Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-05-01 Addendum /'<;J" . THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Meeting: REPORT GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File #~ MARCH 26, 2001 Res. #&lfJ-/f}--o / Date: Report No.: ADDENDUM TO WD-05-01 Our File: B.02.08.002 By-Law # Subject: ST. STEPHENS ESTATES SUBDMSION, PHASE 1, PLAN 40M-1977, BOWMANVILLE SIDEWALKS ON LOWNIE COURT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendwn to Report WD-05-0l be received; 2. THAT the recommendations of Report WD-05-01 be approved; and 3. THAT residents Robert and Darlene Cochrane and delegations be advised of Council's decision. REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No.1: Report WD-05-01 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 In the fall of 2000, a petition was received by some of the residents of Lownie Court, Bowmanville, requesting the deletion of sidewalks from Lownie Court to Mearns Avenue. Report WD-05-0l (Attachment No.1) recommended a compromise to straighten the sidewalk through the Lownie Court bulb to improve the alignment. Two residents made delegations to Council at its meeting of February 26, 2001, and Council passed Resolution #C-093-01 : 648 v , ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. WD-05-0l PAGE 2 "TIIAT Report WD-05-0l be received and referred back to staff for review and report to address the concerns expressed by the residents." 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3.1 Report WD-05-0l deals with the need for sidewalks through Lownie Court to Mearns Avenue. Some residents continue to suggest that there is no need for sidewalks to Mearns Avenue since there is a nearby walkway leading to the school north of the subdivision. However, the walkway leads directly into the school's paved playground, which is inappropriate as a pedestrian route for the general public. A direct sidewalk connection to Mearns Avenue is in the best interest of the neighbourhood. 3.2 In conjunction with their request to eliminate sidewalks from their boulevards, the residents are also requesting that the sidewalk on Budd Lane be relocated from the west side to the east side of the street. It is their contention that the east side of the street is preferred since the streetlights are on the east side and students walking to school from the south can walk a shorter distance. Staffhave considered the walking routes to and from the school and also to and from the Bowmanville downtown area and conclude that neither side of the street represents an unacceptable location for sidewalk on Budd Lane. (Street1ighting is not a factor in sidewalk location because streetlights provide sufficient lighting to both sides of roadways.) Based on this review, and the fact that relocating the sidewalk would require changes to the approved plans and would likely generate new complaints from other affected residents, it is concluded that changing the sidewalk location is not justified. 3.3 It should be clarified that staff do not ignore or discourage requests to relocate services. All requests are reviewed for their merits, but unless compelling evidence is shown that information was overlooked, no changes are made. The location of items such as sidewalks, supermailboxes, streetlights, walkways, hydrants, etc. is not necessarily an exact science and many purchasers research these issues prior to signing an agreement of purchase and sale. Once the Municipality approves the final design, it is made public and staff and the 649 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. WD-05-0l PAGE 3 developer must adhere to the approved drawings. Changing the location of services to satisfy one resident will simply shift the issue to affect other homeowners. 3.4 Report WD-05-0l recommended a compromise to straighten the sidewalk through the Lownie Court bulb to improve the alignment. That proposal does not contradict the approved drawings or the Municipality's policy against relocating sidewalks because sidewalks were not added or deleted, or shifted from one side of the street to the other. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 It is staffs recommendation that Addendum to Report WD-05-01 be received and that the recommendations in Report WD-05-01 be approved. Public Works will continue in their approach whereby they adhere to approved service locations, unless approved othelWise by the Director of Public Works. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~~ Steph A. Vokes, P. Eng., Director of Public Works c\~~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer NAC*SA V*ce Pc: Robert and Darlene Cochrane 92 Lownie Court Bowmanville, ON LIC 5E1 Bany and Sue Maher 84 Lownie Court Bowmanville, ON LIC 5E1 650 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITrEE File # Date: FEBRUARY 19,2001 Res. # Report No.: WD-OS-Ol Onr File: 8.02.08.002 8y-Law # Subject: ST. STEPHENS ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE I, PLAN 40M-1977, BOWMANVILLE SIDEWALKS ON LOWNIE COURT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. TIlAT Report WD-OS-O 1 be received; and 2. TIIA T Council authorize the completion of sidewalks on Lownie Court, in accordance with this report, when weather permits. REPORT 1.0 ATI'ACHMENTS No.1: Key Map No.2: Petition from Lownie Court residents dated November 28, 2000 1.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Corporation of the Municipality ofClarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement, registered August 31, 1999 with St. Stephen's Estates Inc. to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Bowmanville and described as Plan 40M-1977. The agreement required the developer to construct all roadworks, including sidewalks along the north side ofLownie Court (Attachment No. I). 2.2 Mr. and Mrs. Cochrane of92 Lownie Court approached the Municipality on November 27, 2000 to inquire why sidewalks were required at the west limih%..