Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-007-23 (2)Attachment 2 to PDS-007-23 f Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan Engagement Feedback Report: Public Information Centre #3 August 2022 $ottY� W14 e CONO �ARIN � 5 Clarbgwn SvN A=COM b • = � ism cirybuiltling 8 .king Footprint Acknowledgements Consulting Team • Shonda Wang, Project Director, SvN Architects + Planners • Kelly Graham, Project Manager, SvN Architects + Planners • Michael Matthys, Associate, SvN Architects + Planners • Kim Behrouzian, Planner & Urban Designer, SvN Architects + Planners • Kevin Phillips, Municipal Transportation Manager, AECOM • Peter Middaugh, Civil Engineering Lead, AECOM • Cindy MacCormack, Sustainability Specialist, Footprint • Steve Taylor, RR17 EA Lead, BT Engineering • Harold Madi, Urbanism by Design Municipality of Clarington Project Team • Karen Richardson, Manager of Development Engineering • Lisa Backus, Acting Manager of Community Planning & Design • Mark Jull, Senior Planner Project Steering Committee Durham Region • Jeff Almeida, Development Approvals, Regional Servicing and Transportation • Doug Robertson, Project Manager, Transportation Infrastructure • Valerie Hendry, Project Planner, Plan Implementation Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority • Ken Thajer, Planning and Regulations Coordinator North Village Landowner's Group • Scott Waterhouse, Planning Manager, GHD • Paolo Sacilotto, Project Manager, Planning, DG Group • David Murphy, VP, Land Development Brookfield Residential MTO • Christian Singh, Senior Project Manager Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB • Jeanette Thompson, Manager, Planning Services Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland and Clarington CDSB • Kevin Hickey, Manager of Purchasing Planning and Facility Administration Community Members We appreciate all of the members of the community who took the time to ask questions and provide feedback on the materials presented at the Public Information Centre. 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 2. Advertising Strategy.............................................................................................................................................................................................5 3. Meeting Overview...................................................................................................................................................................................................5 4. What we heard: Key Themes...........................................................................................................................................................................6 5. Live Poll and Web Survey..................................................................................................................................................................................6 6. Questions from the Public.................................................................................................................................................................................8 7. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Appendix A) Public Notice B) PIC#2 Presentation C) Survey Response Data 3 1. Introduction The purpose of the North Village Secondary Plan (NVSP, "the Project") is to establish a planning framework that will guide the development of approximately 41 hectares of greenfield land at the north end of the Village of Newcastle, along with the associated roads and other infrastructure (Figure 1). The resulting Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law will conform to and implement the Clarington Official Plan, The Durham Regional Official Plan, and Provincial policies and plans. The guiding priorities of the Secondary Plan include sustainability, urban design, affordable housing, community engagement, and coordination of initiatives. A series of public engagement events support the development of the Secondary Plan to ensure that community priorities are integrated into the Plan and so that the Project Team can respond to feedback from the public. The Secondary Plan is being undertaken as an integrated Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the planning of new roads and infrastructure within the Project Area. Concurrent with the Secondary Plan, the Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham are also undertaking a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to evaluate alternatives for the realignment of Regional Road 17, a Type B arterial road that bisects the Secondary Plan Area. These three parallel processes will result in a land use and infrastructure framework for future development. Figure 1: Project Area Map While there are currently only a small number of residents within the Project Area, this area will be knit into the fabric of the existing Newcastle community. Current residents are important stakeholders in this process. The involvement of these stakeholders ensures that a multitude of interests are represented and balanced within the planning framework. The engagement process will take place in three phases that align with the planning and environmental assessment work (Figure 2). Engagement activities include eight Steering Committee Meetings, five open house events (four Public Information Centres and one statutory Open House), online engagement throughout the project, and one statutory Public Meeting before Clarington Council. This summary report contains a review of the feedback received at the third Public Information Centre, held on June 8, 2022. 