Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-86-84 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263.2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 7, 1984 REPORT NO. : PD-86-84 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL DR. 7_AKAROW - FILE: 18T-82037 PART LOTS 11 & 12, CONCESSION 2 GEOGRAPHIC TWP. OF DARLINGTON RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-86-84 be received for information and discussion; and 2. That Committee recommend approval of either Transportation Network Alternative 1 or * Alternative 2 as identified by Attachment 1 and 2 respectively. I . ..2 REPORT NO. : PD-86-84 Page 2 BACKGROUND & COMMENT: In November of 1983, the subject Plan of Subdivision was considered by the General Purpose and Administration Committee. Through the Committee' s consideration , it was determined that the only matter requiring resolution was with respect to the determination of the most desirable road pattern, and the impacts of such road pattern upon the subject Plan of Subdivision. I The subject draft Plan has a long history, and was previously considered on June 2.0, 1983 as the subject of Staff Report PD-73-83. Amongst the suggested conditions of approval was the requirement that the most southerly east/west road be realigned slightly to the north to facilitate continuation of this road east of Liberty Street without the need for significant property acquisitions by the Municipality. The matter was referred back to Staff for further dialogue with the applicant, and on October 17, 1983, Staff again reported to Committee recommending a number of revisions to the conditions of draft plan approval , but at the same time, indicating that an adjustment to the road in question was inappropriate, and unless Council was interested in acquiring properties to the east of the proposed road to facilitate development of the continuous east/west collector road system, that an Official Plan Amendment would be required, and that the application should be tabled pending receipt of same. . . .2 REPORT NO. : PO-86-84 Page 3 As a result of the Committee' s consideration , the matter was referred back to Staff for a further report on the possible realignment of the transportation network for Bowmanville North. On November 2.1 , 1983, Staff Report Pn-176-83 was submitted to the Committee for their consideration. Said report contained a number of alternatives for the North Central Bowmanville Transportation Network, and as a result of the Committee' s review, the matter was again tabled pending further discussions with the applicant, aimed at identifying which of the alternatives was the most acceptable to him. As of the date of writing, a written response has never been received, however, the applicant has indicated verbally that he would have no objection to either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, as originally proposed by Staff Report PD-176-83. In January, 1984, Staff were advised by Councillor Hubbard that Regional Planning Staff had undertaken a preliminary Traffic Analysis for the Bowmanville North Neighbourhood. A copy of this information was requested, and was received on January 16, 1984. This preliminary analysis concluded that given the road network proposed within the Bowmanville Urban Area, it did not appear essential to accommodate the future anticipated traffic volumes that a continuous collector street be constructed across Liberty Street in the vicinity of Street "0" within draft plan 18T-82.037. In their , opinion, the collector street could be relocated from the . ..4 REPORT NO. : PD-86-84 Page 4 proposed location, without the need for a four-way intersection. Said analysis also indicated that further review was required with respect to the extension of Jackman Road across the Bowmanville Creek Valley, in view of the sensitivity of this feature. The Regional analysis was reviewed by Town Staff and it was agreed that the trip generation and assignment appeared reasonable. However, a concern was expressed with respect to the proposed street pattern which did not comply with generally accepted practice related to intersection geometrics, particularly as they related to cross type intersections , and their superiority over staggered T-type intersections, both from an operational and maintenance point of view. It is the position of Town Staff that the fewer number of intersections with a designated Arterial road, the better. Both from a traffic and safety point of view, it also appears to Staff thiat the Regional Analysis, while suggesting street configurations, did not deal with site specifics such as existing geometrics, property ownerships , site lines , etc. , all of which were reviewed by Municipal Staff as part of our consideration. In view of the Regional analysis and opinions expressed by Regional Staff, further comments were requested, particularly related to the elimination of the Jackman Road crossing of the Bowmanville Creek, and