Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-33-82 ©. �� • 3, REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 22 1982 REPORT NO. : PD-33-82 SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NEWCASTLE VILLAGE SMALL URBAN AREA j Our file: 2.3 I i RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: i 1 . That Report PD-33-82 be received; and 2. That Staff Reports PD-195-81 , P-166-81 and P-167-81 be lifted from the table and dealt I with. BACKGROUND: On December 7th, 1981 , the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered Staff Report PD-195-81 , copy attached, in respect of the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area. Said Staff Report recommended approval of the Official Plan for the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area and that the subject plan be forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval and submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Said Report also recommended that two prior Reports, P-166-81 and P-167-81 , copies attached, in respect of two plans of subdivision within Newcastle Village, be lifted from the table and dealt with at that i time. I I Report No. : PD-33-82 . . ./2 As a result of the Committee's consideration and a number of delegations appearing in respect of the Urban Area Plan, the Committee passed the following Resolution: GPA-206-81 "That the Delegation from the Bond Head Area and the Newcastle BIA and Chamber of Commerce be acknowledged and Items 1 , 2 and 3 be tabled until staff, the local BIA, representatives from Bond Head, Regional Works and Area Councillors have met and are able to discuss the concerns raised by the delegations. " GPA-209-81 "That the recommendations in Report P-166-81 re Danarus Management Limited and P-167-81 re Wilswar Enterprises Limited be approved." GPA-210-81 "That the matter be tabled until Committee has received the Report from the meeting relative to the Newcastle Urban Area Plan. " Said Resolutions were ratified by Council at its meeting of December 14th, 1981, thus tabling the matter pending a meeting with the above-referenced individuals in groups. On January 11th, 1982, the General Purpose and Administration Committee approved Resolution GPA-32-82, which stated: "That the Town of Newcastle hereby request the Region of Durham to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to permit the extension of water services in the Bond Head Area and to allow for residential development to take place in the Bond Head Area by limited infilling. " That Resolution was ratified by Council at its meeting of January 18th, 1982 and the request acknowledged by the Durham Regional Planning Department by letter of January 25th, 1982. On January 26th, 1982, staff convened a meeting, pursuant to Council 's direction, at which the following individuals were present: I Report No. : PD-33-82 . . ./3 Dr. M. Michael , M.C.I.P. , Commissioner of Planning Regional Municipality of Durham; Mr. Walter Evans, Design Manager, Durham Regional Public Works Department; Mr. Ken Thompson, Durham Regional Public Works Department; Mr. Gord Carveth, resident spokesman for the Bond Head Area; Mr. Murray Paterson and Mr. Howard Quinney, representatives of the BIA for Newcastle Village; Messrs. Charles Ewert and David MacGregor, Bond Head residents; Councillors Hamre and Woodyard; Mayor Rickard; Mr. D. Smith and myself. As indicated above, the two items of discussion were the Bond Head Area and BIA concerns relative to the Urban Area Plan. In discussion of the Bond Head matter, it was pointed out to the resident spokesman and the residents present that on j January 18th, Council had initiated an Official Plan Amendment request intended to permit limited infilling and development on municipal water and private sewage disposal systems within a portion of the Bond Head area, and more specifically, to permit connections to the existing watermains along Mill Street and to permit the extension of a watermain along Boulton Street. Although the original request of the residents had been to include the Bond Head Area within the Urban Area Plan, it was indicated, at the meeting, that the proposed course of action, to provide a i special Official Plan Amendment for that area, would satisfy the residents who were primarily interested in limited infilling being permitted and not necessarily inclusion within the Urban Area, nor development at urban densities and standards. To that end, it was agreed that the Town, in conjunction with the Region of Durham, would assess the potential for infilling in the Bond Head Area in order to prepare an appropriate Official Plan Amendment and any necessary amendments to the Restricted I I i Report No. : PD-33-82 , , ,/4 z Area (Zoning) By-law. Having received this commitment from the Municipality to pursue an amendment to the Official Plan, the consensus of opinion was that the Bond Head issue need not delay approval of the Official Plan for the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area. As a matter of information, staffs ' initial review of the Bond Head Area indicates a total of 38 existing residences fronting on Mill and Boulton Street which could potentially connect to water services and a potential for 14 additional dwelling units through infilling on presently vacant lands fronting upon Mill and Boulton Streets. Infilling within other areas of the Bond Head neighbourhood could be considered on the basis of private wells and waste disposal systems, but this will also require modifications to the Zoning By-law and, possibly, the Official Plan. This matter is presently being reviewed by staff in co-operation with the Regional Planning Department. The other topic of discussion, the concerns of the BIA, centred around the request by that group for a modification to the Urban Area Plan to provide a vehicular connection from the residential neighbourhood proposed west of the Foster Creek to the residential neighbourhood east of the Foster Creek i m-the--vi-cfiti-ty—of---E4wa-r-d--and Baldwin Street. This matter was the subject of considerable discussion at previous public meetings, and as staff have continually maintained, such a connection is not warranted based upon traffic generation from the proposed neighbourhood, and the costs related thereto. Although discussed at great length, this