4 Phase 2 Initial Public Input + Evaluation Criteria + Technical Analysis Alternative Land Use Plans 2021 2022 Fall Winter Spring Public Milestones completed prior to tall 2021.. Information Public Stcennp Cammlttee Centre 2 November 18th information #1, 2.3 6 4 Centre 3 Public Information June 8th Centre #1 0 2 1 We are here Figure 2: Project Timeline 2. Advertising Strategy Phase 3 Phase 4 Draft Secondary Plan Emerging Land Use Plan + Zoning By -Law Q Public Meeting 0 Stakeholder Meeting 2023 Summer Fall Winter Spring Public Information Centre 4 (RR17 EA) - Date TBD 00 Statutory Public Meeting Date TBD The webinar invitation was distributed widely in various formats, including advertisements in the Orono Times on May 25, 2022 and Clarington This Week on May 27 and June 2, 2022. The PIC was also advertised online on the project website(www.clarington.net/NorthVillage), through the Municipality's social media channels, in the Planning Services e-Update, and by email to people who had previously signed up for project updates. Every household within the Project Area and within 120 metres of the Project Area received print notices in the mail, and email notices were provided to anyone who had previously signed up for project updates. Notice was also sent to commenting agencies and local Indigenous communities. The public notice is included as Appendix A to this report. The advertising strategy fulfills the requirements of the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. 3. Meeting Overview The Public Information Centre (PIC) was held in a virtual format using Zoom Webinars. It took place from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm. A presentation was given by SvN Architects and Planners, containing the following information: • Project Overview and Timeline • Vision & Guiding Principles • Baseline Parameters and Evaluation Framework for assessing the Alternative Land Use Plans • Three Alternative Land Use Plans • An update on the RR17 Environmental Assessment study, including alignment and cross section alternatives. A copy of the presentation is included as Appendix B to this report. The presentation was followed by a moderated question -and answer period, where participants could submit questions in writing and a panel including Municipality of Clarington Staff and the Consultant Team responded. Public feedback was received via the following methods: 5 During the public meeting: o Virtual live polling to learn more about attendees, their priorities for Newcastle and North Village, and to get input on the draft vision and guiding principles; o Moderated question and answer period; After the public meeting o Web survey available on the project website from June 15 to July 15; and, o Personal correspondence to the Municipal Project Manager. 4. What we heard: Key Themes Some of the key messages from the live poll, web survey, and questions included: • Participants value the "village" feel of Newcastle and the fact that most daily needs can be met locally. North Village should similarly be a complete community, with some small-scale retail & service uses that do not compete with the businesses on King Avenue. • The school is a community priority and key civic feature for the neighbourhood, and it should be located near the Neighbourhood Centre. • Participants like parks, trails, and walkable streets, and would like to see more of these. Elongated parks that also provide off-street active transportation opportunities are desired. • Respondents preferred medium density residential areas to be more evenly distributed through the plan area rather than clustered in one location. Additional details on the live poll, survey, and Q&A are provided below. 5. Live Poll and Web Survey In total 34 people attended the PIC, however, many of the attendees were staff of the Municipality or the Region of Durham. A smaller number (9 to 11) people participated in the live poll questions. Of those who responded, the majority were residents of Newcastle. Responses to the live poll questions and web survey showed similar patterns, although the web survey had a couple of additional questions. Of the 59 people who responded to the web survey, 4 people noted that they had also attended the webinar, so there is some duplication of responses. Overall the total number of unique responses ranged from 68 to 71. Response data is included as Appendix C. Feedback for each question was aggregated, and is summarized below. Opening Questions What do you like most about Newcastle? This was a repeat question from the second PIC. Unsurprisingly, the most popular responses were the similar and included: the main street (King Ave), the community feel, and the trails, parks, and waterfront, and proximity to local farms. These were consistent between the live poll responses and the web survey. Have you attended any of the P/Cs about this study? We wanted to understand how many people have participated in previously consultation activities, versus how many people were attending for the first time. In total 28% of respondents had attended a previous PIC, and 72% had not. 11 Alternative 1 Questions Please refer to the slide deck in Appendix B for the corresponding graphics for each alternative. What is your favourite design feature? Participants were able to select more than one answer for this question. The most popular design features in Alternative 1 included the central park as a community destination and anchor to the main street, main roads as green corridors, and the small-scale, central, commercial main street and "heart". Do you like the location of the school? In Alternative 1, the school is proposed to be located in the northwest quadrant of the plan. The responses were fairly evenly split, with 43% saying they like the location, 40% preferring another location, and 17% not sure. Free text comments On the survey, participants were able to provide additional written comments on the alternatives. In response to Alternative 1, there were a number of comments related to the school, specifically noting that it should be further from Highway 115. Some provided recommendations for uses within the Neighbourhood Centre, including a grocery store, coffee shop, and walk-in clinic. Alternative 2 Questions What is your favourite design feature? Participants were able to select more than one answer for this question. The most popular design features in Alternative 2 included the highway buffer zone green space, locating the school as a key civic feature, and maximizing density around the neighbourhood centre. Would you like to see the medium density residential areas clustered together in one location, or more evenly distributed throughout the plan area? In Alternative 2, the lands designated medium density were clustered around the Neighbourhood Centre at the middle of the neighbourhood, and along Regional Road 17. The majority (62%) of respondents said they would prefer to see it more evenly distributed. 