Report to / Rapport au :

Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun

28 September 2001 / le 28 septembre 2001

Submitted by/Soumis par: Planning and Development Committee /

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement

Contact/Personne-ressource: Dawn Whelan, Committee Co-ordinator / Coordonnatrice du comité, 580-2424, ext. 21837, Dawn Whelan@city.ottawa.on.ca

Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-PDC-0013

SUBJECT:

TRaffic Signals at Belcourt and Jeanne D’ARC Boulevard

OBJET:

FEUX À COMMANDE INTÉGRALE À L’ANGLE DE LA RUE BELCOURT ET DU BOULEVARD JEANNE-D’ARC

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Whereas concerns have been expressed by the community over the traffic impact of the planned subdivision at Belcourt/Windsong (Block 219, 220, and 223 on Plan 4M-516);

Therefore be it resolved that the Planning and Development Committee refer the matter of full traffic signals at Belcourt and Jeanne D’Arc Boulevard to the Transportation and Transit Committee for their review.

RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ

Attendu que des résidents de la communauté ont exprimé des préoccupations au sujet de l’incidence sur la circulation du lotissement prévu à l’angle de Belcourt/Windsong (blocs 219, 220 et 223 sur le plan 4M-516);

Il est résolu que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement renvoie la question de feux à commande intégrale à l’angle de la rue Belcourt et du boulevard Jeanne-D’Arc au Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun, aux fins d’examen.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 27 September 2001, the Planning and Development Committee considered a report submitted by the General Manager, Development Services Department entitled “Draft Plan of Subdivision – Blocks 219, 220 and 223 on Plan 4M-516 – Windsong Avenue and Belcourt Boulevard” and dated 06 September 2001 (ACS2001-DEV-APR-0218). During the course of the public hearing, the Committee heard concerns expressed by a number of residents and the Ward Councillor, Councillor Bloess, about the traffic impact this subdivision will have on Belcourt Boulevard. As a result, Planning and Development Committee approved the above-noted motion.

A copy of the Draft Extract of Minute of the Planning and Development Committee’s discussion of this item is attached as Document 1.

CONSULTATION

N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

If it is deemed that traffic signals are warranted at the intersection of Belcourt Boulevard and Jeanne D’Arc Boulevard, funding for said traffic signals would have to be found in the Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department budget.

ATTACHMENTS

Document 1 - Extract of Draft Minute of the Planning and Development Committee meeting of 27 September 2001 (includes a record of the vote).

Angela Helis and Elaine Barber, residents of Belcourt, expressed their opposition to the road for the proposed development coming out in front of their properties. Ms. Helis related some of her concerns, mainly relating to traffic safety issues. She indicated that a 1983 future-planning map from the City of Gloucester indicated that Belcourt Blvd South would be a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Jeanne D’Arc Blvd. She opined that many residents had purchased their homes on Belcourt thinking they were going to have a cul-de-sac there. She pointed out that when Jeanne D’Arc Blvd. was constructed, new water mains and storm sewers were put on Belcourt and the width of the street was narrowed. She was told that Belcourt South was to be a low volume cul-de-sac residential street with very little traffic; she said it currently was not.

Ms. Helis went on to say the laneway at 2026 Belcourt is hazardous, as it is too close to Jeanne D’Arc Blvd. She referenced the staff report, page 54, clause 61, which stated: “Block 5 driveways shall not access Belcourt Boulevard, due to its proximity to Jeanne D’Arc Boulevard. Driveways are to be located towards the internal proposed roadways. A 5.0m x 5.0m site triangle is required at the intersection of Belcourt Boulevard and Jeanne D’Arc Boulevard.” She felt 2026 Belcourt did not meet these requirements, as it is less than 5 meters from Jeanne D’Arc. Ms. Helis recalled a few years earlier, the residents of Beauséjour complained about traffic volume on their street. Beauséjour is wider than Belcourt and was constructed for heavy volume of traffic. A set of traffic lights were erected to stop the straight-through traffic, thus redirecting all traffic heading for Innes Road, up Jeanne D’Arc and on to Belcourt, increasing the traffic on the narrowest street. She said Belcourt is getting all the traffic from Beauséjour and Innes at the present time.