~ ~~ 6 5 1 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: WD-05-01 REPORT NO.: WD-05-01 PAGE 2 Mr. Cochrane explained that he bought a home on a court because the builder assured him there would be no sidewalks. Engineering staff reviewed the drawings (approved May, 1999) and confirmed that sidewalk was required on Lownie Court linking to Mearns Avenue, and that it could not be deleted because it formed part of the sidewalk network for the neighbourhood as a whole. 2.3 Mr. Cochrane advised that the sidewalk was presently being constructed, and he felt that it was unfair that the sidewalk would be finished before he could pursue the issue politically with a petition. It was stressed to Mr. Cochrane that even with a petition, it was very unlikely that the sidewalk would be deleted due to the neighbourhood Pedestrian issues involved. However, in fairness to his concerns of having insufficient time to pursue the issue politically, staff contacted the site engineers who agreed to postpone the sidewalk installation. Due to the inclement weather and late season construction, staff and site engineers were able to agree on postponement ofinstallation Wltil Spring. It was clarified to Mr. Cochrane that this delay in construction must not be misinterpreted as a decision to eliminate the sidewalk and that staff would not be supporting his request. He appreciated this assistance. and agreed to clarify the situation to his neighbours. 2.4 A petition was subsequently received by COWlcil in early December (Attachment No.2) showing that most of the directly affected residents prefer not to have sidewalk on this court. 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3.1 Although most new homeowners agree with the need for sidewalks in new subdivisions, many prefer not to have sidewalks fronting their own property. As a result, the Public Works Department often receives requests to relocate sidewalks to the 'other side of the street' or to delete sidewalks altogether. Engineering staff advise residents that sidewalks benefit the entire neighbourhood by providing links to walkways, parks. schools and major roads, etc. In this panicular situation, a direct sidewalk link to Mearns Avenue is an important component of the neighbourhood's pedestrian network. 652 REPORT NO.: WD-OS-Ol PAGE 3 3.2 The Public Works Department encourages prospective new homeowners to inquire at our offices regarding sidewalks, lot grading and any other relevant issues that may concern them, prior to making their purchase. Many people take advantage of this service. 3.3 Public Works (Engineering Division) has maintained a policy that once a sidewalk location is approved, it must not be relocated or deleted to accommodate individual requests from residents fronting it. Relocation or deletion would affect the neighbourhood sidewalk system and would also undemrine staff's commitment to other potential buyers who have been assured of the sidewalk location. 3.4 In this specific situation, staff reviewed a compromise to reduce the visual impact of the sidewalk on the boulevards for Houses #96, #98, #102 and #104. Since the cul-de-sac is offSet, it results in increased walking distance around the bulb. Engineering staff propose to cany pedestrian traffic across the bulb to eliminate the sidewalk around the bulb (Attachment No.1). "This compromise is reasonable since there is no through vehicular traffic at the bulb and the intent of the neighbourhood sidewalk network is still maintained. 4,0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Based on the issues outlined in this report, it is recommended that staff be authorized to complete the sidewalk when weather permits, in the modified location outlined in this report. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~es~ Director ofFublic Works o ~QL-Q lA.. Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer NAC*SA V*ce 653 DRAWN BY: J.R.M 1IAlC: FEB. 2001 PORT WD-OS-01 I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 I! III " !i I , I ,I I 1 I :1 104 ' 102 98'. 9B \ \ " \ 92\ 90 ' \ ~,,\ \ '. \ ~~~- - ELlMINATIONOF \ /\' 6\ PROPOSED SIDEWALK CI) . > ' <(I 'f/) E III CI) :E '\ Lownie Ct R IS ED LOCATION OF NEW SIDEWALK ~. ,;i;~ -/:. Guildwood Dr SuiJECT ,SITE I ~-'n\..... BOWMANVILLE, \ fA UbJ i \ \ ~i 'L J I J .5 "0 "0 ~ ED Ir Il>~e " . MR Be MRS ROBERT COCHRANE 91l1:lWNll CCII1IT IOWMANwu. ON. UC 511 To Whom it May Concern: u~ 'C'OIl.'Ol'3C ~,. .,- ..,... T 1 ~l_J..fJOI)"'"" . -.' ._-- November 2S, 2000 W. the residents of Lownie Court in the Municipality of Clarington Wish to bring to CounCIl the issue of sidewalks being placed on our court As a home owner on a court we do not feel that we sllould be subject to .........., Pedestrian tralllc. This is DI'I8 main I'8lIIOn P8OI)le choose to buy on a court (some sort of Privacy)1II We were tolcl lhenI WOUld be no sidewalk and also were shown plans by the builder showing no sicIewatk on our coUrt There lIII!I two (2) other routes peopte can lake to ""'Q!SS BIther the SCIlclaI or a main 1hoIougtttare (Mums A....) Plea8e lXlllSidt.r this as our fomlIII lIIlPi--'on (peIilk.1) to have thts brought to Coundrs atl8ntion as soon as possible, Thank you for your consideration into this maner. - I I/~- ~I '_1.r ,'01/'~.1"f:\1. /' ~ i/.C'7~:",,1 (" 1.."'( . <.. / ,-./', ~';;. 1-.1 ~/ir t.<- II .1,1- !6c':'~_~/Y .:..~: --;~'.. , !,..~ 1,597- n,. : / I , SAftI", '- - '!,'rDDf:Il.T "" ~LI:','_" '.J I lJ t..:;.(L'......t... ':'~r: I ,~"ilJ.l~"'f-^"',:. !~.........-.. '" i.~.,\'\ I . I I ..., [17L' ('''l "'ll.~' , I Il)l.l/)r-r j J;": I, . / l ll-}II. ,.-......:,..';... I .:~,"-""'" ~ 4: 7,0 Cu........, ~i Addras I ,....,) '-~(I..~fJ'~ i ,- / l ! ~ "'T fJ;.w "<:!-' </L I . I ......../n.,.. . t f I ,', ...,.., h."Y'.:l....~ ";. -,' :...1" ! .1"....; '-':.L.""'':; <,.... r \--..\...,........,i. (~:""~ w , L'(JJ ,'.--. .,;_ I"'" 7'<..'... ::....; i ,. " I I;,.~ '_'1' : .J .,# r I ~ . !i-'~_ i .;\ ( 1'0' l :'; .:"';f .' . ,,-~.~"- . ......... '-'~ .~ ~_.. 655 .. ATrACBMENT ~':_ -.'f:'-I""'.....--~.....