28% like the clustering of medium density, while 10% were not sure. Free text comments In response to Alternative 2, there were again a number of comments related to the need for a school. A few respondents noted that there should be bike lanes and walking paths to access King Street to the south. There were contrasting comments around density, some people want to see more density, others want to see less. Alternative 3 Questions What is your favourite design feature? Participants were able to select more than one answer for this question. The most popular design features in Alternative 3 included the integration of the neighbourhood centre with a linear park, elongated parks to create "green fingers" and maximize access, and locating the school as a view terminus of the linear neighbourhood centre. 7 Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre? In Alternative 3, the Neighbourhood Centre is located in the southwest quadrant of the neighbourhood and is adjacent to a park and the school. 25% of respondents liked this location. 22% preferred a more centrally located main street and "heart', and 13% preferred a prominent "four corners" intersection along RR17.10% of respondents were not sure. Free text comments There were a number of respondents who noted that this is their favourite alternative of the 3 presented. Other comments included a suggestion that collector roads should have bike lanes, and one person who does not support the realignment of RR17 and thinks it should stay the way it is. RR17 Realignment Questions BTE presented the 6 alignment alternatives that had been carried forward from the preliminary evaluation. The following questions were asked to get input on how the community would like to see the arterial road network function. Please note that these questions were only asked as part of the live webinar poll, and the sample size is quite small (7 respondents). Would you prefer traffic lights or a roundabout at RR17 and Concession Road 3? Five out of 7 respondents preferred a roundabout over a traffic light and zebra crossing. Do you like the proposed changes to business access? Each of the alternatives have impact on how existing businesses are accessed. Four respondents liked the proposed changes, however 3 said they were not sure. Do you want to see additional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3? Some of the alignment alternatives contemplate the creation of new access roads north of Concession Road 3 to facilitate access to Highway 115. Five out of 7 respondents said they support the creation of additional new roads, while 2 said they were not sure. !- 6. Questions from the Public Only 5 questions were submitted in the chat. They included: These principles are great. What mechanism ensures that the Municipality doesn't erode them in the face of pressure from the developers. We've seen "minor variances" turn small commercial units into big chain stores in central Newcastle. How will these principles be guarded? Are the percentages of the 3 densities the same in all 3 Alternatives? Approximately how many residents will be living in this plan? Can you explain what "Highway Commercial" means please? I have a retirement lot at the junction of Concession Road 3, can it be moved? 7. Conclusion The principles have been created to guide the creation of the land use alternatives, the evaluation criteria and the ultimate Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law. The Project Team will use the principles as a barometer to evaluate the final products and ensure that they are consistent and will implement the objectives of the project. No, they are similar but not exactly the same. Please review the land use tables accompanying the Alternatives in the presentation deck in Appendix A. The estimated total potential population ranges from 1,416 to 3,941 depending on the densities (units per hectare) attributed to each land use category. The Highway Commercial designation relates to the existing McDonald's property at the corner of Highway 115 and Concession Road 3. This use is not anticipated to change in future. The lot in question is outside of the Secondary Plan area. The property owner may at any time submit an application to the Region's Land Division Committee. Between the live poll results, the participant questions, and the web survey results, the following emerged as key priorities for North Village: • Participants value the "village" feel of Newcastle and the fact that most daily needs can be met locally. North Village should similarly be a complete community, with an assortment of retail & service uses that do not compete with the businesses on King Avenue. • The school is a community priority and key civic feature for the neighbourhood, and it should be located near the Neighbourhood Centre. • Participants like parks, trails, and walkable streets, and would like to see more of these. Elongated parks that also provide off-street active transportation opportunities are desired. • Respondents preferred medium density residential areas to be more evenly distributed through the plan area rather than clustered in one location. This feedback will inform the creation of an Emerging Land Use Plan which will form the basis of the Secondary Plan, Urban Design Guidelines, and Zoning By-law, as