Ms. Barber indicated a new set of traffic lights had been installed at the corner of Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinettes to control the traffic flow. With the original plan of subdivision, the majority of the traffic from the new project would exit via Windsong onto Des Epinettes, and through the traffic lights of the new controlled intersection at Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinettes. She opined this was the logical option. With the new plan, the traffic flow would exit to the corner of Belcourt and Jeanne D’Arc, marked with a stop sign and a pedestrian crossing light. She viewed this corner as hazardous. The speaker went on to point out that hundreds of children attend Henry Larson Elementary School, across from Jeanne D’Arc and use the pedestrian lights at Jeanne D’Arc and Belcourt. As well, many of the parents park along Belcourt to wait for their children and this too presents a safety issue. To ensure safety for both pedestrians and drivers, Ms. Barber urged the Committee to put in place the original plan of subdivision presented at the April 11^th meeting.

As she and her neighbours had only received notice of this new plan on September 14, Ms. Barber felt this was not sufficient time. She noted she and Ms. Helis had notified other concerned residents in the area and had circulated a petition. The delegations presented this petition, containing 79 signatures from residents on Belcourt and neighbouring streets (held on file with the City Clerk).

In concluding their remarks Ms. Helis and Ms. Barber expressed support for the plan presented at the 11 April meeting. Ms. Barber felt the staff report addressed only the issues raised by the residents of Windsong and Des Chouettes and she viewed this as unfair. She stated that Belcourt has had to absorb a great deal of traffic and noted at the 11 April meeting the possibility of a bottleneck from vehicles going south on Belcourt, was identified as a safety concern, yet it was not identified as such in the staff report. Ms. Helis stated if the proposed plan of subdivision is approved with the road accessing Belcourt Boulevard, she and Ms. Barber would be appealing it to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In response to questioning from Councillor Bloess, Ms. Barber indicated she received the current plan on September 14^th, but acknowledged she was given a copy in May by Councillor Bloess. She indicated however, at that time, the Councillor was not certain what plan the developer was going to proceed with. Ms. Helis indicated that September 14^th was the first time she and many other people in the area had received the new plan.

John Scarlett advised he lives on Windsong and stated that in general the people of Windsong support the new plan. He indicated that Windsong is a smaller, narrower street than Belcourt, and felt the new plan was a reasonable compromise to split the traffic flow out of the community. He felt the intersection of Des Epinettes and Jeanne D’Arc, to be very dangerous and noted the cul-de-sac on Belcourt routes traffic from St. Joseph Blvd. up through Sunview, past the school to that intersection. In his opinion, given that the people living in this new community are going to be headed for Jeanne D’Arc or Innes Road, the new plan of subdivision provides a more direct route to do so on a road that has sidewalks and is wider than Windsong.

Mr. Scarlett stated when residents first purchased their lots back in 1989, the proposed land was under a different zoning, which allowed single residential and row dwellings, not street row dwellings as is allowed now. He felt the development would have been more easily accepted if single-family dwellings were being proposed.

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Scarlett sought clarification on concerns about construction traffic. Specifically, whether weekend construction traffic would be allowed, how the building would take place and the time span for construction. Mr. Scarlett also wanted to know whether or not a walkway to the park, with proper signage and possibly a three-way stop, was being considered. In addressing Belcourt residents’ proposal to revert to the original plan, he stressed Windsong is a narrower street and more houses would be affected by traffic flow on Windsong than on Belcourt.

With leave of the Committee, Mr. Morrison responded to some of the questions raised by the delegation. He indicated the City would be encouraging construction traffic to take the shortest route possible into the site (i.e. via Belcourt), however, there may be a need for some construction traffic to use Windsong, depending on the phasing of the housing.

