The URL can be used to link to this page

2008/01/14 COMMITTEE.. SERVI'`CES :COMMITTEE AGENDA FIRST MEETING Monday, January 14, 2008 4:30 p.m. City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B 1) Approval of the December 10, 2007 Community Services Minutes. 2) PRESENTATION: STAFF CONTACT_ a) TS-2008-02 Pettit Avenue Parking Review Karl Dren b) TS-2008-03 Pin Oak Drive, Canadian Drive and Montgomery Street Parking Control Review Karl Dren c) TS-2008-04 5257 Drummond Road Driveway Safety Assessment Karl Dren DEPUTATION: Mr. Mark Stirtzinger on the Rail Grade Separation Present: Rick Hein of Dillon Consulting Limited Geoff Holman 3) NEW BUSINESS: 4) ADJOURNMENT: IN`=CAMERA SESSION a) Resolution to go into Closed Meeting. MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2007, CITY HALL, ROOM 2 AT 4:00 P.M. PRESENT: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Mayor Ted Salci, Councillors: Victor Pietrangelo (4:30 p.m.), Jim Diodati, Bart Maves, Vince Kerrio, Wayne Thomson, Janice Wing and Shirley Fisher ABSENT: STAFF: John MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Ken Beaman, Denyse Morrissey, Lee Smith, Alex Herlovitch, Dean lorfida, Geoff Holman, Bob Bolibruck, John Morocco, Serge Felicetti, Karl Dren, Marianne Tikky- Secretary GUEST: Don Weaver - 4673 Ontario Avenue, Tony Barranca - 4407 Queen Street, Shane Sargant - 33 Fielden, Port Colborne, Joe Bertoni - 65 MacDouh Drive, Welland, Mr. Bedzins - 90 Edgewood Avenue, Toronto, Ulrike Gross - 40 Northledge, Ed Lustig -Broderick & Partners. PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review, Rob Lapensee, Niagara This Week MINUTES It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Maves and seconded by Councillor Kerrio, that the November 12 & 26, 2007 minutes be approved. REPORTS It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Kerrio and seconded by Councillor Fisher that the order of the agenda be revised to discuss MW-2007-134 prior to PD-2007-99. Motion: Carried a) MW-2007-134 -Winter Maintenance Standards Update It was ORDERED on the motion of Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Diodati; 1) That Council approve the updated Winter Maintenance Policy Plan (November 2007). 2) That staff be directed to incorporate these policies into its standard operating procedures and Operating Budgets. 3) That a system to consider input from residents for sidewalk plowing be implemented. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-12-10. -2- b) PD-2007-99 -Enhanced Funding Program Proposed by the Downtown BIA to Advance the Revitalization of Downtown It was ORDERED on the motion of Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Kerrio that the report be deferred pending further information from staff. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-12-10. 3) NEW BUSINESS: It was ORDERED by the motion of Councillor Diodati and seconded by Councillor Kerrio that staff investigate traffic concerns at Mary Ward School on Dorchester Road. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-12-10. ADJOURNMENT It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Kerrio and seconded by Mayor Salci, that the meeting be adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Motion: Carried January 14, 2008 TS-2008-02 Niagara~alls CANADA Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: TS-2008-02 Pettit Avenue Parking Review RECOMMENDATION: That a "no stopping 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, Except Holidays" restriction be installed on the east side of Pettit Avenue Between Doreen Drive and Sherwood Road. BACKGROUND: Staff has been requested to investigate concerns related to parking on the east side of Pettit Avenue between Doreen Drive and Sherwood Road during school hours. Pettit Avenue is a local roadway extending in the north/south direction in the study area. The roadway is 8.0 metres in width, consisting of a curb, grass boulevard and concrete sidewalk on both sides for pedestrian use. Cherrywood Acres Elementary School is located on the west side of Pettit Avenue. A "no stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction is present on the west side of Pettit Avenue abutting the school. The purpose of this restriction is to ensure school bus drivers have unobstructed passage into and out of the designated school bus loading zone. A corner stopping prohibition is present on the east side of Pettit Avenue between Doreen Drive and 22 metres south of Doreen Drive to ensure visibility is not obstructed by parked vehicles. A total of thirty-three (33) parking spaces are present on school .property most of which are occupied by staff. During dismissal, parents/guardians utilize on-street parking near the school. Traffic congestion was noted to be minor, with motorists manoeuvring cautiously around parked vehicles. During the morning and afternoon, parents/guardians were observed parking theirvehicles on the east side of Pettit Avenue. Eight (8) vehicles were noted parked on the east side of the roadway with the occupants vacating temporarily to personally escort their children to the school building. This b ock can fit 10 vehicles. During dismissal, on average, Community Services Departure Working Together to Serve Our Community Transportation Services ~4. January 14, 2008 - 2 - TS-2008-02 Parents remain parked approximatelytwenty (20) minutes beginning around 3:00 p.m. and ending at 3:30 p.m. Each property on the east side of Pettit Avenue was accessible throughout this period. A collision review conducted on Pettit Avenue reveals that no collisions have been reported on the study section of the roadway in the previous three-year period. Additionally, staff conducted the review for all three intersections located within the study area, also with no reported collisions within the identical time frame. These intersections include Pettit . Avenue at Sherwood Road, Pettit Avenue at Doreen Drive and Pettit Avenue at Cherrygrove Road. A questionnaire was delivered to all properties with frontages onto Pettit Avenue in the study area. Of the nine (9) petitions delivered six (6) were returned, with the minimum of 60% response criteria being achieved. Of the returned questionnaires, five (5) (83%) were in favour of implementing some kind of restriction on the east side of Pettit Avenue between Doreen Drive and Sherwood Road. School staff is in favour of implementing some form of a restriction. Given that there is a consensus amongst the respondents, Staff is recommending that a "no stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, Except Holidays" restriction be implemented on the east side of Pettit Avenue between Doreen Drive and Sherwood Road. On-street parking during the daytime is available further north on Pettit Avenue, or onto Doreen Drive and Sherwood Road. Should the parking problem shift, mitigating measures will be implemented when necessary. Recommended b C~ Y Dren, Director of Transportation Services A roved b pp Y Ed Dujlovic, Exe tive Director of Community Services P~ Respectfully submitted: n MacDonald, Chief Admini trative Officer B. Skiba U:\Transportation Services\Jan 14\TS-2008-02 Pettit Avenue -Parking Review.wpd r ~ ~ ~ ,rte ~_f ~ 'S 1r..~.. ~ j* t=. Est? ~ ~ j `i~' w df, tr "I~ R~ _~°'r G. _CF.. VF ~ ~r, ~i ~ p ~ t , ~ ~ hid C ~y + Ys .r~"' Cn 0 t _ A i y° W ;G-6i. > I J K ~ t~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O - ~ - ~ z ~ a ~ ; cn r ~ t W ~ _ f • ' I~ , x- Y 4: ,gin ~l~~ ~ ~f}~ ~ ~ ~~r-r~rt ~ - ~o~~y~ ~ ado _ jai - ~ r""i~ ~ r~~,:~ ' saaob~ o a~ ~ c m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y0. ,-;~.q«y"~^~'r, +.i ~ Q 1. W i~ ~rt W V ' "v~ ~r L~ ~ ~ 4 k ti f r , { ~ Atli:. ~'1+e''.s ~ ,.s January 14, 2008 TS-2008-03 Niagara~alls CANAllA Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: TS-2008-03 Pin Oak Drive, Canadian Drive and Montgomery Street Parking Control Review RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That parking be restricted on both sides of Pin Oak Drive between Canadian Drive and McLeod Road; 2) That parking be restricted on both sides of Canadian Drive between Montrose Road and Pin Oak Drive; and, 3) That parking be restricted on both sides of Montgomery Street between Pin Oak Drive and the western terminus of Montgomery Street. BACKGROUND: Further to report MW-2007-40 (Pin Oak Drive -Parking Review), Council requested Staff to review issues related to tractor-trailer parking on Pin Oak Drive, Canadian Drive and Montgomery Street. Pin Oak Drive is a 650-metre long collector roadway that extends in anorth/south direction between McLeod Road and Canadian Drive. The roadway is 13.5 metres at its widest section and 10 metres at its narrowest section. Pin Oak Drive provides access to the Niagara Square shopping centre which abuts the entire east side, as well as several commercial businesses located on the west side. Curbs are present on both sides from McLeod Road to a point just south of the southern mal access. Currently a parking restriction is present on the east side of Pin Oak Drive between a point 310 metres south of McLeod Road and a point 450 metres south of McLeod Road. Canadian Drive is a 445-metre long roadway extending in an east/west direction between Pin Oak Drive and Montrose Road. The roadway is 10.7 metres at its widest section and 9.5 metres at its narrowest section. 