Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works - 2000-03-06PWTC\2000-03-06 PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 6, 2000 CITY OF KITCHENER The Public Works and Transportation Committee met this date, Chaired by Councillor John Smola, commencing at 9:15 a.m., with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr, Councillors J. Haalboom, and C. Weylie. Councillor J. Ziegler was in attendance for part of the meeting. Officials Present: Ms. C. Ladd, Ms. J. Billett and Messrs. S. Gyorffy, J. Gazzola, J. McBride, D. Mansell, B. Stanley, and G. Melanson. This meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee commenced without a quorum present. 1. DOPWR 2000-10 - BIKEWAYS AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS The Committee was in receipt of a report dated February 29, 2000 from Mr. J. McBride, Manager of Traffic and Parking, requesting consideration of various policies respecting road right-of-way widths and funding with respect to implementation of bike lanes. Mr. J. McBride advised that the objective of the Regional Transportation Master Plan is to reduce the use of the automobile by 7% by the year 2016 through improvements to increase public transit and establish pedestrian/bicycling facilities. In conjunction with the Master Plan, the City adopted a Bikeway Study in 1998 to establish a number of bikeway routes, both on and off road, throughout the City. He noted that the report this date seeks to address implementation of on-road bikeway routes through variation to the standard road right-of-way widths of between 21.5 meters for lesser traffic volume roads and 26 meters for higher traffic volume roads. Mr. J. McBride provided an overhead presentation to illustrate four different types of bike lanes, as outlined in the staff report, that could be implemented being: on-road signed route; wide shared use lane; bike lane; and, bike lane with on-street parking. Mr. J. McBride pointed out that only the fourth option allows for on-street parking and will require additional funds to implement and maintain. Mr. J. McBride advised that existing road right-of-way widths were developed in 1999 to address concerns that new collector roads in new subdivisions were over designed/built, and detracted from the appearance of the streetscape and overall community. He stated that the new standards for road right-of-way widths range from 16 to 26 meters, which are adequate to accommodate actual pavement widths, sidewalks and utility corridors; however, will not accommodate additional widths for bike lanes. Mr. J. McBride pointed out that staff are now in the position of having to implement bike lanes within new subdivisions proposed for the Grand River South area and, accordingly, have developed five alternatives, as outlined in the staff report, to address implementation of bike lanes being: signage for bike route only; prohibited parking on both sides of the road to allow wide shared use lane; increase right-of-way to 24 meters to allow bike lane and retain parking on both sides of the road; increase right-of-way to 22 meters with on-street parking, one lane of traffic in each direction and room for cyclists to be signed but not demarcated; or, designated bike lane with an increase in right-of-way to 21.5 meters and parking restricted to one side. Mr. J. McBride pointed out that the fifth alternative is preferred as it offers a clearly defined bike lane while minimizing the increase in right-of-way, cost of development and future maintenance. In all case scenarios, Mr. J. McBride advised that the boulevards will be reduced to 4.5 meters. Mr. J. McBride noted that all options referred to will only apply to new subdivisions, as existing subdivisions have other issues of concern which staff are proposing be dealt with in a future report. Mr. McBride further advised that provision of bike lanes represents an increase in infrastructure beyond the current level of service and new funding will be required. In this regard, he outlined three potential sources, as referred to in the staff report, being: inclusion of an annual estimate in the Capital Budget to be paid out of the Capital Out of Current Budget; use of funds designated to cover the "City Share of Subdivisions" under the Development Charge By-law, with the Development Charge By-law to be revised in 2004 to more accurately define costs related to bike lane installations; or, enactment of a by-law to require developers to provide PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 6, 2000 - 15 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. DOPWR 2000-10 - BIKEWAYS AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS (CONT'D) for bike lanes at no cost to the City, with costs to be borne by prospective purchasers. Councillor J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this time and a quorum was now present. Mr. J. McBride advised that staff are recommending that costs be covered through the Development Charge By-law, resulting in those residents directly benefiting from installation of bike lanes ultimately bearing the costs. In conclusion, Mr. McBride reviewed the four recommendations as outlined in the staff report. Councillor C. Weylie expressed concern with the urgency of this report being forward to Council this date, as she felt this was an issue that required more detailed discussion and should not be rushed through because of the Grand River South development. She further expressed concern with the impact the proposed recommendations would have on existing subdivisions and, in particular within her Ward, citing an example along Glasgow Street between Fischer-Hallman Road and Knell Drive. She noted that in areas where four lanes with no parking exist the proposal may be viable; however, suggested that problems would be compounded in existing areas where streets are narrower and on-street parking already exists. Councillor Weylie referred to the proposed widening of Victoria Street and stated that she was not prepared to support the proposed recommendations, as she was uncertain as to their impact, particularly within her Ward. Mr. J. McBride responded that the Grand River South development had been the catalyst to bring forward this issue as it relates to new subdivisions. He pointed out that in existing areas staff are proposing a further report be prepared to address issues of concern and that the recommendations this date would not necessarily be applied to older areas. He stated that the preferred alternative is felt to be a reasonable compromise that could be helpful in older areas, in that, it would allow some parking while at the same time would minimize the cost to implement and maintain. Councillor Weylie disagreed with respect to the restriction of parking, suggesting that on-street parking would still occur, and questioned if there were any statistics available with respect to bike usage that would justify the cost associated with implementing bike lanes. Mr. J. McBride responded that, while no statistics were available, staff were attempting to be pro-active in keeping with the Region's desire to promote alternative modes of transportation, rather than waiting to develop bike lanes based on demand. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned the width of actual asphalt for road right-of-ways of 21.5 meters and Mr. McBride responded the actual pavement width would be 12.5 meters, which represents a 2.5 meter increase over the current standard. Councillor Haalboom referred to Pioneer Drive from Homer Watson Boulevard to Doon Village Road, and Doon Village Road from Homer Waston Boulevard to Pioneer Drive, and inquired how they relate in size to the proposed recommendations. Mr. D. Mansell advised that both Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road have a road right-of-way width of 26 meters, with an actual pavement width of 15 meters. Councillor Haalboom noted that Doon Village Road, from Pioneer Drive to Bechtel Drive, appears to have less pavement width and requested clarification. Mr. Mansell pointed out that on major arterial roads it is proposed to have a road right-of-way width of 26 meters with a pavement width of 15 meters; however, within subdivisions on local streets or minor collector roads the road right-of-way width is only 20 meters, with an actual pavement width of 10 meters. Councillor J. Haalboom expressed concern with increasing the road widths and questioned if discussions have taken place with the industry. Mr. McBride responded that discussions were undertaken with representatives of MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton, Clarkson Planning Ltd., consultants with respect to subdivisions in Grand River South, who have recognized the desire to implement bike lanes from both Council's and a marketing perspective. He stated that they do support bike lanes on collector roads and the preferred alternative attempts to minimize road widths and costs. Councillor J. Haalboom suggested that a broader approach to the industry should be taken and stated that she would like to see staff go back to the industry to obtain further input. 1. DOPWR 2000-10 - BIKEWAYS AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS (CONT'D) PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 6, 2000 - 16 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mayor C. Zehr questioned what the additional costs for the preferred option relate to and Mr. McBride responded that these funds would cover the cost of the additional pavement width. Mayor Zehr further questioned if it was intended the costs eventually be covered under the Development Charge By-law, through the developer on to the purchaser. Mr. D. Mansell advised that the Development Charge By-law currently has a line item of $100,000.00 per year over the life of the by-law to cover costs for various services and it is intended to use these funds over the next 4 years to assist in covering costs for bike lanes. In 2004, Mr. Mansell advised that the by-law will be reviewed and, at that time, staff will consider amending the by-law to incorporate appropriate funding for bike lanes. Mayor Zehr also referred to the issue of input from the industry and Mr. Mansell advised that the public consultation process had been undertaken as part of the Bikeway Study, during which the industry had been consulted. He further advised that when the Bikeway Study was approved, Council directed staff to look at ways of implementing on-road bike lanes, which is what the report attempts to address. Mayor Zehr questioned if the size of lots in the new subdivisions were to be 3 metres shallower as a result of installing bike lanes and Mr. McBride responded that the lots would be approximately 1.5 metres shallower, spread throughout the subdivision. Mayor C. Zehr questioned why it was necessary to obtain Council approval this date and Mr. McBride advised that implementing bike lanes was an outstanding issue to be included within the Grand River South Community Plan. In this regard, he advised that the planning matters relative to Grand River South are scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 9th. MS. C. Ladd further clarified that this was the only outstanding issue that staff are attempting to carry forward into the Community Plan. She asked that, if the Committee could not support the recommendation as a City-wide policy, that they consider giving specific direction with respect to Grand River South for the purpose of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Mayor Zehr inquired if the Board Hearing would still be necessary if this issue was resolved for Grand River South. Ms. Ladd advised that the Board has scheduled a series of pre-hearings, the first of which is scheduled for March 9th, and it was possible that with resolution of this outstanding issue a final decision respecting Grand River South could be arrived at that date. Mayor Zehr inquired if consideration had been given to developing bike lanes as part of the boulevard. Mr. J. McBride advised that staff had given some consideration to this; however, were concerned with the potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and the difficulty cyclists would encounter traversing ramps and curbs. He further advised that, while a number of off-road facilities are to be developed, staff were trying to follow the intent of the Bikeway Study in developing on-road lanes to accommodate bike commuters. Mayor Zehr stated that he felt there would be less danger to the cyclist in conflict with pedestrians as opposed to motor vehicles. Mr. McBride pointed out, however, that while serious injury would likely be less, the potential for accidents between pedestrians and cyclists was greater. Mr. B. Stanley further pointed out that this had been a key factor during the Bikeway Study and it had been determined that there was greater potential for accidents involving cyclists on a boulevard due to vehicles backing out of, or turning into, driveways. Mayor C. Zehr stated that this was an important issue that should be developed on the basis of a City-wide policy and had some concern with respect to precedent setting if the Committee proceeded only with respect to the Grand River South subdivisions. Councillor John Smola stated that he felt the Committee could proceed only with respect to the Grand River South subdivisions and have staff further review the issue in terms of a City-wide policy for existing and future subdivisions. 