Ennio Plescia, a resident of Belcourt Blvd., recalled he bought his lot in 1988 with the understanding this was a cul-de-sac. He noted that planning maps of the day showed no exit whatsoever on Belcourt Blvd. Mr. Plescia voiced his objection to the proposed exit road in front of his driveway and expressed great concerns regarding traffic.

Peter Helis, advised he lives on Belcourt Blvd., directly adjacent to the proposed subdivision. He stated he bought his property in 1988, and started building in 1989, with the understanding that Belcourt was to be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Helis pointed out the people on Windsong bought their homes, with the knowledge that there would be an access road onto Windsong from this project in the future. He expressed his frustration on the re-routing of traffic from Beauséjour to Belcourt, and now sees the same thing is happening again. Mr. Helis questioned why Belcourt had to accommodate and bear the traffic to accommodate other streets’ concerns. He stated he did not oppose having the units built across the street, but is opposed to having the increased traffic resulting from the 34 units, and most of the construction traffic, travelling on Belcourt.

In response to questioning from Chair Hunter, both the developer and Ms. Houle indicated they had no preference between the original plan and the one currently proposed. The developer, Luc Legault, indicated he changed the plan in an attempt to accommodate the concerns raised by the residents of Windsong, at the meeting of 11 April. However, he said he now realises there are two groups and either way, one side will be opposed to having a road opening on to its street. Mr. Legeault expressed his desire to move forward with the project and have a plan of subdivision approved.

Responding to further questions from Chair Hunter, Mr. Legeault indicated he was trying to accommodate the residents’ concerns and for that reason completed a traffic impact study to determine which street would be greater impacted. Ms. Houle advised the site had been zoned for this type of development for years and indicated the department was supporting the current plan of subdivision.

Councillor Bellemare enquired regarding the traffic impact study and asked if there were any recommendations to address residents’ concerns. Mr. Morrison pointed out the analysis was based on the revised plan. He opined that from a traffic operations point of view, bringing an exit road on to Belcourt makes sense because the street is very close to Jeanne D’Arc, enabling the traffic to quickly take that route. He said the residents of Belcourt feel there are on-going safety issues with the Jeanne D’Arc and Belcourt intersection. He repeated that the traffic impact analysis shows that even with the completion of development, the intersection is only meeting 77% of the warrants for traffic signals. Responding to a further question from Councillor Bellemare, Mr. Morisson indicated that if another set of traffic signals were needed at the corner of Jeanne D’Arc and Belcourt, it would be an acceptable distance form the intersection of Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinettes.

Councillor Bellemare asked if the installation of traffic signals at the corner of Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinettes had any negative impact on the warrants for traffic lights to be installed at the corner of Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinettes. Mr. Morrison indicated there is the potential that people might be using the signals at Des Epinettes during peak periods to avoid the situation at Belcourt, where there are no signals. He advanced that a monitoring period would be appropriate to determine whether in fact that intersection has drawn away any of the traffic at Jeanne D’Arc and Belcourt.

Mr. Morrison confirmed for Councillor Bellemare that with the 34 units coming in, the perception of traffic increase for peak hours is approximately one vehicle every five minutes. Providing further detail, Mr. Morrison pointed out that during the morning peak period for the Belcourt and Jeanne D’Arc intersection, an additional 9 left-hand turn movements are expected from Belcourt onto Jeanne D’Arc (heading West bound), one heading East bound on Jeanne D’Arc, and for Windsong it would mean at Des Epinettes and Jeanne D’Arc there would be 3 additional vehicles turning left on Jeanne D’Arc and one turning right. He opined that the perceived impact would be minimal.

Mr. Legault confirmed for Councillor Bloess, that the current revisions to the plan were made in an effort to find a compromise. He agreed that many different configurations had been looked at, including splitting the development in half but this would have had a negative impact on the number of the units and the layout of the site. Further, Mr. Legault confirmed at the public meeting (with people in attendance from the entire community, not just from Windsong Avenue), he attempted to address the concerns expressed at the time.