well as the other technical supporting documentation. The Emerging Land Use Plan will be presented to the public in a fourth PIC event in the fall of 2022. pi Appendix A 10 North Village Secondary Plan and Regional Road 17 Realignment Integrated EA Study Public Information Centre #3 Wednesday, June 8, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. MIL40- Join us online or by phone. Join us at Public Information Centre #3 to learn about the proposed locations for shopping, parks, and different forms of housing. Share your feedback on the designs, and help shape the future of north Newcastle. Register in advance for this meeting at www.clarington.net/NorthVillage. For more information, contact Mark Jull or Lisa Backus at 905-623-3379 or northvillage@clarington.net. North Village will be a vibrant neighbourhood, open to all, at all stages of their life. Walkable and welcoming, it will reflect the rich community spirit of Newcastle. O CONCESSION ROAD 3 �f North Village wSecondary Plan Area a � Z = a / w6 a' Approved Area Context Area LU w LU ono Duo � ao� DIE z� O KING AVENUE EAST Integrated Environmental Assessment As part of the North Village Secondary Plan, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being undertaken for new or modified major roads, including a proposed realignment of Regional Road 17 to Concession Road 3. These road projects are subject to Schedule 'C' of the Municipal Class EA process. The EA will be completed using the"Integrated Approach"with the Planning Act, an approved process under the Environmental Assessment. This integrated approach will ensure that North Village Secondary Plan and the Regional Road 17 Realignment are completed simultaneously, providing the necessary supporting documents, public consultation and alternative options for both projects. The Notice of Commencement was issued on November 3, 2027. This public information centre is progressing as part of the Integrated Class EA process. Information is being collected in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (2009). With the exception of personal information, all comments, concerns and issues will become part of the public record. Tk. Tf"^ III PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE #3 June 8, 2022 (virtual meeting) Land Acknowledgement The Municipality of Clarington is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the Mississaugas and Chippewas of the Anishinabeg known today as the Williams Treaties First Nations. Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and their longstanding contributions to the area now known as the Municipality of Clarington. 1 Clarington SvN 'TENG,- n ._ ro ,LCOM ism footprint Agenda 00 Introductions & Overview 7 Vision & Guiding Principles Baseline Parameters Alternative Land Use Plans Evaluation of the Land Use Plans RR17 EA Update / Discussion & Next Steps 2 ClarlagWil SvN eT EN ro ,LCOM ism footprint Introductions & 0�Rlwm v: _ _ 2°� i xi ENGINEEPINc; p1�AN Clarington $VN AcCOM °'sro footprint Introductions Claringon SvN SvN Architects + Planners Urban Planning, Urban Design, Engagement Consultant Team Lead 4 The Municipality Q Mark Jull Lisa Backus Karen Richardson Senior Planner Acting Manager Manager Community Planning Community Planning Development & Design & Design Engineering The Consultant Team t Shonda Wang Michael Matthys Kelly Graham Kim Behrouzian Principal Associate Senior Planner Planner MSc, BSW, MCIR RPP MSc.PI, B.A MPI, BA, RPP MLA, BURPI, RPP Project Director Senior Planner Project Manager Urban Designer am A=COM sm Y foot rivet ' : i BT Engineering AECOM b '""""°"�°°'a`"me`'"9 Footprint Transportation Planning, Urbanism RR 17 EA Study, Servicing, Integrated EA, by Design Sustainability Transportation Engineering Archaeology, Heritage, Agricultural Impact, Retail Urban Design Market Impact GIM119 Mn SVN ro ,q=CpM �!eipe� Ism footprint Who is in the "room"? POLL QUESTIONS ClarlagWil SvN 'TEN ro ,LCOM ism footprint � Poll - Who is in the "room"? 1. What is your relationship to Newcastle? a) Resident b) Visitor to Newcastle c) Business owner d) Worker e) Interested citizen 3. What do you like most about Newcastle? a) The main street b) Proximity to local farms c) Community feel d) Trails, parks, and waterfront e) Walkable streets 2. Why did you make time in your day to join the public 4. Have you attended any of the Public meeting this evening? Information Sessions about this Study? a) I am curious about the new neighbourhood a) Yes b) I am interested in housing options in the new neighbourhood b) No c) I am curious about the changes to Regional Road 17 d) I am interested in a new Neighbourhood Centre e) Other 6 Clarla n SvN BT ENGINEEBINI, � A=COM ,sro footprint About the Project CONCESSION ROAD 3 Approximate RR17 Realignment Urban Boundary Q North Village Secondary Plan Area 0 Approved Area Context Area 0 50100 200m O Background A Secondary Plan will guide the development of a new neighbourhood. The project is guided by the following Council priorities: Sustainability and Climate Change Affordable Housing Urban Design Community Engagement The project will be carried out in accordance with the Planning Act and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process (MCEA) under the Environmental Assessment Act for new infrastructure including roads, transit, water, and sewers. 7 Cl n SvN aria�to a=coM a Secondary Plan The Clarington Official Plan contains policies for managing municipal -wide growth. A Secondary Plan contains policies for a specific area. >> The framework may consist of the following elements: land use and built form, roads and infrastructure, parks, community facilities, cultural and natural heritage, sustainability. The final Secondary Plan will also be accompanied by an implementing Zoning By -Law, as well as Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. 