'No curbs or sidewalks are present on Canadian Drive. The roadway provides access to the Niagara Square shopping centre, as well as two other . Co munity Services Department Transportation Services Working Together to Serve Our Community ~r: ; ? - F_ January 14, 2008 - 2 - TS-2008-03 manufacturing businesses on the south side. Montgomery Street is a roadway only 15 metres in length. It extends to the west of Pin Oak Drive at its approximate midpoint. The lands abutting Montgomery Street are vacant. Parking restrictions are not present on either Canadian Drive or Montgomery Street. Observations were conducted on all roadways during the course of several days throughout the months of July, August and September to determine whether heavy vehicle parking occurs regularly precipitating the roadway's deterioration. Observations reveal that heavy vehicle operators utilize parking on Pin Oak Drive as a rest area. Investigations noted that parking predominantly occurs on the east side of Pin Oak Drive, south of the southern most mall access. Severe cracks in the road surface, and pieces of asphalt have disjoined from the road edges. These may be attributed to a lack of curbing preventing asphalt detachments along the road edges. Observations on Canadian Drive did not reveal the parking of heavy vehicles during Staff investigations. However, significant deterioration of the roadway has been observed indicating that heavy vehicles may have been parked on the roadway in different areas. Staff observed school buses parked on Montgomery Street during the daytime. This small section of roadway is also exhibiting deterioration. In the past, attempts have been made to repair the damage on all three roadways as overlay asphalt patches are present in various areas. These overlays are now showing signs of failure and will need to be repatched. Staff has delivered questionnaires to all businesses fronting Pin Oak Drive and Canadian Drive, to receive their input regarding on-street parking on these roadways. Of the seven (7) total questionnaires delivered, one (1) was returned in favour of maintaining the existing parking control on Canadian Drive. One questionnaire was returned in favour of a time specific restriction between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Pin Oak Drive. Staff also solicited all property owners to obtain their comments. Of the nine (9) petitions delivered, only one response was received, with no objection to the installation of parking restrictions on the study roadways. In addition, Niagara Transit as well as Laidlaw School Bus Companies were contacted for their input. Niagara Transit prefers parking to be restricted on the north side of Canadian Drive, and the east side of Pin Oak Drive. A representative from Laidlaw is in favour of maintaining the current parking situation. The company representative indicated that adequate storage and parking areas for their school buses are difficult to attain. Based on the observations, it is recommended that parking restrictions be implemented on both sides of all three investigated roadways. This will ensure that no vehicle is left parked on any of the study streets or on the boulevard. According to Parking and Traffic By-law 89-2000, Section 202.03, school bus drivers are permitted to park their buses on residential streets throughout the City of Niagara Falls between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. between Monday and Friday. This provides an alternative to school bus drivers for parking between shifts. Prior to posting the parking restriction signs, courtesy notices will be placed on parked vehicles for a one week duration advising of the impending changes to the parking regulations. January 14, 2008 - 3 - TS-2008-03 Recommended b ~ti~ Y I Dren, Dire for of Transportation Services Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services at Respectfully submitted: John a Donald, Chief Administrative Offi r Bart Skiba U:\Transportation Services\Jan 14\TS-2008-03 Pin Oak Drive, Canadian Drive and Montgomery Street -Parking Review.wpd ~ _ ~ vs ~pp p h . O ;.g.~ _ O * , ti N^ V .4 a ~~m ~ti 4~~F ~ li W ~ t.,._ 1tiu.. V/ lip ~ t* i gy!b _ L - 1. Mg ~ a j ~ ~ e - - p = a .x ~ al...a_~r., _ ~ ~113$41LLNOY1 1/ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ¦s I 4 i Il ' ' ~ ¦ ~ ~ ` _ ~ t ':i~ ~ it ~ r!~ I t 1 I ~ ~ r E ~ ~ C~. is 1 r .N.~' W W W nL ~ ~ ra'~-. _ W~P ~'a P ~w<y+.irY~. f _ t t 1 r ~ rf i w ~ w ~j ti' Q f'l1 1~. ~ ~ i-- x l 4Ri Oy}{ ~ d - J t ate, r ~ _ . O 1. 1' ~ til/Ili ~ I ~ - 91.. ,ii 4C ~e`S'~`~k '3ai~+ O r Y _ ~ ~'"...,.py~ t ~ ~ 'f ~ ~ '~`~{'i~Pdy~ 3,"..f_.t_ SRx.~~~f _i F~1. q M T" S ' ~~1fi ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ~ fir, ~9 ir,' ! ~ 1. r 1,..1 : ~ F rte - .r.. ` . as ~t 3."'It~, ~ ~ ~ ' { ~ January 14, 2008 TS-2008-04 Niagara~alls CAn'AllA Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: TS-2008-04 5257 Drummond Road Driveway Safety Assessment RECOMMENDATION: That a "Do Not Block Driveway" sign be posted facing eastbound traffic on Valley Way at the east driveway to 5257 Drummond Road. BACKGROUND: Further to report MW-2007-07 (Valley Way -Parking Review), Staff has conducted a review of the existing driveway accesses for 5257 Drummond Road. The concern at this location stems from the proximity of the eastern driveway via Valley Way to Drummond Road. III f~ The property municipally known as 5257 Drummond Road is asix-storey apartment ~ complex named the Camelot Towers and ~ is located at the southwest corner of Drummond Road and Valley Way. The site can be accessed by two driveways both via Valley Way. The eastern driveway is 5.5 metres in width. The driveway is 4.2 ' < _ metres from the painted stop bar, and 9.6 ~ - ~ metres from the edge of Drummond Road. Y rw f~. This driveway offers the most direct path to ~ ~ ~ f' r~ the front lobby to the apartment. The r second driveway is located at the western ' periphery. This driveway is 7.0 metres in ~ ~ ,y width and located approximately 85 ..4=~~ ,y,~F.:. ~ - metres west of Drummond Road. Both East driveway to 5257 Drummond Road, via accesses function as full movement Valley Way, West of the Drummond Road driveways. Any part of the property can } Community Services Departm~ Transportation Services Working Together to Serve Our Community January 14, 2008 - 2 - TS-2008-04 be accessed by either driveway. A technical review with observations was conducted to determine the operation of the eastern access. The driveway, which was constructed at least 30 years ago when the apartment was built, no longer meets current setback guidelines. The main concern lies when motorists are queuing at the signal, blocking the driveway for other motorists wishing 4 to enter the property. When one car queues at the traffic signal, the inbound left turn may be partially impeded. When two cars queue, the driveway is completely blocked. This occurrencewas observed albeit with minordelays incurred by the inbound motorists given that the traffic on Valley Way exiting the subdivision is relatively light. Peak hour volumes are below 75 vehicles, which would translate into an average of two vehicles per cycle. But there is a potential for other traffic entering this section of Valley Way having to stop abruptly, even within the intersection until the downstream motorists have completed their turn into the apartment complex. Outbound motorists from 5257 Drummond Road are also blocked in these instances, but to a lesser extent, as the majority of motorists would turn right. There is no outlet from the subdivision toward the west. A collision review identified that no motor vehicle collisions have occurred on Valley Way abutting the development in the previous ten years. Various options explored include: 1. Close the East Driveway This would require all entering and exiting vehicles to use one driveway at the west f'` property limit. As there is angle parking at the southern portion of the property, this option is not feasible as there would be insufficient manoeuvring space between parking aisles. This option would require the elimination of approximately thirteen (13) parking spaces. 2. Relocate Driveway Westerly There is an opportunity to slightly relocate the driveway westerly on Valley Way offset about 8 metres. A relocated access would still be below the minimum setback per the current guidelines and a second car queued at the signal would still partially impede driveway access. This option does not achieve the desired result. 