possible impacts of such a scenario upon Liberty Street , relative to its traffic carrying capability. . . .5 REPORT NO. : Pn-86-84 Page 5 In response to this request, the Regional Planning Department conducted a more detailed analysis, using their computer based transportation modelling program. This analysis did not, however, address the specific questions raised by Town Staff, but simply reaffirmed the Regional Staff's position that, in their opinion, it was not essential to extend the subject street east of Liberty. Regional Staff added the further comment, that although the crossing of the Bowmanville Creek at Jackman' s Road may be desirable, there was a more pressing need for extension of the Third Line westerly across Bowmanville Creek, and that given environmental impacts, it was likely that only one of the two crossings would be built. In their opinion , priority should be given to the Third Line crossing. A further comment was offered that, T-intersections were better than four-way intersections, which in our opinion, is incorrect , especially when considering the accepted design principle that the number of intersections with arterial roads should be minimized. Staff would also take exception to the comment that priority should be given to a Third Line crossing of the Bowmanville Creek. The Region' s own trip generation figures indicate that approximately eighty (80) percent of the traffic generated from this neighbourhood would be southward oriented to Highways No. 2 and 401 . This would suggest that a higher priority should be assigned to a Jackman Road crossing of the Bowmanville Creek if actually required, since this would facilitate movement in that direction. In fact, Staff would question the need for a crossing of the Bowmanville Creek at Third Line based on the Region 's own analysis, and particularly in consideration of the topography of the area, the costs associated with a crossing at that point, and the necessary environmental approvals that would be required. . . .6 REPORT NO. : PD-86-84 Page 6 On March 23, 1984, the Regional Planning Department was advised of our concerns and the fact, that based upon the trip generation figures , a much simpler transportation network could be developed which would involve elimination of the crossing of Bowmanville Creek at Jackman Road. This was done notwithstanding our concern about the justification for the Third Concession extension , bearing in mind , the fact that the aforementioned extension was contained within the Regional Plan and a matter for Regional consideration , and also bearing in mind, the Region 's suggestion that this crossing be given a priority. Regional Staff were also specifically asked to test a suggested road pattern using their computer modelling program. This request was made in order to confirm that said road pattern would accommodate expected trip generation. This requested test was not carried out by the Region, since it was the opinion of their Staff, that our suggested road pattern was inappropriate. Their feeling being, that it would parallel the Third Line and function as an arterial road. Regional Staff also reiterated their position and their recommended road pattern which is simply a variation of the road pattern contained within the Bowmanville Official Plan, with no real planning rationale, except the desire to preserve one existing non- residential building. We note however, that based upon the trip generation figures produced by the Region, that the Jackman Road crossing of the Bowmanville Creek is questionable at best , and if that extension of Jackman Road is removed as a basis for developing a transportation network for North and Central Bowmanville, a very simplified road pattern can be developed which is shown Attachment No. 1 hereto. On the other hand , the Region ' s proposed road pattern is shown on Acctachment No. 2, and as indicated, . . .7 REPORT NO. : PO-86-84 Page 7 Staff cannot support this proposed road pattern in view of the trip generation figures provided by the Region. In view of the foregoing, it appears that an impass has been reached. It is unlikely that the Regional Staff, with delegated subdivision approval authority, would approve the Town 's suggested road pattern, unless Council wishes to press the issue. While Town Staff do not support the road patterns suggested by the Region in view of the traffic generation figures provided by them, and the fact that, in our opinion, said alternative does not strictly comply with the approved Bowmanville Official Plan , we recognize the fact that the final decision rests with the Region. If as Staff are suggesting, the crossing of the Bowmanville Creek at Jackman Road is unnecessary, the Regional alternative could result in increased traffic upon Scugog Street, which is presently, only designated as a collector road. This, of course , would necessitate further improvements to Scugog Street however, the cost of such improvements could