1. DOPWR 2000-10 - BIKEWAYS AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS (CONT'D) PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 6, 2000 - 17 - CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he also had several concerns relating to the width of lanes, restriction of parking and industry input. Councillor J. Ziegler inquired if the Committee could legally apply the recommendations only to the Grand River South subdivisions and Mr. G. Melanson, Assistant City Solicitor, advised that this could be done on an individual basis rather than as a City policy. Councillor J. Ziegler advised that he was prepared to move approval of the recommendations to be applied only with respect to Grand River South, with direction to staff to undertake further study with respect to future and existing subdivisions and to obtain further input from the industry and the public. Councillor C. Weylie stated that she would support the recommendations if they applied only to Grand River South; however, asked that staff give careful consideration to the Victoria Street improvements during further review with respect to a City policy. Councillor J. Haalboom also pointed out that this issue could have the potential to impact woodlots and/or wetlands and felt that it was necessary for staff, together with input from the industry, to investigate alternative methods for provision of bike lanes. Councillor J. Haalboom referred to secondary arterial roads referenced in the second recommendation and questioned where these would be within Grand River South. Mr. J. McBride advised that there were no secondary arterial roads within the Grand River South subdivisions. Councillor J. Haalboom also referred to the possibility of utilizing traffic calming measures, citing Heritage Drive as an example, and urged staff to explore additional alternatives. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that the intent of his motion was to direct staff to do further study and obtain additional input from the industry and the public. In this regard, Councillor J. Haalboom indicated she would support a motion with respect to the Grand River South subdivisions only. Mayor C. Zehr questioned if the second recommendation should be excluded as there were no secondary arterial roads within the Grand River South subdivisions and Councillor J. Ziegler agreed to exclude the second recommendation from his motion. Mr. D. Bennett, MHBC Planning Ltd., appeared before the Committee and advised that his firm had been generally supportive of the preferred alternative. He pointed out that the lots within the subdivision will be larger than the minimum 40 feet permitted by zoning and most will have double car garages, allowing for a higher amount of available off-street parking. He further advised that a variance of 1.2 metres, rather than the 1.5 metres as proposed, was put forward as a suggestion for staff to consider during deliberations. He suggested that the Committee may wish to implement the 1.2 metre variance, which would result in a difference of approximately $14, 000.000 in costs. Mr. J. McBride advised that he was aware of this suggestion, noting that for purposes of discussion a range of between 1.2 and 1.5 metres had been used. He pointed out that MHBC was proposing to use the lower end of the range; however, because of safety issues staff are recommending a variance of 1.5 metres. Councillor J. Haalboom, with respect to safety, inquired if a shallower curb rather than vertical would be of value to the developer and Mr. Bennett responded that this would not make any difference as the cost and look would be similar. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler- it was resolved: "That, with regard to recommendations in staff report DOPWR 2000-10 (Bikeways and Road Right-of-Way Widths), the following be approved only with respect to the Grand River South Subdivisions: 1. DOPWR 2000-10 - BIKEWAYS AND ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS (CONT'D) PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 6, 2000 -18- CITY OF KITCHENER That Council adopt a 21.5 m road right-of-way width to accommodate bike lanes with on- street parking on one side only, on residential major and minor collector roads with anticipated traffic volumes less than 12,000 vehicles per day and which are identified in Community Plans as on road bike routes; and, That the provision of bike lanes in new subdivisions be financed from the City Share of Subdivisions in the Development Charge By-law, and that the next revision to this by- law, scheduled for 2004, be amended to reflect the cost of bike lanes in new subdivisions; and further, That an additional report dealing with the implementation of bike lanes in existing and future subdivisions, including their impact on existing right-of-ways and how they are to be funded, be prepared; and, staff be directed to seek further comment from the development industry and the public, prior to consideration of the report by Council." As previously arranged, the Committee's decision respecting the above resolution is being referred to the Special Council Meeting this date in order to place this matter before the Ontario Municipal Board at its March 9, 2000 Hearing dealing with subdivisions in Grand River South. 2. INFORMATION ITEM The Committee was in receipt of an information report dated February 29, 2000 from Mr. G. Melanson, Assistant City Solicitor, entitled "Requiring Payments toward Sidewalk/Trail Development". 3. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the Committee adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Janet Billett, AMCT Committee Administrator