3. Construct a Centre Median This would make the east driveway operate as aright-in-right-out access. To ensure larger vehicles (school buses, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc.) can access Valley Way, particularly making a right turn from Drummond Road, each individual lane needs to be wide enough to allow drivers to turn into the street without mounting the centre median. The construction of a median and wider lanes would require the existing curbs to be offset by about 5 feet apiece. Residents and visitors wishing to stop under the canopy at the front entrance would now be required to drive the wrong way. Normal driving convention dictates that motorists would stop with the passengers' doorclosestto the apartment building which would require drivers to approach this area through the parking lot and make a 180-degree turn. The average sized car would need to make a multiple point turn to safely access this space in front of the door as it would be unlikely the turn can be made in one continuous loop. Upon exit, drivers would once again need to navigate a 180-degree turn. The on-site driveway abuts the property line so the opportunity to expand the asphalt toward Drummond Road January 14, 2008 - 3 - TS-2008-04 is not available. Furthermore, the on-site angle parking is normally designed in concert with cone-way system. This option would require reorienting the stalls in the opposite direction as the majority of drivers would enter the site through the western access. Motorists currently entering the site via the east driveway can drive beneath the canopy without having to complete the aforementioned loop. 4. Replace with a Driveway onto Drummond Road Drummond Road carries higher traffic volumes than Valley Way given its classification as an arterial road. Drummond Road also begins an upgrade in the southbound direction beyond the Valley Way intersection toward the Highway 420 overpass. Staff does not recommend this option. 5. Install a "No Left Turn" Sign Westbound traffic would be required to enter the site through the western driveway. The sign would have to be installed adjacent to the access, which may be misconstrued by motorists at the intersection, believing the sign refers to traffic turning left from Valley Way onto Drummond Road. A supplementary tab could be provided to indicate to motorists that the prohibition is intended for the apartment complex, although the sign would need to be quite large for it to be read from a distance. Given some of the preceding points, residents may disregard the sign if they find using the second driveway is inconvenient for them. This measure is most effective if enforced by the police service. This option produces similar operational challenges as the centre median construction. 6. Install a "Do Not Block Driveway" Sign This is intended to inform eastbound drivers queued at the traffic signal to keep the driveway clear, to allow incoming traffic to enter the site immediately and keep the westbound lane clear for through traffic. Most motorists observed voluntarily leave a gap if they observe a motorist either attempting toenter/exit the apartment site. The sign would identify this condition. Recommendation Given the layout and operation of the site and the absence of a collision problem on Valley Way, the most feasible and cost-effective measure is the installation of a "Do Not Block Driveway" sign. Therefore, Staff is recommending that a "Do Not Block Driveway" sign be posted facing eastbound traffic on Valley Way at the east driveway to 5257 Drummond Road. When this section of Valley Way is reconstructed, consideration to install a centre island may be considered at that time. Staff has met with the owner/superintendent ofthe building to discuss Staff's review of the driveway and solicit their opinion in the matter. The owner/superintendent had no objections with Staff's recommendation. January 14, 2008 - 4 - TS-2008-04 - Recommended by: - ,~Earl Dren, Di ctor of Transportation Services Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services Respectfully submitted: V~ ~ John cDonald, Chief Administra ive Officer B. Skiba U:\Transportation Services\Jan 14\TS-2008-04 5257 Drummond Road -Driveway Safely Assessmenl.wpd ~~1 ` ~ r-- rr t r r~ R ~ H E~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i - ~ „ • ' yyi r-'~ - . e ~ O ` ~ _ _ ~y y, ~ ~ M,-. a ll;y~ 1. ~-c d} 1 ~ ~ ~ ~r ~r • ~ x ~J Y i 'i.. _ ~tl ~A' V ,r+*:. -y'» Ifs 1' _W art .1 ~ { ~r? i ~ ; • ~ _ ~!a~ ~a~ non n ~ i r-•- t , ~ 4 h sr. ~ ~ I 1~ r~" c + Community Services Department Municipal Works Inter-Department Memorandum Niagara~alls cn:~,~nn TO: The Chair and Members of th e DATE. January 4, 2008 Community Services Committee FROM: Geoff Holman, C.E.T. Director of Municipal Works Ext. 4219 RE: Rail Grade Separation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Citizens Concerns In preparation for the delegation from Mr. Stirtzinger at the Community Services Committee meeting I am providing you with some background information to assist you with the procedural concerns and technical issues that may be raised. • At its meeting on November 26, 2007 the Community Services Committee received and approved the recommendations setout in report MW-2007-131 (see attachment #1). • The Notice of Study Completion was advertised in the Niagara Falls Review on December 8, 12, 15, 19, 2007. (see attachment #2) • Mr. Stirtzinger sent an email dated December 5, 2007 to Councillor Ioannoni outlining his initial concerns. (see attachment #3) • At my request, the consultants were asked to provide responses to each issue. The response from Rick Hein (Dillon Consultants) dated December 12, 2007 addresses each issue. (see attachment #4) • The consultant's response and an invitation to meet was emailed to Mr. Stirtzinger on December 14, 2007 to which a response was received on December 18, 2007. Mr. Stirtzinger notes that his concerns have not been addressed to his satisfaction and is requesting more information. (see attachment #5) • In a letter from the City's Project Manager, Kent Schachowskoj dated December 21, 2007, staff responded to the questions and provided copies of the information requested in Mr. Stirtzinger's email. (see attachment #6) In addition to this correspondence I have discussed the matter briefly with Mr. Stirtzinger by telephone on December 7, 2007. I am aware, that the Mayor's Office has offered to meet with Mr. Stirtzinger in an effort to resolve the issues. Working Together to Serve Our Commuuity Municipal Works Fire Services Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development Building & By-Law Services Memo to Chair and _2_ January 14, 2008 Community Services Committee As part of the detailed design process, the City is planning to host a workshop that will include nearby property owners (and any others interested). It is at this point where issues regarding noise attenuation aesthetic treatments and landscaping can be addressed in a more meaningful manner. Please advise if you require additional information or clarification. V . ~Tf ACID ~n~ ~T M NavE~rtl~et- 26, 2007 Mw-2007-'! 37 :a . . Councillor Caroiynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario The recommendations] Members: contained in this report were adopted in committee and ratified by City Council Re; iw191~-2fl~7-'i 3'i railway Grade Separation ~11~anicipal Glass ~r~~rironmentai ~sseasrnent f=inal l~ep4~ and Recflmmen~dati~,ns R~Gt~l~~ilEl~1DA~'1CIy; That the Environmental Study Report, for the Railway Grade Separation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA), be received and approved and; 2) that staff be directed to file the Environmental Study Report and advertise the Notice of Study completion with the implementation of the capital yvorks in accordance with the requirements of the EA process. ~3~G.l~GRflU~Ji~, At its meeting on September 20~", 200, City Council approved the recomrrienclation to engage the services of Matrix Innovations ]nc, to complete the Rail~~vay Grade Separation Environmental Study Report in accordance wi-th the previsions of the Municipal Class EA process. The existing CNR Stamford Subdivision rail line cuts through the urban area of the City of Niagara Fa11s and all the current roadways crossings are level or "at-glade". As such, train movements along thus rail line contribute to delays in emergency service response times, increased traffic congestion and safety concerns: The primary purpose of the Environmental Study Report vas to examine all the at-grade road~~~ay crossings of the Stamford Subdivision rail line and to investigate possible solutions to address the probiem5 raised, The Municipal Class EA process requires Project Stakeholder {general public, property owners, community representatives, interest groups, and review agencies) consultation to provide input and feedback on the development and analysis of potential alternative solutions. Public Information Centres were held on June ~t?t", and December t5`", 200 at which time the project team presented information and findings to date, and received valuable input and feedback from those who attended. in addition, the project team conducted two focus group meetings with representative of Emergency Services to solicit and receive input and feedback. This vas deemed particularly important; as impacts to- iGYorking Together t;7 Serve Oacr Community Community Services Department ~ ~ pp~~ Muni~ci,~pwayh~Wo~,ry~k~s +-i k~ yy~ ~ APi at: 1-t ....