Councillor Bloess commented it would not be possible to make everyone happy, no matter what the final decision is. He felt it important for the Committee to note the developer had been through a lengthy process and had arrived at this particular plan that he believes will work in this neighbourhood.

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Legault noted the original plan had 33 units exiting onto Windsong and 11 units onto Belcourt.

Committee Chair Hunter referenced a letter from Dr. Ian Gray, which spoke of one block of the buildings having a sidewall one metre from the backyard of some houses on Des Chouettes. He asked if there was any possibility of moving that block further to the north (away from those properties). Mr. Legault advised it would not be possible to move this block, without losing a unit, as there is a pathway located to the north. He stated that the proposed block meets the City’s minimum setback requirements (i.e. 1.2 metres).

Councillor Stavinga asked what the capacity of the site would be if single-family homes were being built. Ms. Currie estimated, in this zone, with a frontage of 9 metres, the site would likely accommodate 22 to 25 single-family homes.

Referencing the matter raised by Chair Hunter, concerning the side yard of the block facing Windsong and its close proximity to the rear yards of those houses on Des Chouettes, Councillor Stavinga asked staff if it would be within the Committee’s purview to stipulate that the developer either remove one of the units or reconfigure. Ms. Currie advised this would not be possible, as the setback is in compliance with Gloucester’s zoning standards. She noted it would make no difference if it were a single-family home or a town home, the setback would be the same.

Councillor Stavinga referred to an e-mail received from Don Kennedy, on behalf of his client, which spoke to concerns that residual lands to the north/south leg of Windsong (which his client owns) had not been incorporated into the plan and the fact that his client had been required to provide lands for the road and had not been compensated. She asked for staff comment. Ms. Currie advised staff had discussions with Mr. Kennedy since his e-mail and had researched the subdivision agreements for the adjacent subdivision. She said the matter had been resolved and there will be an arrangement made between Legault Builders and Valecraft regarding a cost-sharing for the extension of the road.

Councillor Munter asked if there was a fence at the back of Dr Grey’s property. Ms. Houle could not say if there currently was a fence on the back of his property, however, she noted as a requirement of this subdivision, there would be a fence along the lot line.

Councillor Bloess referenced the requirement for a path and asked, in order to address the concern from the residents on Des Chouettes, if the City could give up the requirement for the path. Ms. Currie confirmed the Committee could choose to remove this access to Jeanne D’Arc from the plan,. However, she pointed out as a general rule, the City encourages connections to the collector roads (e.g. for convenient access to bus stops).

Councillor Stavinga asked if the townhouses fronting on Belcourt would be facing single-family homes. Ms. Currie advised there are both singles and semis on the west side of Belcourt facing onto the subject development.

Councillor Stavinga commented that in seven years, she had not seen a traffic study that did not support a development. She stated she could understand the concerns raised by the residents of Belcourt, noting the number of cars associated with a town home development. The Councillor asked staff if the higher density of the town homes was analysed in detail as part of the traffic study. Mr. Morrison confirmed this was looked at in detail. He noted as well, staff had had discussions with the developer and would be pursuing further, the matter of the block of town homes closest to Jeanne d’Arc accessing Belcourt and would be recommending that access to this block of town homes be turned in to the development. He explained the situation, particularly in the morning, would be difficult for people trying to get out of their driveways, if there was any back up of traffic on Belcourt trying to get onto Jeanne d’Arc.

Given this information, Councillor Stavinga felt it was premature to approve the subdivision and stated she was prepared to move deferral of the matter. Ms. Currie explained the Subdivision agreement contained a clause (Clause 61), which stipulates that the driveways for this block (Block 5) access onto the internal street and not onto Belcourt. She stated these details would be addressed at the time of site plan approval.

