn't resemble a standard looking highway bridge; suggestions to achieve this included: o considering alternate structural bridge types such as a rigid frame bridge; o incorporating decorative and historic elements such as bowstring arches (similar to the previous 1926 bridge)or spandrel arches; o using a chamfered soffit and tapered piers similar to the current bridge; o disguising the standard prefabricated concrete girders (if used in the design) by filling in the web portion; o constructing barrier walls with a heritage appearance-,such as the Texas-style railing; and o installing a heritage plaque outlining the history of the previous Whitevale bridge crossings. • Design the bridge so that it limits the impact on the surrounding natural and historic environment; suggestions to achieve this included: o limiting the length of steel beam guiderails used at the bridge approaches, which severely disrupt the heritage feel of the village; o using rolled asphalt curbs instead of concrete curbs; o protecting the historic blacksmith's shop located adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing bridge; • o planting flowers on the bridge; and o outlining the procedure for dealing with any buried artifices that might be unearthed during construction. As you can see, the Bridge Committee has made continued efforts to ensure that the replacement bridge is designed appropriately. There are many issues we have with the current design of the bridge; most notably we feel that the scale of the bridge is much too large considering its environment and we also feel that the bridge type (CPCI girders) don't reflect a sympathetically designed heritage structure whatsoever. While we do expect that the City will incorporate some of the Bridge Committee's more minor and superficial suggestions so that they can claim to have satisfied the Heritage Impact Assessment recommendations, we are concerned that some of the major items (i.e. the size and bridge type) will not be addressed; unfortunately we haven't been Page 4 of 5 21 ATTACHMENT# -5 TO RESIDENTS' AND DISTRICT _`-'c '� REPORT ft Pl 1�i c�-1, RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION t provided with a set of drawings since last year, so we aren't sure where the design stands at this point. We were told that we would be consulted throughout the design process and not just at the end of it. We were just notified today that the bridge replacement schedule will likely be postponed a year to June 2014. We believe that this delay creates an opportunity to revisit some of the heritage design issues and hopefully come up with a more appropriate heritage design. The Bridge Committee wanted to bring you up to speed on this project, as we recognize you have only been brought in at the tail end of the process when everything is already completed. We decided to present you with this list of our previous suggestions so that when you review the current design, you can decide for yourself what suggestions have been incorporated and determine if the City has given appropriate consideration to heritage. As you are the City's advisors on heritage matters, we trust you will recognize the impact that a new bridge will have on the heritage character of Whitevale and we have faith that you will make the appropriate recommendations to ensure it is designed appropriately. Sincerely, Lloyd Thomas Chair,Whitevale and District and Residents'Association, Bridge Committee • • Page 5 of 5 22 111