~..,riff6lDinC=~f!:77~~i6Ef~fi,'~~R~ November 26, ?007 -2- 4I~V-?007-131 Emergency services access and response times is a key consideration in evaluating alternative solutions. Through consultation and investigation, it was determined that the proposed solution should include the implementation of at least one or more grade separations (roadway overpass or underpass) at existing at-grade railway crossings within the City. Seven alternative roadway crossings were short-listed and analyzed to determining the preferred alternative(s). The ranking process involved the recommended advancement of two preferred alternatives, that being the implementation of a grade separation (overpass structure) at the existing Morrison Street and Portage Road railway crossings. This would provide both an east-west and north-south traffic movement and emergency services access corridor over the Stamford Subdivision rail line. The preferred solutions were presented at the second Public information Centre for revie~v, comment and feedback. Of the two preferred alternatives, the Morrison Street Grade Separation is deemed to provide the greatest overall benefit in terms of overall transportation network efficiency and emergency services response time improvements, It is therefore recommended that the Nlorrison Street overpass be implemented first, the schedule subject to budgetary considerations. The schedule to bring the project to the point yvhere a final report could be presented has been extended somewhat due to staffing and workload issues from both the Consultant's and City's side. Matrix Innovations was disbanded for a period of time, but has recently been acquired and merged with Dillon Consulting Limited, well positioning them to successfully complete this assignment. Staff is seeking authorization from City Council #o fife the Environmental Study Report and advertise the ~lotice of Study completion which will initiate a thirty (30) day final revie~~,i period. Should there be no appeals to the l~~Iinistry of Environment, staff can proceed to the detailed design stage which avill involve further consultation and approvals from the various review agencies as ~,vell as discussions with impacted property owners, A copy of the Executive Summary from the Environmental Study Report is attach Pd, and a copy of the full Environmental Study Report document can be made available upon request. The estimated cost of the preferred design (Morrison Street Overpass) is $11,000,()00 vvhich tiviil be financed from Development Charges and from Debentures under Account #12-3-310038-030000. l~t is anticipated that detailed design of the preferred alternative ~niill be undertaken in 2008, with construction taking place in 2000 or later, subject to budgetary considerations. Recommended by: •-r-~~ `L ~4._ . Geoff Holr~nan~1Di~ector of Municipal ~/orbs Approved by: ~,T _ Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services / , ; . ' / Respectfully submitted: Joh/rY acDonald, Chief Administrative er it Gh~,..h..,.,oL..: c•~o~ono-rc~~nn~ o.;~ .+,.~ne~ni ~nn~ ene n.,a....,., n-_~_ n_____.:__ r,- _ _ . .y.~ 6wFPR,y ~I t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ a~ 'tA13'AtiJ. 1 A~ )ar:il tl~ NII/ ~ v A• M 1~ !l ~ . ~ ~y ti ~y ~r - f i. !5~ • . _ _ S~f ""S ~°,i r~~ !""'F`• a ~,-ap-.~s, 4AS~ as ~ ~ w,~ ~ .rte r~~ i ~ a l3 t W:~ ya/ rya oaff~t1 ~`11~77A `jy~~ J~ ,u~ r* 1 k~ ~ 7 l i 5 ice'"~. :.~yJ ' _ ± . ;i i ; , r/.~ ~ J ~ J I y ~ .i I ~ lW%i .-'mo'w _ ~ry~ ~ F~~~ --l S~~ and _ ~ ~.::J _ v...s3 3 ~~~J lµ ~r4ui ~ `r~ ~ 1 , ~ t? ,..J .a ! U~. ~w~ i 1 ~ R f~ ...mss. N ti„~„ fit, ~ rn. Al ,...y. i'>::}., ~ a ~1: i ~Q'' {f{ ~ •a ~{~~~t11 ~ r`` t,~•` ,r ¦ r r r r ¦ a r r r ¦ a ~ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cfl ~~;t ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ • ~ ~7 ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~C'~ i t{ `'.w 1 Z Q C N N O O y W :r. ' j i~: d s •r. ` . ~ t~ z.-:Y Y ~C^~c ~p ~ ~ tD ~ ~ J/am~ tea- ~ ~ t`a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~W f- ~ ~ ~ ~ psi n C h U~ ~ ~ Sid • j P1 T"~' bi9~.~ ~.rrl.+ 1..1 ~+~.Y, z c7 (D C7 ,s ~ ~ t~; iv W3 1 ~ o (D i Q ~ ~ h Y",,,~.' w ~ ` Yt . - -_..~1if~~ r 1 ~ F~ J, ~f~~~~~ ( rf~ °'ry'~a ,'ym~e~c~i ~~l1\j map j/~j' fO.~.f 1 s' ~ ~ ~ Ssl 3°ii yard ? ~ n~ ,.~1 a 1..,,4 u t ;v ' ~l^y ~ lad ~ J ~ ` T' • _ _ ~ 4 ~;',1, ~ l ` is ~y14' . ~ .._,~1 , ~ ~~.1 y l ~N~ -Y, ,fJ-,,, ; ~ ~.Y it .T: ;,~i :~;J dn~i t ~ ti ,i) ""i ~ } L ~ ~ . N J , ~ ~ t"~ s,~ 0 ' ~j cn. i~;. -onmmi -o~~c 'a _ .~~cn~.~3~~a of ~En~ m t, -I ~ =I r ° ~ ~ ' d .y ! ~ o~c ~ ~:i~ O lwr. T ~ m N Dfp 2 ..s ' n K 4,,J. o;m 'T~~ ° ro' ~`A i 'S m : ` ' ~Y fY ~ pl ! = to `o a` mol oI~! u~i 1~1UME~R~{'.Ai.1/VE3Li#-iT1NG F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . o :aio ~~a+i v'='~ o I ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ i i r ~ 1 i,. ~ - . ~ ! i ~ ~ y f ~ ('Ti ~ Ga {~y fie' l.~ y ^ ~3, ,.Y 'l.+! i i . s ' SJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..d ~ f 1_ . ~i ~ m 'I ~ z w i ~ ~ ! ~~yi j ~ ~ Z ~ ' ~ ~ , !n p i i I i ' < a I i I ~ j ~ I N ~ --i-1 N ~ r A~~ :~I a'v~ ~~C O I( ro ~ 9 O G~ 0 ~ ~I ~ ~Yr' . i' 77 l \ ~ ~~i~ ~~yy~~yy ~ y ~ y~' ~Q'~ 7! I " :.s,,r ~ i "x v , P~ 7 .art ~a x ~ x?. ~~~a~x ~u :{nom ~6d ~ ~a J ~ j 3,. ~ CF:~ k'r7 ~~:.i ~ -mss 4. :~.1 .~y f~ ~i3 ej' 1'~~ +~"j, ~J ~ 'J,..w~ :eeu: ~%~-e~ ' ~J `z tav -sy .mil -w;9 ~'hai ~ ±"`t1 :asy •,f~ 'S:>> 'l. ~:a o~ S~ t~ S awe g~ ~ ~ ~ 'til .~f$ ~ j , ~i y { , s; ~ ~,;3 S'~ x.~ max- { r 1. 5;: r . x P e.t.a ~.~v ~ ~ s% T. `:ala1 :c+' w { 1l 'tai d W~sb tea' tt> ~ _ a ~ ~ ~*y ~-i r, w..5 ~ ~ ~ ~S Zi~l ~Y ~ 'C- "y -by •TL:, y, pp1~~~ yv~ !ji 1 xv~ .yam ...~y ~ y yH~ /~jy ~ y Styr 1 ? ` f"1" ;s"_e ~ .\3y `~:,5?/ {y~f _ N'.1x #a fv i' f,rj ~n WSJ .y~~ -.:r ~ j'.J ~ r"~ ,i ,y~ Vin} ~1. n~ ~ N # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ m ,Y~ri" p.. q~, it ~ ~ ~~8r/ rler r~ S3'~' if t - i , =Sl } ~ ~ ~Y. ~ ++i ii + a 1 ~ ~ z _ ~ i~li1 1i w a _ ~ie:.g2? i i n..s - , ~ a >c I~ i i ~ i I ~ i 1 r~ _s ~ . ie i ~ ~ . ~ e. f - --k i i ~ ? r~ I •L 1 f~ fl a a.: - lV ~ ('v~~~fst~ ,ice ~ { , f i i a - f _ _ - ( _ I(I ~ , ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i 1 lad` i~r--- v r I 1~1 14 ~ ~7,~ .I ' ~ it Jy~~ l_d 1 I i r I I N iaao~f f I , ~ ~ , ii ~ ~ . ~n i , 1- 1 2 rn:;~< ~ 1i ~ { I ~ fi 0!i .S ~ I I _ ~ a+rsvan ~ ~ i ~ 1S"r'~1'r,~'2 -y i-~~~, n '1!9 pl 1 1 i I, ~f l ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i $ _R~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,~f , + I 4 ~ j I -fit ~ .R.: m~ r.l ~ ~ ~ n 1 :~It+ t _ + _ , I I~ - i ~ ` ~ ~ ='t ~ ~ t _ I I ! li s r N t I ~ ~ ~ i I~ ~c + i ~ xT h ~ I I ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ fl t~ ~ ~ ~ _ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ °o zi" ~ I I ~ 'ice.. v ZI'~ I ' ~ ~ •s ~ > PN _ : ~'y~~a. 7 ~r ~d,~ a I Il ~ ' ? [j ~ CI ~y ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ i ~ i ~ + b ~ ;•1 .r.' ~ ~ i w '9 ,~t> ~ :_i ~ . ^-Y ~ - N m :'7 ~ i. ~:I ::1 ~ ~ ~ r,... w ~ _ ~ j - ro `J ~ s. I=i ~ "3 ~ ~ ~ .a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i ' _ .'j ~ ~ w J ~ ~ -f m Z ;j o ~ < [i ~ ~ ~a a- i:i ~ V ~ ~ R1 GI ~ i~ N ~=-i ~ ~ rn N . m ~ x ~ O to O 1! ("a i O C7 Prope+~y Line ~-1 c Pr+op~r#y l,trrr~ v X1.1 ~ ~ 1 ~ a $ ~ '~Ri17g ~'yy.. ~ ro ~ Fes{ W ID u ~ a ~ ~ - - x_ ~ S iJ ~'h LJ ~ ~ t~,J ~.\\q :,1 iplp ~~r i ~ ~,,~aJ _ W ~+i' N e'er[ ~ ~ y Q a -3 ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ N r 0 Z O g~ 9 ~n j ro N 1 N - ~ ~f k~ y sn N ~ t ~ ~ i V r ~ Prc{~er~y Llrse ~+{i~, '1' . •T~ ~ f,/i l~, ~ ~L'~`~°r~ '.emu "_~J .~wf ~;a ~.v d y ~ ~ s•,~ _Ma., -.ems:", r~' .',J t f~~: N~ ~ ~ Via- ~ ~~~j t ~ ~ ~ ~ tai ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~'la N } ~ti~ ` ¦ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u '3 4t? 3 i.~`1 !jl ~ ~ , _.~..i ~ ~ Y -A f~ _ ~ j ~ ~.x; r ~ ~ a'egl ' Y4 ',f ~ ~7~ w- N ~ ~ t'~"~° O O ~ ~ . s . CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS NOTICE OF FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT Railway Grade Separation Class Environmental Assessment Study The City of Niagara Falls has carried out a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to provide a comprehensive review of the need for a grade separation (overpass or underpass) at one or more of the existing level railway crossing locations along the railway lines that presently bisect the City of Niagara Falls. The Study Area for the Class Environmental Assessment includes all at-grade railway crossings within the urban area of the City of Niagara Falls (see map below). The study was conducted in compliance with Schedule C of the Municipal Class Environment Assessment (June 2000), which is approved under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. Following the second Public Information Centre, the preferred alternative was reviewed in light of comments received and modified as required. Taking into consideration the comments that were received from regulatory agencies and the public, the recommended alternative includes a future grade separation at the Morrison Street and Portage Road Canadian National Railway crossings. The anticipated timing for the construction of the railway grade separation(s) will be subject to the City's budget process. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) has been prepared to document the planning and decision making process undertaken for this study. By this Notice, the ESR is being placed on the public record fora 45-day review period in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class EA. Subject to comments received as a result of this Notice and the receipt of necessary approvals, the City of Niagara Falls intends to proceed with the detail design and construction as documented in the ESR. The ESR is available for review from Monday December 10th, 2007 to Tuesday January 22"d 2008 at the following locations: Engineering Department Victoria Avenue Library www.niagarafalls.ca City of Niagara Falls 4848 Victoria Avenue City of Niagara Falls at City Hall Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls Tel: (905) 356-7521 Mon.-Fri.: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Further information may be obtained from Mr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng., Project Manager, City of Niagara Falls, (905) 356-7521 Ext. 4336. Please provide any written comments to The City of Niagara Falls by January 22"d, 2008 (within 45 days from the date of this Notice). If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with the City of Niagara Falls, a person or party may request that the Minister of Environment make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a Part II Order). Requests for a Part II Order must be received by the Minister, at the address below by January 22"d, 2008. A copy of the request must also be sent to the City's Project Manager. If no request is received by January 22"d, 2008, the City of Niagara Falls will be authorized to proceed with detailed design and construction as outlined in the ESR. Minister of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West ~ River 12th Floor, ~ a: Toronto, Ontario ~ Q ~ ~ ~~yb M4V 1 P5 ~ ~ ~ ~ fiharoid Stwre Raad _ Vii Waodbina IbAerifan Street - Y®~~ $Sr4a( . y b t10,ydr µ QT$ ~ LR~ RobaA3 a` > ~ ~Sl~~y 6u, 's ~ Mena axo street £xtaiihp Af.grxde RalEway Crasslflg All exlsROg crassta®s eat s3eowa an Study Area neap This Notice first issued on December 8th, 2007. I (1/4/2008) Geoff Holman Railway Grade Seperation MW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave Page 1 From: "DIANE" <diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca> To: <ioannoni@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 12/5/2007 8:53 PM Subject: Railway Grade Seperation MW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave CC: <kschachowskoj@niagarafalls.ca> To Councillor ioannoni and city staff: I understand the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process may include notifying the Public by mail, if their property is directly impacted by a proposed new construction project. I was first informed of the Railway Grade Seperation Study MW-2007-131 including Morrison Street Grade Separation Proposal from a newspaper article a week ago. I am requesting clarification including more information on the possible impact on abutting residential properties. Have the abutting property owners on Pettit Avenue ever been notified by mail about the Railway Grade Seperation Study? I believe certain properties on Pettit Avenue may be adversly impacted by the proposed Bridge Construction and Morrison Street widening. I have concerns about increase in traffic/railway noise and vibration from the proposed changes to Morrison St/CN crossing I would appreciate a meeting, prior to the 30 Day appeal period to the Ministry expires. Thank you for your cooperation. Mark Stirtzinger, CET 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Fall, ON home (905) 357-1617 work (905) 309-2012 Page 1} of 5 ~ Geoff Holman - RE: FW: City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade SeparationMW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave Proce From: "Hein, Rick" <RHein@dillon.ca~ To: "Geoff Holman" <gholman@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 12/12/2007 3:55 PM Subject: RE: FW: City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade SeparationMW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave Proce CC: "Goertz, Rick" <RGoertz@dillon.ca>, <kschachowskoj@niagarafalls.ca> Attachments: Stakeholders List for Fax Back Forms (03-03-OS).xls Hi Geoff; In response to Mr. Stitzinger's a-mail we have the following comments: 1. The process that we followed for the Railway Grade Separation EA fell under the MEA 2000 for a Schedule C project. As part of a Schedule C project we first published a Notice of Study Commencement in the local newspaper on October 15, 2004. Subsequent to the first meeting with emergency services, an initial contact letter was mailed out on March 4, 2005 to stakeholders, agencies, and utilities along with a fax back form so that comments could be provided to the Project Team. The Notice of Study Commencement and the initial contact letters described the study, outlined the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MEA June, 2000) process, pointed out the goals and objectives of the study, requested involvement in the planning and design process, and provided contact information. Stakeholder and agency/utility representatives were requested to notify the Project Team of their interest and concerns related to the study. The list of stakeholders is attached. Twelve responses were received from eleven technical agencies based on the initial contact letters sent out on behalf of the proponent. 2. The first of two scheduled public information centres (Public Information Centre No. 1) for the Railway Grade Separation Class Environmental Assessment was conducted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Orchard Park School located at 3691 Dorchester Road in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Public Information Centre (PIC) was advertised in the Niagara Falls Review on June 6th, June 8th, and June 15th, 2005. The purpose of the Public Information Centre was to solicit input and comments from the general public on the study results to date, as presented at the information centre. The information centre was organized as a "drop-in" style format where public participants were encouraged to review the materials on display, ask questions of the Project Team, and provide their comments on comment sheets provided as part of the information centre. A range of large format display panels were provided by the Consultant Project Tearn for the public to review and comment on. In addition, a booklet containing a smaller version of the display panels was provided to the public. Comment sheets were also furnished to the public in order to obtain both general and specific information, issues and concerns. 3. The second of two scheduled public information centres (Public Information Centre No. 2) for the Railway Grade Separation Class Environmental Assessment was conducted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 from 4:00 p. m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Rooms DIE at the MacBain Community Centre located at 7150 Montrose Road in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Public Information Centre (PIC) was advertised in the Niagara Falls Review on November 24, 2005. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219. CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Page 2 of 5 4. During Phase 2 of the Class EA process, the Project Team received two letters and two a-mail communications with respect to the study. 