1 a Environmental Assessment s The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) is a process for evaluating options for new infrastructure, including roads, transit, water, and sewers to support the new residents in the Secondary Plan Area. The re -alignment of Regional Road 17 (North Street) is a key consideration to increase the separation between Regional Road 17 intersection with Conc. 3 and Highway 35/115 and in order to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes and improve safety. Key messages that emerged through the public and stakeholder engagement so far include: We like to walk around the community and on nearby trails and are concerned about pedestrian safety on Regional Road 17. We could use some seniors housing as well as starter homes for young families. >> Newcastle needs more amenities and services for people at various stages of life - a daycare, or seniors drop -in centre would be great. We like the rural character, it is what makes Newcastle special. r It Project Timeline Phase 1 Initial Public Input + Technical Analysis 2021 Fall Milestones completed prior to fall 2021: Steering Committee #1,2,3&4 Public Information Centre #1 & 2 Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria + Alternative Land Use Plans 2022 Winter Spring O Public 4 ) Information Public Centre 2 Information November 18th Centre 3 June 8th 1 We are here Phase 3 Emerging Land Use Plan Phase 4 Draft Secondary Plan + Zoning By -Law O Public Meeting I. Stakeholder Meeting 2023 Summer Fall Winter Spring Public Information • • Centre 4 (RR17 EA) O Date TBD OO Statutory Public Meeting Date TBD 11 Clarington SvN MEN..__A=COM M1.77a e Footprint b Why are we here today? Public Information Centre #3 is focused on the following new updates: 3 Land Use Alternatives 12 Evaluation of the Land Use Alternatives Clarington PIC #3 Engagement Feedback on the Alternatives NOTE. Feedback from PIC #3 combined with the Evalution results will inform an Emerging Land Use Plan. BT ENGINEERING $vN A=COM,aro, sro footprint Vision & Guiding Principles 2°� I eT ENGINEEPING 13 p�N ClarlagMa SVN ALCOM , footprint Vision North Village is a vibrant a. S�Q vY � 32 T neighbourhood that is 7. A 4" i>.� •k_� i [ 'ter-'�~`S-�� � `,4 to all, at all stages• : L vs• y��. i?;* •4 of their life. Walkable and" ,,may. , welcoming, it reflects the community Newcastl 14 Clariagton SvN BTBT ENG,- n ._ m A=COM - footprint Guiding Principles As the North Village Secondary Plan is prepared and implemented the following principles will guide decision -making: 00 02 ,InIT 00 <� P A Liveable A Connected A Beautiful A Unique A Resilient Neighbourhood Neighbourhood and Inviting Newcastle Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood 15 Clariagton SvN BT ENG,- n ._ ro A=COM - footprint Baseline Parameters 2°� i xi ENGINEEPINc; 16 p�N Clarington $VN AcCOM 'sro footprint Baseline Parameters The Baseline Parameters are minimum requirements from the Official Plan that all proposed land use alternatives must achieve. The categories include: M 17 Q Density © Internal Street Network © Conc 3 / Arthur St Water Reservoir Q Parkland Q RR 17 = School Active Transportation JM Sustainability m Context Area sA !F ® Neighbourhood Centre eT ENG ClarlagMa SvN ,- n ._ ro A=COM footprint 18 Alternative Land Use Plans POLL QUESTIONS 2°� i eT ENGINEEPING p1.AN ClarlagWil SvN ALCOM , footprint Assumptions The Land Use Plan Alternatives share several basic assumptions in common, such as area for the school, water reservoir, and street connections to the approved subdivision to the south, among others. These include: Water Reservoir: 2.36 ha School: minimum 2.5 ha (subject to School Board) Highway Commercial (existing McDonald's): 0.76 ha Mixed Use (Neighbourhood Centre): Assume 35,000 sf (3,251 sm) GFA feasible in a main street format, other lands to be developed as residential or complementary institutional/public uses Regional Road 17 Realignment - subject to the Integrated Class Environmental Assessment Study (underway) Street network in the Approved Area to the south Clarington SVN a=�. coM a�ep1� Footprint e Three Land Use Alternatives Alternative 1 Concession Rojd 3 _ I. 0 1 � � Roa \ F _ y Land Uses _ Low Density Residential Low Density Residential + Medium Density Residential Parks Reservoir Ic I� I" I Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Highway Commercial School Alternative 2 a� Concession oatl$ i Alternative 3 20 Clarington SvN BT ENG,- n ._ ro A=COM footprint Land Use Alternative 1 Green Corridors + Community Courtyards J Boundaries — Project Area Existing Context ■ Existing Building ■ Existing Building of Cultural Significance Public Realm Arterial Road _: Collector Road with Bike Lanes �- Local Street Potential Rear Lane ONE Green Link N Park Land Uses Low Density Residential Low Density Residential + Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Highway Commercial School 0Q Engage RR17 and # Main roads as green surrounding boundary corridors roads Q Small-scale, central, commercial main street and "heart" Distribute and link smaller parks to create "community courtyards" U Design central park as community destination and anchor to the main street B Poll - Land Use Alternative 1 1. What is your favourite design feature? a) Engage and beautify RR17 b) Main roads as green corridors c) Distribute and link smaller parks to create "community courtyards" d) Small-scale, central, commercial main street and "heart" e) Central park as community destination and anchor to the main street f) Other 2. Do you like the location of the school? a) Yes, I like the location b) No, I prefer the location be elsewhere c) I am not sure 0A Clarington SvN BT ENG m OTE A=COM footprint �aro,« Land Use Alternative 2 Four Corners + Green Corridors Boundaries - Project Area Existing Context ■ Existing Building ■ Existing Building of Cultural Significance Public Realm Arterial Road Collector Road with Bike Lanes == Local Street Potential Rear Lane ONE Green Link N Park Land Uses Low Density Residential Low Density Residential + Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Highway Commercial School Animate and enliven RR17 OQ Create a prominent "four corners" neighbourhood centre OQ Locate school as key civic feature Q Maximize density around the © Highway buffer zone neighbourhood centre and school B Poll - Land Use Alternative 2 1. What is your favourite design feature? a) Animate and enliven RR17 b) Prominent "four corners" neighbourhood centre c) Locate school as key civic feature d) Maximize density around the neighbourhood centre and school e) Highway buffer zone f) Other 2. Would you like to see the medium density residential clustered or more evenly distributed throughout the plan area? a) I like it clustered together b) I would like to see it more distributed c) I am not sure Land Use Alternative 3 Neighbournooa Centre + Promenade Boundaries — Project Area Existing Context ■ Existing Building ■ Existing Building of Cultural Significance Public Realm Arterial Road _: Collector Road with Bike Lanes �- Local Street Potential Rear Lane ■■■ Green Link N Park Land Uses n Low Density Residential Low Density Residential + Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use Highway Commercial School Elongate parks to create "green fingers" and maximize access Q Integrate the neighbourhood centre and park to create a unique promenade Make the school a focal point of the community with a prominent location Maximize density around open spaces and neighbourhood centre © Engage RR17 and surrounding boundary roads B Poll - Land Use Alternative 3 1. What is your favourite design feature? a) Elongate parks to create "green fingers" and maximize access b) Integrate the neighbourhood centre and park to create a unique promenade c) Maximize density around open spaces and neighbouhood centre d) Locate school as view terminus of linear neighbourhood centre and promenade e) Engage RR17 and surrounding boundary roads f) Other 2. Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre? a) Yes, I like the location close to the park and school b) No, I prefer a centrally located commercial main street and "heart" c) No, I prefer a prominent "four corners" intersection along RR17 d) I am not sure Level of Detail Alternatives show a greater level of detail than the land use schedule Land Use Alternative 3 WA Land Use Schedule Example ClarlagWIl SVN ro ,LCOM ,!eipe� Ism footprint Evaluation of the Land Use Plans 2°� i eT ENGINEEPING 28 p�N ClarlagWil SVN ALCOM , footprint Evaluation Criteria The Evaluation Criteria have been used to evaluate the three alternative land use plans for North Village. The Criteria are not being used to select a single plan, but rather to select the best features form each to create an Emerging Plan. • Rooted in the NVSP Guiding Principles, the Clarington OP, and the Clarington Priority Green Standards for Secondary Plans • The Alternative that best achieves the objective is assigned a score of 3, the second best performing Alternative is assigned a score of 2, and the least well performing Alternative is assigned a score of 1 for that objective NVSP Guiding Principles Evaluation Criteria 29 Clarlagton SvN BT ENGn ,- ._ ro A=COM footprint Evaluation Criteria • Alternative 3 best distributes a mix of density and building typologies The indicators considered • Alternative 1, similar to Alternative 3, distributes density in a the minimum residential balanced way throughout the neighbourhood, though it has less medium density than Alternative 3 densities, mix Of housing . Alternative 2 concentrates medium density and other non - types, number of employment detached units in one large cluster in the centre of the plan area opportunities, and mitigating • Alternatives have equal potential to yield a similar number of Liveable Jobs conflicts with agricultural OpreatlOnS. • Alternative 3 provides the most strategies to mitigate conflct with agricultural operation with linear green spaces that share an edge with the boundary road, reducing the number of homes facing and in proximity to agriculatural areas Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Subtotal 4 4 8 30 Clarington SvN BTEN ro OTE A=COM footprint �aro,« Evaluation Criteria The indicators measured the walkability, the number of pedestrian connections to A o arterial roads, the variety of ....... circulation options, and the Connected connectivity of the cycling network. Subtotal • Alternative 2 puts neighbourhood amenities within a short walking distance of the most people • Alternative 1 has the shortest average block length and therefore performs slightly better for walkability • Alternative 3 has the highest intersection density, providing the greatest amount of connectivity and variety of travel Alternatives • All of the Alternatives provide an equal number of homes within 200 metres of connected cycling routes Alternative 1 7 Alternative 2 9 Alternative 3 31 Cl n SVN eTENG1NEEp�G 81'lIl�A A=COM footprint Evaluation Criteria The indicators measure the number of views to important landmarks and natural features, the percentage of roads with building frontages, the distribution of parks, and the Beautiful amount of parkland and open space. Subtotal • Alternative 3 provided the greatest proportion of parkland / 300 units • Alternative 2 provides the greatest number of views to surrounding landmarks and natural features • All of the Alternatives provide a good distribution of parks for good accessibility to residents Alternative 1 6 Alternative 2 5 Alternative 3 7 32 Clarington SvN BT ENG,- n ._ ro A=COM footprint Evaluation Criteria The indicators measure the 00 percentage of residential homes within walking distance of the OONeighbourhood Centre, and the number of visual connections to Unique destinations and amenities. Subtotal • Alternatives 1 and 3 perform equally well on this indicator because of the concentration of medium density around the NC. Regardless, the whole SP area is less than 500 metres across, which means that