Referring to earlier comments by the Committee, Mr. Legault noted they had looked at different alternatives for this site and advised they had at one point, a draft plan for 36 single-family units. He also pointed out they could easily have accommodated 55 town home units at 19 feet wide. The developer chose instead to have the town homes 24 feet wide, with 16 foot garages. He said there will be plenty of room inside the garage, and room for two cars in the driveway.

Mr. Lathrop clarified that the proposed plan of subdivision (as set out on page 56) was before the Committee at this time. He explained that page 58, sets out the proposed site plan, which was provided primarily for information and which is subject to the site plan approval process.

Councillor Stavinga asked if there was a possibility that the number of units would be reduced if access to the units in Block 5 were turned into the development. Mr. Morrison confirmed there was the possibility of the loss of one unit, but noted that further discussions with the developer were necessary.

Councillor Bloess stated that no matter what the Committee approved in terms of this subdivision, there would be traffic impacts. He explained the traffic light at the corner of Belcourt and Jeanne D’Arc was pedestrian activated and otherwise permanently red for cars coming off of Belcourt. The Councillor said this caused problems for people not familiar with the light. He sought assistance with the process for making this a full traffic light. Mr. Morrison advised this would have to be discussed with the Traffic and Parking Operations Branch of TUPW. Councillor Bloess stated he had raised this issue at Transportation and Transit Committee without success and was now looking for support from the Planning and Development Committee to bring it forward to Transportation and Transit Committee once again. Councillor Cullen put forward a motion in this regard, which the Committee then approved.

Moved by A. Cullen

Whereas concerns have been expressed by the community over the traffic impact of the planned subdivision at Belcourt/ Windsong (Block 219, 220, and 223 on Plan 4M-516);

CARRIED

The Committee Chair then read a motion put forward by Councillor Stavinga, that this item be deferred pending resolution of Condition 61 and the possibility of reconfiguring the lots to increase the side yard of the block impacting the rear yards of residents on Des Chouettes.

Councillor Bloess advised that earlier in the spring, a public meeting was held and as well, he had met numerous times with the residents of the affected streets. The developer has reconfigured the site several times to accommodate the concerns expressed. He said he did not think deferring the matter would accomplish anything.

Moved by J. Stavinga

That Planning and Development Committee defer this item pending resolution of Condition 61 of the Conditions for Draft Approval and the ability to reconfigure the lots to increase the side yard of properties on Windsong impacting residences on Des Chouettes Lane.

LOST

NAYS: E. Arnold, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder and A. Munter….5

YEAS: J. Stavinga and G. Hunter….2

At Committee Chair Hunter’s request, Mr. Lathrop addressed the issue of the pathway. He said one could make the argument that a pathway in the mid-block was not necessary; that people could walk east to the Jeanne D’Arc and Des Epinnettes intersection or west to the Belcourt and Jeanne D’Arc intersection. If that argument is made and the pathway is removed, then the plan could be reconfigured to resolve the side yard and rear yard issues. He said this was a judgement call, to be balanced with the need for the path, the City’s maintenance of the pathway, etc.

Ms. Currie confirmed for Chair Hunter, that Block 10, the 6 metre wide pathway (with 1.5 metres of pavement) would be dedicated to the City. Chair Hunter questioned if it would be possible to insert into the agreement, a condition that the developer build and maintain a pathway (i.e. not dedicating the land to the City). He felt this would allow the developer to shift the units away from Dr. Gray’s property. Ms. Currie said this would narrow the pathway, however, she pointed out that this development is for freehold units and no land would be held by the developer. She noted the lands adjacent to the pathway would be owned by the abutting units.

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation.

Moved by A. Munter

That the Planning and Development Committee endorse the granting of draft approval to the Plan of Subdivision pertaining to Blocks 219, 220 and 223 on Plan 4M-516, as shown on Document 2, subject to the conditions detailed in Document 1, and redelegate to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure Approvals, the authority to complete processing of this subdivision.

CARRIED

YEAS: E. Arnold, M. Bellemare, A. Cullen, J. Harder and A. Munter…5

NAYS: G. Hunter and J. Stavinga….2