5. The Notice of Study Completion was filed in December 2007. The EA process requires three mandatory points of contact for a Schedule C project. The Railway Grade Separation EA provided, as a minimum, the three mandatory points of contact, as described above, including PIC No. 1, PIC No. 2, and the Notice of Study Completion. Each of these mandatory points of contact was advertised by published Notices to the public in accordance with the EA process and included the required information. A Notice of Study Commencement was also provided at the start of the project which provided a "fourth point of contact" to the general public. In additional, the Stakeholders on the attached list were also contacted. Under Section A.3.5.2 of the EA process -Methods of Public Contact, it is up to the proponent to determine the best method of contact to be used for each project. As a minimum, notification in the local newspaper is required. There is no requirement for handouts or direct mail unless it's directly to a review agency. Separate direct mails and/or handouts are only completed in cases where a person has submitted, in writing, a request to be kept notified or the proponent has determined that level of effort is justified. It should be noted under Section A.3.5.3 (Public Notices), for the second the third mandatory points of contact, the proponent is required to mail or deliver copies of notices to all who expressed interest in the rp oject• This was completed for those stakeholders who did express interest and who we were a aware of during the EA process. Mr. Stirtzinger is basing his comments on the MEA 2007 document. We have been unable to find his quotes from the June 2007 Code of Practice as he states in his a-mail. This aside, we have followed the EA process as required under the EA Act for the Railway Grade Separation EA. To address some of Mr. Stirtzinger's other comments: "I was first informed of the Railway Grade Seperation Study MW-2007-131 which now includes the Morrison Street Grade Separation Proposal from a newspaper article a week or so ago." • The Railway Grade Separation EA always included a review of the Morrison Street crossing. "I believe certain properties on Pettit Avenue and Burdette Drive will be adversely impacted by the proposed Morrison Street Bridge overpass and street widening. Our properties may even be devalued." . This would be very hard to determine. "Some of my neigbours and myself have very significant concerns about increase in vehicle traffic noise and current railway noise/vibration deflecting off the Bridge Structure towards our properties. Also, increase in noise from large vehicles passing over the Bridge structure may be an issue." . The Environmental Noise Assessment included a review of the noise impacts of the potential grade separation structures with the following results: file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219.CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Page 3 of 5 Table 6.3 -Noise Assessment Results Receptor Existing L Leq 24 (dBA) - Noise Impact Location eq 24 With No. ~ (dBA) Improvements (dBA) Morrison Street 2 R1 66 59 -6.9 Morrison Street 2 R2 58 58 -3.8 Portage Road 2 R1 52 52 -4.0 Thorold Stone Road R1 60 60 -0.8 Dorchester Road R1 61 61 -2.7 Drummond Road R1 61 61 -7.1 Lundy's Lane R1 60 60 -6.9 Montrose Road R1 60 60 -0.4 ~ Reference Appendix J for Receptor No. 2 Preliminary Preferred Design The Noise Assessment Report further notes: The potential grade separations result in a decrease from the existing sound exposures of 0.4 dBA up to 7 dBA. Since the decrease is mostly attributable to the elimination of the train whistle, the largest benefit (i.e. sound exposure reduction) occurs at dwellings closest to the rail line. The grade separation results in an increase in sound generation from the roadway by about 0.5 dBA, which is considered insignificant. The increase however is more than offset by the whistle noise elimination. At some locations there is an option for either an underpass or an overpass structure. The overpass structure could provide some acoustical screening of the railway. The underpass structure would likely provide some acoustical screening of the roadway. However, the screening effect is expected to be minor and it is not expected that a significant acoustical advantage for either an underpass or overpass structure would be gained. The sound exposures were predicted using 2004 existing traffic volumes. Escalating the existing sound exposures ten years into the future, using a two percent growth rate, results in an insignificant increase of 0.9 dBA. The escalation does not change the predicted noise impacts. Noise mitigation measures need to be considered for receptors where the sound exposure change is greater than 5 dBA and the resultant sound exposures are higher than 55 dBA. Since the sound exposures are predicted to decrease as a result of the grade separations at all locations, noise mitigation is not needed (i.e. such as noise barriers). The potential railway grade separations are predicted to lower the existing sound exposures at noise sensitive receptor locations. In the case of the Morrison Street crossing, noise impacts ranged from - 3.8 to -6.9 dBA and for the Portage Road crossing, noise impacts were noted at -4.0 dBA which represents an improvement over existing conditions. "There is a two (2) story apartment building on Pettit Avenue which will file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219.CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Page 4 of 5 potentially have vehicle traffic at the same level as their bedroom windows." . The ESR states the following: The visual impacts of an overpass structure can be mitigated by employing a number of methods such as the relocation and/or removal of sensitive land uses, the design of the structure (i.e. type and appearance of structure), and through the use of general landscaping. There will be opportunities adjacent to the proposed grade separations at the Morrison Street and Portage Road crossings to introduce tree, shrub, and/or vine plantings. A well designed landscape planting plan will assist in mitigating any negative impacts associated with the new structures. As noted above there will be impacts to the existing vegetation. In order to mitigate the impacts to the existing woody vegetation, the construction activities should avoid damaging existing, healthy, trees wherever possible. The new design should include tree planting and landscaping wherever feasible. A tree planting/landscape/streetscape plan should be prepared for the sites as part of the overpass detailed design phase. The intent of this plan will be to compensate for loss of existing vegetation related to the construction activities, mitigate impacts on surrounding land uses, and improve the overall aesthetics of the area surrounding the structures. "What significant changes in Niagara Falls NOW warrant's two Bridges?" The need for grade separations is well documented in the ESR. The main driving forces for the need for grade separation in the City include: . The need for a grade separation has been identified in past studies. . The transportation assessment conducted as part of this study found, that without the provision of one or more grade separations, there will continue to be significant impacts to the efficiency of the road network from the perspective of all road users as well as emergency services in meeting target response times within the City's urban area. o Emergency Access -Existing railway lines forma "barrier" for emergency services during train movements. Once caught in vehicle queues at the railway crossing approaches, emergency vehicles must wait until the train clears before being able to cross and proceed to an emergency call. o Number of At-Grade Crossings -Most larger metropolitan areas normally have dedicated railway corridors with overpasses and/or underpasses to reduce the number of at-grade crossings. This is not the case within the City of Niagara Falls. o Traffic Congestion -The ongoing development and growth within the City's urban area continues to contribute to the increase in traffic volumes on local roadways which leads to an increase in congestion and traffic queues at the railway crossings during train movements. o Traffic Infiltration -Longer wait times for road users encourages traffic infiltration through nearby residential neighbourhoods as impatient drivers elect not to wait for a passing train to clear the crossing but rather seek out an alternative route to avoid the at-grade crossing. o Safety -There have been a number of vehicular and pedestrian collisions at various at-grade railway crossings in the past. The provision of a grade separation would ensure a safer environment for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. o Physical Roadway Conditions - A few of the local roads are at a different elevation than the railway line. This is not an ideal situation, particularly in the case of downgrades under winter conditions or in the case of upgrades in terms of driver sight lines and the visibility of warning file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219. CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Page 5 of 5 devices. Regards, Rick From: Geoff Holman [mailto:gholman@niagarafalls.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:30 PM To: Hein, Rick Cc: Dean Iorfida Subject: Fwd: FW: City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade SeparationMW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave Proce Rick, We have recently received this email and objection to the Rail Grade Separation EA and need your response as soon as possible. Thanks, Geoff Holman, C.E.T. Director of Municipal Works City of Niagara Falls 905-356-7521 ext. 4219 915-356-2354 (fax) gho?man@niagarafalls.ca This message is directed in confidence solely to the person(s) named above and may c privileged, confidential or private information which is not to be disclosed. If yol addressee or an authorized representative thereof, please contact the undersigned ar then destroy this message. Ce message est destine uniquement aux personnes indiquees daps 1'entete et peut contenir une information privilegiee, confidentielle ou privee et ne pouvant et divulguee. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire de ce message ou une personne autorisE a le recevoir, veuillez communiques avec le soussigne et ensuite detruire ce messagE file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219.CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Geoff Holman - RE: City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade Separation MW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & CN Crossing From: "DIANE" <diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca> To: "Geoff Holman" <gholman@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 12/18/2007 10:34 PM Subject: RE: City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade Separation MW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & CN Crossing CC: <kschachowskoj@niagarafalls.ca> Hi Geoff and Kent: My previous concerns have NOT been addressed to my satisfaction. We are still requesting an extension to the Railway Grade Separation Class EA appeal period. I would appreciate a copy of the 2004 Dorchester Road Class Environmental Assessment study report including conclusions and reconstruction costs for Dorchester Drive, if any. Please include a copy of the Council approved report for Dorchester Road Class EA. Does the City have reconstruction costs for Morrison Street, without a Bridge Also, I would like the date when the old Portage Road Bridge was removed and the reasons why Council at the time did NOT replaced it. Were there estimated costs at the time. There seems to be insufficient information on Fire Truck Emergency runs versus Train crossing conflicts. Why is this information NOT well documented? Why is it a major issue NOW. This is very confusing. By constructing this expensive Bridge Overpass traffic and Emergency Vehicles will be directed more quickly to an already conjested intersection at Dorchester Dr and Morrison St, especially when trains are crossing Dorchester Dr. Does this make sense? Once, I have all the facts and information I will make formal comments in the near future. Thank you for your cooperation and take care. Mark Stirtzinger, CET (905) 357-1617 -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Holman [mailto:gholman@niagarafalls.ca] Sent: December 14, 2007 1:29 PM To: diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca Subject: Fwd: RE: FW: City of Niagara Falls Railway GradeSeparationMW-2007-131 Morrison Cres & Pettit Ave Pr Hi Mark, Here is the response to your email questions which I am forwarding for your comment. Please let me know when you are able to meet to discuss your specific design issues. Geoff Holman, C.E.T. Director of Municipal Works City of Niagara Falls file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219.CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 Page 2 of 2 905-356-7521 ext. 4219 915-356-2354 (fax) gholmanCa~niagarafalls.ca file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gh219.CNF-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPGrp... 1 /4/2008 ~wnri~ - Nia araFall s ~''e~~- ~l CANADA December 21, 2007 FOR PICK UP Mark Stirtzinger, CET 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, Ontario Dear Mr. Stirtzinger: RE: Railway Grade Separation Class EA, City of Niagara Falls Morrison Street and CN Track Crossing Our File No. S-60.22 The City is in receipt of your email dated December 18`x, 2007 regarding the above noted project. You indicate a number of concerns and raise a number of questions that we have attempted to address. Your points are included along with our response at this time: 1. "My previous concerns have NOT been addressed to my satisfaction. We are still requesting an extension to the Railway Grade Separation Class EA appeal period." Staff is not recommending that the public review and appeal period be further extended. The mandated review period is only 30 days, and we are already providing 2 weeks beyond that time frame. We can commit to continue to work with you through the detailed design process in an effort to address your previously stated concerns with respect to aesthetics, noise and vibration. ' 2. "I would appreciate a copy of the 2004 Dorchester Road Class Environmental Assessment study report including conclusions and reconstruction costs for Dorchester Drive, if any. Please ~ include a copy of the Council approved report for Dorchester Road Class EA. Does the City have reconstruction costs for Morrison Street, without a Bridge." A CD has been prepared with a copy of the 2004 Dorchester Road Class EA Study Report and is enclosed with this letter. Also on the CD are copies of the Council approved Reports as they pertain to the Dorchester Road EA. Referring to the Dorchester Road ESR -the cost for the Momson St work, not including the Grade Separation is approximately $4,200,000 which includes Engineering, contingencies and utility costs (in 2004 prices). i 3. "Also, I would like the date when the old Portage Road Bridge was removed and the reasons why Council at the time did NOT replaced it. Were there estimated costs at the time." The removal of the old Portage Ro ;i~.dge was undertaken when that section of Portage Road was under the jurisdiction of t n of Niagara. We have copies of the Community Services Department Murnapal Works Workin To ether to Serve Our Communi Ext 4336 Fax 905-356-2354 ~ ~ kschachowskoJ@niagarafails.ca .S' > ~ - - - Letter to Mark Stittzinger - 2 - December 21, 2007 5-60-22: Railway Grade Separation Class EA Regional Contract drawings for the Rehabilitation of Regional Road 108 (Portage Road) from Althea St to William St -which includes the CNR crossing. The Regional Contract Number is 94-27, and the drawings are dated July 1994. Apparently the bridge became damaged and unsafe. Replacing the bridge in its then location and form would not have conformed to the then current design standards and criteria. However, since this project was undertaken by the Region, they would have to be directly consulted regarding cost considerations and the decision making process undertaken at that time regarding if and how the crossing would be replaced. It is likely that the railway is the senior authority at the crossing, and therefore it was CN's sole decision to remove the bridge and not replace it. If, at the time, the Region had wanted the bridge replaced, it would be at the Region's full cost to do so, as it is at the City's full cost now. 4. "There seems to be insufficient information on Fire Truck Emergency runs versus Train crossing conflicts. Why is this information NOT well documented? YVhy is it a major issue NOW. This is very confusing." This question we have referred back to the Engineering Consultant that completed the study along with Fire Services. Meetings took place during the study preparation with Emergency Services and are documented in one of the Appendices in the ESR (Appendix C). From what we have seen in correspondence with Fire Services, this has been an issue with them for some time. What you need to understand is that the focus and problem statements for the two EA's are different. The Dorchester Rd EA focused on Traffic Safety and Operational Problems along the Dorchester Rd Corridor as a result of Vehicle Accidents and the ~ increasing rate trends, a low Level of Service at certain intersections, and potential negative impacts from Future Traffic growth. The Rail Grade separation EA was to focus on all existing level track crossings withvn the City and the delays in emergency services response times, increased traffic congestion and safety concerns caused by train movements through the City. The conclusions and recommendations in the Dorchester Road ESR are based on strictly Traffic Safety and improved Operations of the road network in the study area. It does however recommend the separate EA to look specifically at the level track crossings. 