the vast majority of homes will be within a 5 minute walk of the NC • Alternative 1 provides the greatest number of visual/spatial connections into the neighbourhood centre because of the placement of streets and open spaces Alternative 1 4 Alternative 2 2 Alternative 3 4 33 Cl n SVN eTENG1NEEp�G 81'lIl�A A=COM footprint Evaluation Criteria • All of the Alternatives provide a high percentage of people and The indicators measure the jobs within walking distance to transit, Alternative 1 provides the percentage of people and jobs greatest proportion in walking distance t0 transit • Alternative 3 has a slightly greater proportion of open spaces that intersect with natural drainage areas, and the greatest number of Stops, the percentage of open trees in park spaces based on an average tree assumption from the spaces suitable for green City of Toronto infrastructure, the proportion • Alternative 2 performs slightly better than the others in terms of street tree canopy because it has the greatest linear distance of Resilient of tree cover, and areas with public streets. However, it has the lowest number of trees in parks potential to maximize • All of the Alternatives follow a similar grid pattern and orientation and solar gains. therefore share the same potential to maximize solar gains Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Subtotal 8 6 9 Total 29 ')6 34 ET �34 Clarington SvN O ro A=COM footprint Regional Road 17 Environmental Assessment I POLL QUESTIONS 2°� i NGINEEPING 35 p�N ClarlagWil SVN eT EALCOM , footprint Regional Road 17 MCEA PHASE i PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 1 � 1 P�S�N�N�IANYP�ALI� cpNSULiaiwNiP MEVIEw PNWLEM OR PPPpMRINrtY ! / DET£OMII@APA'ICABwfV1 i+Al �OPYA9TCP MAN �PHgKN/ 1 _(Aw MLm AP^I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I - W IE6 M)SS E'A.'s W AILS M106•Yi LANIS 4+I�M1IM� PVIRC CfMffMT PpM'S I� Su+Jm A ] C.nM+panmf MC6x WIIS O Crglfla �L _ 36 ClarjagtMn SVN ro A=COM ,,apefootprint Alignment Alternatives The final Alignment Alternative will be reflected in the Land Use Plan schedule. The following options are being considered: - Alternative 1: West Alternative 2: Centered Alternative 3: East The intersection of the realigned Regional Road 17 and Concession Road 3 will be offset 300 metres east of the existing intersection, as required by MTO. Concession Road 3 connectivity alternatives will also be studied. For detailed illustrations of the 3 alternatives please�visit the project website at www.clarington.net/North Village North Street Alternatives are also being considered as part of the Land Use Plans to ensure that existing residents, businesses, and community institutions will continue to have access to the surrounding road network. 37 Refer to h Str e A _ o ept rnatives BETHEL CEMETERY r r CLARINGTON Intersection Alternatives CONCESSION ROAD 3 Alternative t -West Alternative 2 - Centred Do Nothing - (Not Carried- Alternative 3-East Forward) rW i i North Village Secondary Plan 1 + _ _ _ Future Roadway J o NEWCASTLE � J F Z ln�O 00 Municipality of Clarigton Integrated Environmental Assessment Study Regional Road 17 Broad Band Corridor Alternatives Study Area North Village Secondary Plan Area Building Lot Lines NTS Weter—rse Cl n ariagto SvN a=COM hl,m footprint Cross Section Alternatives • The study will consider three cross section alternatives which all include 3 lanes of traffic (two through lanes and one left -turn lane). • Two alternatives include sidewalks and a multi -use path. 0.50 BUFFER 0.50 BUFFER 0.50� �2O- f 5-3.5-3.52.111 �11.50 X Preliminary recommendation Alternative 1: Rural not to carry forward PAVED I THROUGH ILµFN LANEI THROUGH PAVED SHOULDER LANE ( here required) LANE SHOULDER 0.60 FO r2.0OT"O 3.50�3.50-7-0 0�3.00� Alternative 2A: Urban with 3.5 m Lanes SIDEWALK MULTI —USE T�L�ANE THROUGH PATH ed) LANE SIDEWALK CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER OPSD 600.010 OPSD 600.010 0.60 060 F-OT 2.00 3.50�5.00�3.50 �2�00—F3.001 Alternative 2B Urban with 3.5 m Lanes and Median SIDEWALK MULTI —USE THROUGH MEDIAN/LEFT TURN THROUGH PATH or LANE (AS NEEDED) LANE SIDEWALK CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER OPSD 600.010 OPSD 600.010 Preliminary recommendation to carry forward Preliminary recommendation to carry forward 2'2 21.0o6 Regional Road 17 Realignment ��"1r`��"i 2021-08-18 ■' ' Scale 1:100 Cross Section Alternatives i/ GIM114011 SvN BT OTE ENG m A=COM Ism footprint Alternative Details r WA FCLARINGTON CON R T-IN-RIGHT-OUT --_— �7 GS t BETHEL o ;o AISED MEDIAN \ ❑ CEMETERY ��� �^'►, OI LAND APPROX. 300m ,! - pn CONCESSION ROAD o� R-150 ; PROPOSED �z TRAFFIC SIGNALS ' CUL-DE-SAC ---z e ROAD CLOSE R-200 Mom' op t Alternative 2A .=--dffATLE� j I, Realigned North Street with Signals APR' ! PROP DIA ICLARINGTON , DIAMETER E 'CLARINGTON LAN UT r LANE ROUI OUT T-IN-RIGHT-0UT R T-IN-RIGHT-OUT o . o BETHEL a 11 BETHEL a` AISED MEDIAN CEMETERY oo >. AISED MEDIA CEMETERY , 1r GLAND �o 'APPROX.300m �-[ OISLAND •?.PPROX.300m CONCESSION ROAD 3 j��'',• ❑O =43 _a Jp 1 CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROPOSED �o i c 1 Q PROPOSED45m o � ti� o h R-150 ; �- " y R-150 ; DIAMETER SINGLE i TRAFFIC SIGNALS T [CUL-DE-SAC _—S o� o=� ___ r =` LANE ROUNDABOU _ CUL-DE-SAC = p I ROAD CLOSED ROAD CLOSED k R-200 'R-200 o0 e.,P o o❑ � D , I "• �LNE TLE�F Alternative 213 Alternative 2C Realigned North Street with Signals Realigned North Street with Roundabout Cl n SvN eTENG1NEEp�G 81'lIl�A A=COM footprint Alternative Details TRAVERSABLE-MED"-, CLARINGTON AT ENTRANCE WITH NO U-TURN SIGN ALROAD - _, R-90 ;ROPOSED Q �' ENTRANCE ! fl 190m IGHT-IN j IGHT-OUT --�a.