The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-05-01 ?'\Jt. " ... THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: --:::- - GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File # lL?;, , Date: FEBRUARY 19, 2001 Res, #Cl/l-!$-~ I Report No.: WD-OS-Ol Our File: B.02.0S.002 By-Law # Subject: ST. STEPHENS ESTATES SUBDIVISION, 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 Report WD-OS-Ol be received; and 2. THAT Council authorize the completion of sidewalks on Lownie Court, in accordance with this report, when weather permits. REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No.1: Key Map No.2: Petition from Lownie Court residents dated November 2S, 2000 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 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 (Attaclunent No.1). 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 limit of Lownie Court. 668 ~ 4 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 of installation until 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 Council 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. At; 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 particular situation, a direct sidewalk link to Mearns Avenue is an important component of the neighbourhood's pedestrian network. 669 ~ ~ REPORT NO.: WD-05-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 undennine 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 carry 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 staffbe authorized to complete the sidewalk when weather permits, in the modified location outlined in this report. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~1-k--' Stephen . Vokes, P. E~g., Director of Public Works O~.~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer lA.. NAC*SA V*ce 670 ~ . TT- Q) ~ lI) c: '- ro Q) :2 J I I ! ! /~ -------- I 1__- ~ I ,j .~ J - _J I I I I 104 ' 102 \, 98' \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ I, 96 \, \ \ \ \ \ \ 92\ 90 \ \, \\ \\ rn~::,,~,~O~~~~~~~~t~~~E~LK\ \ \ / \ '0: \ ---;~- K \.~L--'-~~l~~~=~~~-= . \'" i Lownie Ct L "~ ! ~E1sED joc~o; ~~\\ OF NEW SIDEWALK I ..~ ---- - I c: ..J -c -c ::l III it \;J . '>-c:~=-~ .___J__ "\ --- ~I '"C~ / I L) -~J/ Guildwood Dr It{ "'-+-~ iii ---- --~-- ----~---- /----- ------------~ ,/ /----- . . ! , , , I '. ~ '\ , \ , , , \ , \ , \ \ , , , , , , , , , ~- \' -_:-::: -_.::::--:.j ,,~ DRAWN BY JR~... .~~~TE~EB.2001 .... i REPORT Wtf-1l5-01 ...._ I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 _ _.~_._------ KEY MAP 671 . " v-I!! , (;!ONOV30 pr, ~. "~- .,,~..... ~-"- MR & MRS ROBERT COCHRANE Telephone (9Q!j) 697-8563 92 LOWNIE COURr BOWMANVIUE, ON. UC 5E1 To Whom it May Concem: November 28. 2000 We 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 should be subject to excess pedestrian traffic. This is one main reason people choose to buy on a court (some sort of privacy)!!! We were told there would be no sidewalk and also were shown plans by the builder showing no sidewalk on our court. There are two (2) other routes people can take 10 access either the school or a main thoroughfare (Mearns Ave.) Please consider this as our formal application (petition) to have this brought to Council's attention as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration into this matter. Naftle /(!)ticP... T ~ tJAK..1..6-'-~- I '~(')l./-/~4~,"~ i \.:'::..-~\.,......',.\ f).. \,-:1),,\ i Kpl'. [tXLfJ'-'1 '( .')1.\.....,-' , ! nt.l!7ri i J'-': I, . / (. i LJf/, :'--/_~-"./ I i&,_""",,, Vo,.,k( - ,- '. \ U I c. '/-' /1,)O,k- 'f' ';' f ,"!~ I I ~one #. Sipatn'Pe " ,. ". . - I /(n ""-" " i - .. . I,> L:A.l~''l_':,L- ~:.:..i.. lOll -<-,''; :::'~ I /' ..-i '~A>.{:.-iL.L . ^~! '.,,:(alle i~"f l~q7:' 1ft;;" .',~~~,"", '~Lf iJ.;'(.LfIiC' D-t !un-:/7Uj +-//{u.-Cj (I ?S<.{ / ,-:'.../n'-~ . '; f 16~'"::t-1IY ~!1( ! !~;~ ~,f i0'17-71\ / I Address 4: 7P (0--., Ii" ,'~i .j ,J ,I!_ .I~_ I .1.., . 21 1.0. I ' '" r ~ :~(' r ./",.....: _:),'..cVll,:J 1-, ",;~, -.r'.o);:.J..?j~-- I -t- \. ~~ \... ~Y /',1-, '- - ''-''''--~' ...." (,". t . 1,,- " 1 j(.."--'; ( . - L1)'v... '.11'<" .'1 ..,..-.... .l~ L "T"t':o:-n'-rn : C<:;,'l.K:>.LV--d-: " '4' \::..:-.........-........ ~,.. . i '. 'J-' ~~. ._....-.--.... , , '," !.~_., . .'. ,~., .,'~" ........_~.-: .. w'''-. , . .~,_o,_~ -. --'-1 --, -_.~.... "'--0-. ...,00"-' . ," .,..--, L. 7 '.') ATTACHMENT NO,: .~ ,.....; n I 'REPORT NO,: WD~05"ll1'"