item remains outstanding inasmuch as an agreement could not be reached between staff and the members of the BIA. I i 14 Report No. : PD-33-82 .. ./5 Staff note that subsequent to the meeting of January 26, 1982, a further meeting was held with Mr. D. McGregor and Mr. M. Patterson in respect of the south-west quadrant and the requested Edward Street connection. At that meeting, Mr. Patterson reiterated the BIA's concerns about the need to direct traffic from new residential neighbourhoods towards the downtown area and questioned the costs of the various alternatives as proposed by staff. Of particular interest to him was the cost of actually constructin g the proposed access to Highway 2 and a pedestrian crossing of the Foster Creek, versus the estimated cost of a vehicular crossing of Foster Creek. It was explained to Mr. Patterson that, in the first instance the street connection to Highway 2 would form a portion of a development proposal , and therefore the cost would be borne by the developer and not the Town, which would not be the case with the Edward Street proposal . Notwithstanding this, it is Mr. Paterson's opinion that if the Edward Street crossing were to be constructed, the access to Highway 2 could be eliminated as well as the need for pedestrian crossing and that the savings realized there could be applied to the construction of an Edward Street extension. Staff, however, do not agree with this reasoning, since elimination of the access to Highway 2 would necessitate a redesign of that particular portion of the proposed plan of subdivision and although direct access to Highway 2 would be eliminated, a road would be required to provide access for residential lots in the area, therefore resulting in only very minimal savings, and these would be to the developer involved. In fact, while the length of road is approximately equal , being 122 metres, elimination of the access to King Street would only result in a 40 metre reduction in the length of road to be i Report No. : PD-33-82 constructed and a reduction from urban collector to urban local standards. Cost savings, as pointed out, would not accrue to the Municipality, therefore this is not a reasonable comparison. With respect to the provision of a pedestrian crossing versus the vehicular crossing, discussions with the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority indicate that their earlier comments in respect of a road crossing for the Foster Creek reflected a design intended to accomodate a twenty-five year design flow storm. It was suggested by them that either a single-span bridge or a series of culverts would be acceptable. However, if culverts were used, suitable erosion control measures would have to be undertaken at the outlet and, in either case, relief-flow over the roadway would be required for storms greater than the twenty-five year design. As far as the pedestrian crossing is concerned, this alternative would involve a structure designed to accomodate only a five or ten-year design flow, however, since Ganaraska advises that they are unable to provide us with information as to the volumes which must be passed, we are therefore unable to attach a cost to provision of such a structure. Needless to say, the size of the structure would be significantly reduced, since storms in excess of the five or ten-year design would be passed over the structure and therefore the critical cost becomes the erosion protection for such a crossing. Insofar as the actual crossing is concerned, a pedestrian connection would involve perhaps a 2 to 2.5 metre wide asphalt pathway at a cost of approximately $25 per metre, over a length of 122 metres, for a total cost of approximately $3,050, i i Report No. : PD-33-82 . . ./7 as opposed to 122 metres of urban collector road at a cost of $540 per metre for a total of $66,000. These costs, of course, being exclusive of the actual structure and erosion protection required for each. At this point, I should reiterate our previous comments that costs given are very rough estimates and detailed costs would require preparation of engineering specifications for each type of structure. However, in view of the traffic generation for this particular neighbourhood, it is staffs' opinion that the i proposed road pattern is adequate and would not involve the unnecessary expenditure of Municipal funds, inasmuch as we could not realistically justify the cost of an Edward Street connection being borne by a developer based on need alone, and therefore could not expect a developer to bear the associated costs. i It should also be noted that traffic generation and costs are not staffs ' only consideration in this instance, and that connection of this neighbourhood to Edward Street or Baldwin Street by way of a Foster Creek crossing would result in considerable impact upon an established neighbourhood, necessitating reconstruction and upgrading of I either or both of the aforesaid streets. Staff are also concerned about potential problems at the intersection of Edward Street and Mill , where the location of existing buildings on the south-west corner may present difficulty in attaining the desired sight lines. Again, the costs associated with such reconstruction cannot reasonably be charged back to developers, since they are not in fact necessitated by that development, and since a reasonable alternative, based upon expected traffic generation, does exist. This is not to say that staff are entirely unsympathetic to the concerns of the BIA, however we do not entirely agree with their assumptions relative to traffic i movement. Vie} Report No. : PD-33-82 . . ./8 Nor do we feel that the perceived benefits of such a crossing outweigh the costs, to the municipality, of such a crossing. In view of the foregoing, we must recommend that the Official Plan for the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area be approved as submitted by staff and forwarded to the Region for their approval and submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval ; and furthermore, that draft plans of subdivision 18T-81008 (Danarus Management Ltd. ) and 18T-78027 (Wilswar) be lifted from the table and recommended for draft approval . V I Respect-fully submitted, T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning TTE/mic February 23, 1982 ij �6 I I i I i i i