be significantly lower than constructing the Bowmanville Creek crossing. This , therefore, would be the net cost to the Municipality of utilizing the Region 's suggested road pattern which, as stated before, is simply a variation of road pattern presently contained within the approved Official Plan. Unfortunately, approval of the subject plan of subdivision hinges upon resolution of the road pattern question. Council must make a basic decision whether or not to proceed with a road pattern that relies upon a crossing of the Bowmanville Creek at Jackman Road, or to proceed with a road pattern that eliminates this potentially costly capital REPORT NO. : PD-86-84 Page 8 work. Having considered that question , Council must then decide whether or not they wish to amend the Bowmanville Official Plan to simplify the transportation network, or whether they wish to proceed with the Region 's suggested variation of the network suggested by the Bowmanville Official Plan. While this would be the most expedient means of resolving this matter, Planning and Public Works Staff do not feel it is the best means of resolving this issue, bearing in mind all other considerations. Although Staff cannot, in good conscience, support this option, it would be the most expedient means of proceeding with the subject subdivision. Staff respectfully request that Council make a decision to either amend the Bowmanville Official Plan , or approve the proposed subdivision and pass the necessary resolution advising the Region of Durham that the Town of Newcastle has no objection to the approval of draft plan of Subdivision 18T-82037 subject to the necessary revisions to incorporate the alternate road patterns suggested by the Region of Durham and subject to the conditions contained in Attachment No. 3 to this report. Respectf sub , T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning TTE*j i p *Attach. April 11 , 1984 cc: Dr. P. Zakarow 282 Liberty Street North BOWMANVILLE, Ontario Ll C 2N1 I TY 6 LLJ CL Ul c i R 0° Lli 15 CL 1= .. i a i0_ �� .. •,,�� i 9 w - ZE w = i � 1`, eow i ' ••pro., . •' .J i� RECOMMENDED - - EC,T. SITE TOWN 'S SUB 200 400m TRANSPORTATION NETWORK OWNED BY APPLICANT 200 5( ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT PD-86-84 lo ' 5 T I %! C / S REGION S RECOMMENDED ® SUBJECT SITE O 100 200 400m TRANSPORTATION NETWORK '"`` '„ owNEO Br APPLICANT zoo so ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO REPORT PD-86-84 ��1 REPORT PD-86-84 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 1 . That this approval shall apply to a draft plan of subdivision dated November 11th, 1982, which shall be further revised to show a re-alignment of the intersection of Street "E" with Liberty Street, and the requisite adjustments to lot lines and other road patterns and further revised to provide 0.3 metre reserves across the westerly terminus of Streets "A", "D" and "E", and the northerly terminus of Street "B", and to provide for temporary turning circles at the terminus of each of these streets abutting the lands to the west and north, as may be applicable. 2. That five copies of the revised plan of subdivision be forwarded to the Town within thirty (30) days of receiving draft plan approval . 3. That the road allowances included in this draft plan be dedicated as public highways. 4. That the streets in this plan be named to the satisfaction of the Town of Newcastle. 5. That all one-foot reserves and road widenings shown on the revised plan be dedicated free and clear of all encumbrances to the appropriate authority having jurisdiction over the abutting road. 6. That the necessary amendments to By-law 1587, as amended, of the former Town of Bowmanville, now in the Town of Newcastle, be approved and in effect. 7. That the owner agrees in writing to satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of roads and municipal water and sewage supply. 8. That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with the Town of Newcastle to include, in addition to the Town 's usual requirements the following provisions : a ) to design and construct all works in accordance with the Town of Newcastle Design Criteria; b) to satisfy the requirements of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority relative to development of the subject lands; c) to undertake at no cost to the Town , the construction of a temporary pedestrian walkway from the southerly limit of Street G, south to the northerly limit of High Street ; and further that the applicant acquire at no cost to the Town, all necessary easements to give effect to same; and . . .2 REPORT PD-86-84 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Page 2 d) that Block 189, being a 1 .56 ha park block, be accepted as the 57, parkland dedication pursuant to the Planning Act and that the over-dedication of 0.5 ha be applied as a credit in respect of the dedication required for the development of the other adjacent lands owned by the applicant. i I