5. "By constructing this expensive Bridge Overpass traffic and Emergency Vehicles will be directed more quickly to an already congested intersection at Dorchester Dr and Morrison St, especially when trains are crossing Dorchester Dr. Does this make sense?" The Grade Separation will be designed to reduce congestion by allowing unimpeded traffic flow when a train is occupying the crossing. As well, provision has been included in the improved intersection at Dorchester and Morrison for traffic controllers responding to Fire Services. As well, a Fire Services Vehicle heading westbound on Morrison and over the proposed new Grade Separation would typically be heading north on Dorchester Road. We understand your concerns and re-iterate our commitment to work with you to attempt to resolve them through the ESR review period and on into the Detailed Design Phase of this project. We would be happy to meet with you and the Engineering Consultants between now and January 22"d, 2008 (the appeal period deadline) to discuss any questions you have in more detail. Letter to Mark Stirtzinger - 3 • December 21, 2007 5-60-22: Railway Grade Separation Class EA Should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Kent Schachows .Eng. Project Manag cc: Rick Hein, Matrix Innovations Inc. Enclosure: CD -Dorchester Road EA Volumes 1 & 2, Reports to Council (MW-2002-139, MW- 2003-140, MW-2004-46, MW-2005-92) S•11. Study Files~S-60-22 Railway Grade Separation Class EA~I,etter to Mark Stirtzinger re Concerns December 21 2007 wpd ? (1/7/2008) Dean lorfida -Grade Separation Concerns Page 1 From: John MacDonald To: Council Members Date: 12/14/2007 2:42 PM Subject: Grade Separation Concerns Attachments: Grade Separation e-mails.pdf CC: Carey Campbell; Dean lorfida; Ed Dujlovic; Geoff Holman Several a-mails have been directed to my attention recently on behalf of certain Councillors trying to assist members of the public to have the opportunity to express their view on the proposed Grade Separation on Morrison. While there were public notices and public meetings were held, Mr. Stirtzinger has indicated that adequate notice was not provided. However, a review of the register from both PIC's indicate that although not well attended, residents from Burdette/Cherrygrove/Sheldon were in attendance. I trust the attached e-mails, prepared by Geoff Holman with input from the City's Consultant, provide adequate responses to the concerns expressed. The Mayor's office is attempting to facilitate a meeting with Mr. Stirtzinger, his neighbours, City staff and the consultant. We will advise you when the meeting has been confirmed. John Page 1 of 2 Dean Iorfida - RE: City of Niagara Falls -Railway Grade Separation Class Enviornmental Assessment Study Report and Recommendations From: "Mark" <diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca> To: "Dean Iorfida" <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca> Date: 1/3/2008 11:28 PM Subject: RE: City of Niagara Falls -Railway Grade Separation Class Enviornmental Assessment Study Report and Recommendations To: Mr. lorfida, City Clerk In response to your a-mail dated January 3, 2008. I along with some of my neighbours will be attending the Community Service Committee meeting at S:OOpm on January 14, 2008 at City Hall Council Chambers. Thank you for allowing us to make a formal deputation at that time, outlining our concerns about the City of Niagara Falls -Railway Grade Separation Class Enviornmental Assessment Study Report process and recommendations. I appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Mark Stirtzinger 4687 Pettit Ave Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6L4 -----Original Message----- From: Dean Iorfida [mailto:diorfida@niagarafalls.ca] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 8:43 AM To: Mark Cc: Carey Campbell; Ed Dujlovic; Geoff Holman; John MacDonald Subject: Re: Railway Grade Separation Class Enviornmental AssessmentStudy Mr. Stirtzinger: My apologies. I was away over the Christmas holidays and didn't want to respond until Senior Staff had met this week to determine our upcoming Council and Committee agendas. The meeting on the 14th is related to our budget process, therefore, there is no "public" meeting, per se, scheduled for that date. There will be a Community Services Committee meeting on January 14th. The Community Services Committee is a Committee of the Whole (i.e. all Council members sit on the Committee). The nature of your item (a Public Works related matter) is usually dealt with in the Community Services Committee. Although as Clerk, I have not finalized times for the Committee Services Committee meeting on the 14th, file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\477D6F91Domain... 1/7/2008 Page 2 of 2 the meeting would be scheduled some time between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. I should stress that the Community Services Committee meeting is open to the public and media. The format is more informal, than at Council (in which deputations are limited to 10 minutes). The Committee will allow you and other residents to speak. Therefore, with your concurrence, I will likely schedule the Community Services Committee for 5:00 on January 14th. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dean Dean Iorfida, City Clerk Niagara Falls 905-356-7521, Ext. 4271 905-356-9083 (Fax) "Mark" <diane.stirtzinger032@sympatico.ca> 12/27/2007 10:09 PM To: Mr. Iorfida, City Clerk I am formally requesting to be included on the agenda of the January 14, 2008 City Council Public meeting to make a presentation (deputation) concerning the City of Niagara Falls Railway Grade Separation Class Environmental Assessment process and preferred options as outlined in the study report. Some of my neighbours may also be attending the City Council meeting on Janauary 14. I would appreciate an a-mail response ASAP. Thank you for your consideration. Mark Stirtzinger, CET 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, ON (905) 357-1617 file://C:\Documents and Settings\di202\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\477D6F91Domain... 1/7/2008 Municipal Works Scanned File:s~ Mark Stirtzinger 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6L4 City of Niagara Falls, City Hall Engineering Department 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON January 5, 2008 Re: City of Niagara Falls -Notice of Filing of Environmental Study Report Railway Grade Separation -Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Attn: Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng. Project Manager Dear Sir: Please find- attached a letter sent to the Ministry of the Environment outlining our concerns about the City of Niagara Falls -Municipal Class Environmental Assessment -Railway Grade Separation Study Report and Recommendations. Sincerely, s Manic Stirtzinger, CET (905) 357-1617 Mark Stirtzinger 4687 Pettit Avenue Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6L4 January 5, 2048 Re: CITY OFNIAGARA-FALLS -NOTICE OF FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORT RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATION -Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Ministry of the Environment J Ministere de 1'environnement 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 Tel: 416-325-4164 1-800-565-4923 Dear Minister In reference to the above-mentioned Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Report (ESR), 1 wish to submit the following: My wife and I reside at 4687 Pettit Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls. We have enjoyed living at this address for almost twenty years. My mother-in-law has lived right next door for almost as long. Our neighbourhood includes a public school, medical center, a church and shopping center within walking distance. There is a real sense of pride within our neighbouhood. On or about December 8, 2007, by notice in the Niagara Falls Review, I learned of the Notice of Filing of the Environmental Study Report - Raihrvay Grade Separation (ESR). This report offers 45 days for public review before proceeding with the detail design and constructidn as documented in the ESR. For as long as t have lived in my home, I have been employed by the Tawn of Grimsby as an Engineering Technologist dealing mostly with muniapal infrastructure so critical to the community. So, as a result of the notice in the newspaper, I set out to obtain the complete ESR and other studies related thereto. It would appear that the ESR is flawed in regarcl to its content and it conflicts with earlier reports regarding the same subject (e.g.) Environmental Study Report (Dorchester Road and Morrison Street Class EA September 2004. The city has been unable to offer any resolve to the many issues raised by my neighbours and me. The population of nearby Cherrywood Acres Public School is about 300 students. It appears that about 40 children cross Morrison Street at the juncture of the CN Railway crossing. The ESR study makes no mention of this situation and its related concerns. Acxording to the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment June 2000 -Section A.3.5 Public Consultation, there seems to be some dispute and question as to proper notification of all persons dir~ect{y affected by this project and concerned parties. The only notice received is that of the newspaper ESR dated December 7, 2007. My property is within 35 meters of what could be the co{umns of an elevated roadway overpass. In closing, t would like to offer any of my research of this ESR to you and your staff. I can be reached at home 905-357-1617 or at work 905-309-2012. Thank you very much Mark D. Stirtzinger CET ~99'S _ The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution No. Moved by Seconded by WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT on January 14, 2008, Niagara Falls Council will go into a closed meeting to consider a matter that falls under the subject matter of 239(2)(f) of the Municipal Act, 2001, to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and 239(2)(a), the security of the property of the municipality. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA R. T. (TED) SALCI CITY CLERK MAYOR