❑o off' SSI ... D3 WISED MEDIAN �,`� o CEMETERY ND PROPOSED45m y z° R-150 DIAMETER SINGLE 2� o=Q LANE ROUNDABOUTS LOCAL ROAD h h o "P aT ❑ o❑ / C a L o ' Alternative 3 Realigned North Street and reconfiguration of on -ramp 0 CLARINGTON LOCAL ROAD PROPOSED I ENTRANCES UL-DE-SAC ,p RIGHT -IN "RIGHT -OUT APPROX.285m I � � EJ� �: I •• � BETHEL 'J RAISED MEDIAN CEMETERY ISLAND ACCESS s PROPOSED CLO RED 0 ' ENTRANCES CLOSE CUL-DE-SAC ° ROAD ILOCAL ROAD R-200 x a r z Alternative 4 Realigned North Street and reconfiguration of on -ramp FUTURE POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN LINK TO SCHOOL $BEYOND THIS STUDY) l! S6., COI`$CESSION ROAD 3 PROPOSED45m DIAMETER SINGLE LANE ROUNDABOU- 40 ClarlagW11 SVN ro ,LCOM ,!eipe� Ism footprint B Poll - Alternatives 1. Would you prefer traffic lights or roundabouts at RR17 and Concession Road 3? a) I prefer traffic lights and zebra crossings at the intersection b) I prefer roundabouts at the intersection c) I am not sure 2. Do you like the proposed changes to business access? a) Yes, I like the proposed changes b) No, I do not like the proposed changes c) I am not sure 3. Do you want to see addtional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3? a) I prefer additional new roads b) I prefer a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3 c) I am not sure 41 Clarington SvN BTEN ro OTE A=COM footprint �aro,« Next Steps xi ENGINEEPINc; 42 PAN Clarington $VN A=COM 'sro footprint Next Steps Engagement Summary Report July Phase 2 Summary Report-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TI July Reports to be published on the project -specific webpage on the Municipality of Clarington's website: clarington.net/northvillage 43 Clariagton SvN eTENGI E`footprint A=coM �.ape� ,sro � Upcoming Meetings Phase 1 Initial Public Input + Technical Analysis 2021 Fall Milestones completed prior to fall 2021: Steering Committee #1,2,3&4 Public Information Centre #1 & 2 Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria + Alternative Land Use Plans Phase 3 Emerging Land Use Plan Phase 4 Draft Secondary Plan + Zoning By -Law 0 Public Meeting 0 Stakeholder Meeting 2022 2023 Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring O Public O Public Information Information Public • • O Centre 4 (RR17 EA) Centre 2 Information Date TBD November 18th Centre 3 June 8th • 00 Statutory Public Meeting Date TBD 44 Clarington SvN OTE ro A=COM footprint a Discussion 45 C181'I WH SVN A=COM h ,m footprint THANK YOU http://www.clarington.net/NorthViIlage northvillage@clarington.net 46 Clarington SvN Ero A=COM footprint Appendix B 11 Appendix C 15 Appendix C: Combined Live Polls & Survey Data What is your relationship to Newcastle? Live Poll Web Survey Combined Combined Resident 7 52 59 86% Worker 1 1 2 3% Interested Citizen 3 1 4 6% Visitor 3 3 4% Business Owner 1 1 1% TOTAL 11 58 69 100% Why did you make time in your day to join the public meeting this evening? Live Poll I am curious about the new neighbourhood 5 45% 1 am curious about the changes to RR17 2 18% Other 4 36% TOTAL 11 100% What do you like most about Newcastle? Live Poll % Survey (reoccuring themes included): The main street (King Ave) 1 9% Village/small town feel Proximity to local farms 5 45% (Almost) complete community Community feel 2 18% Nature/parks Trails, parks, and waterfront 2 18% Commuity/people Other 1 9% Walkability TOTAL 11 100% Have you attended any of the PICs about this study? Live Poll Web Survey Combined Combined Yes 5 14 19 28% No 6 43 49 72% TOTAL 11 57 68 100% ALTERNATIVE 1 QUESTIONS What is your favourite design feature? Live Poll Web Survey Combined Combined Central park as community destination and anchor to the main street 1 16 17 24% Distribute and link smaller parks to cre- ate "community courtyards" 0 6 6 8% Engage and beautify RR17 2 3 5 7% Main roads as green corridors 2 19 21 30% Small-scale, central, commercial main street 6 9 15 21% Other 1 1 7 7 10% TOTAL 11 60 71 100% Do you like the location of the school in Alternative 1? Live Poll Web Survey Combined Combined Yes 4 26 30 43% No, I prefer the location to be elsewhere 4 24 28 40% I am not sure 3 9 12 17% TOTAL 11 59 70 100% ALTERNATIVE 2 QUESTIONS What is your favourite design feature? Live Web Combined Combined Poll Survey Prominent "four coners" neighbourhood centre 3 7 10 15% Highway buffer zone 2 15 17 25% Locate schhool as key civic feature 4 14 18 26% Animate and enliven RR17 0 6 6 9% Maximize density around the neighbourhood centre and school 0 13 13 19% Don't like it 0 4 4 6% TOTAL 9 59 71 100% Would you like to see the medium density residential areas clustered together in one location, or more evenly distributed throughout the plan area? Live Poll Web Survey Combined Combined like it clustered in one location 3 16 19 28% I would like to see it more distributed 6 36 42 62% I am not sure 0 7 7 10% TOTAL 9 59 68 100% ALTERNATIVE 3 QUESTIONS What is your favourite design feature? Live Web Combined Combined Poll Survey Integrate the neighbourhood centre 4 19 23 34% and park to create a unique promenade Elongate parks to create "green 2 17 19 28% fingers" and maximize access Locate school as view terminus of 3 12 15 22% linear neighbourhood centre and promenade Engage RR17 and surrounding 5 5 7% boundary roads Maximize density around open spaces 3 3 4% and neighbourhood centre Don't like it 3 3 4% TOTAL 9 59 68 100% Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre? Live Web Combined Combined Poll Survey Yes, I like the location close to the park 5 12 17 25% and school No, I prefer a prominent "four corners" 1 8 9 13% intersection along RR17 No, I prefer a centrally located 3 12 15 22% commercial main street and "heart" Not sure 0 7 7 10% TOTAL 9 59 68 100% RR17 QUESTIONS (POLL ONLY) Would you prefer traffic lights or roundabouts at RR17 and Concession Road 3? Live Poll I prefer roundabouts at the 5 71% intersection I prefer traffic lights and zebra 2 29% crossings at the intersection TOTAL 7 100% Do you like the proposed changes to business access? Live Poll Yes 4 57 No 0 0% Not sure 3 43% TOTAL 7 100% Do you want to see additional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3? Live Poll Additional new roads 5 71% Reconfiguration of existing 0 0% Not sure 2 29% TOTAL 7 100%