2005/08/08 TENTH MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2005
From 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1 ) Approval of the 2005-07-25 Community Services Minutes.
2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT:
a) MW-2005-104 Grassy Brook Sanitary Services Review
Environmental Assessment Ed Dujlovic
b) MW-2005-105 Montrose Business Park Site Servicing and
Lot Configuration Issues Ed Dujlovic
c) MW-2005-106 Sinnicks Avenue and Keith Street
Parking Review Ed Dujlovic
3) NEW BUSINESS:
4) ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMi i i EE MEETING
Monday, July 25, 2005, City Hall, Room 2 at 4:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair - Alderman Volpatti, Alderman Jim Diodati, Alderman Joyce Morocco,
Alderman Vince Kerrio, Alderman Wayne Campbell, Alderman Janice Wing,
Alderman Ioannoni, Alderman Victor Pietrangelo.
REGRETS: Mayor Ted Salci
STAFF: John MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic,Tony Ravenda, Pat Burke, Karen Kelly,
Adele Kon, Ken Burden, Dean Iorfida, Geoff Holman, Marzenna Carrick,
Marianne Tikky - Steno.
PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review
GUESTS: Wayne Thomson - Embassy Suites, Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Turner - 5715
Magnolia Drive, Eric Henry - Metro Development.
MINUTES
It was ORDERED on the motion of'Alderman Ioannoni and seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo
that the minutes of the June 27, 2005 meeting be approved as amended. Alderman Ioannoni was
absent from the June 27, 2005 Community Services meeting. The minutes were approved by
Alderman Wing and Alderman Morocco.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
REPORTS
a) MW-2005-102 - Embassy Suites Parking Needs
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Ioannoni and seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo
that a staging area be provided to Embassy Suites on the City road allowance and that the City
enter into a licencing agreement.
Motion: Carded
Conflict: Alderman Kerdo - neighbouring business owner
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
-2-
b) MW-2005-91 - Woodbine Street between Kalar Road and Montrose Road Speed
Review
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Morocco and seconded by Alderman Wing that
Woodbine Street be included in the 2006 Traffic Calming Program to proceed with an
Environmental Assessment for potential traffic calming devices between Kalar Road and
Montrose Road.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
c) MW~2005-93 - Beaverdams Road near Cardinal Newman Catholic School Parking
Review
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Ioannoni and seconded by Alderman Morocco that
no stopping signs from Monday to Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. be
installed on the south side of Beaverdams Road between the Railway Tracks and a point 50
metres west of Watson Street.
Motion: Camed
Conflict: Alderman Pietrangelo - employed by the Catholic School Board
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
d) MW-2005-95 - Garner Road at Brown Road Intersection Control Review
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Pietrangelo and seconded by Alderman Campbell
that;
1) the stop sign located on the west approach facing eastbound motorists at the intersection
of Garner Road and Brown Road (west intersection) be relocated to the south approach
facing northbound motorists on Garner Road; and,
2) the stop sign located on the east approach facing westbound motorists at the intersection
of Garner Road and Brown Road (east intersection) be relocated to the north approach
facing southbound motorists on Garner Road.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25
e) MVq-2005-96 - Huron Street at Ontario Avenue Intersection Control Review
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Pietrangelo and seconded by Alderman Campbell
that;
1) the all-way stop control, at the intersection of Huron Street and Ontario
-3-
Avenue, be removed to reflect a stop sign on Huron Street facing eastbound
motorists only; and,
2) a stop sign be installed at the exit of the private driveway to the Acres
Building parking facility facing westbound motorists.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
f) MW-2005-66 - Storm Drainage Issues - Orchard Grove Extension 5715 Magnolia
Drive (Mrs. & Mrs. Gerald Turner)
Mr. Turner during his deputation to Committee identified the following concerns;
1) Stormdrain not installed according to approved designs. Would like the stormdrain
rectified and installed according to the original drawings in accordance with the Master
Grade Control Plan.
2) Adverse drainage from Lot 31 (neighbouring property). Feels the raised Lot 31 and
retaining wall built is causing drainage from his neighbour's property to drain onto his
property.
3) Top Soil, Grading and Sodding - According to the Subdivision Agreement the Developer
is to scrape the top soil from the subdivision, stock pile it and return 4" of top soil to the
subdivision giving approximately 8" of top soil. Mr. Turner had to purchase top soil and
sod himself as the developer did not comply with the Subdivision Agreement.
Eric HerLry of Metro Development advised Committee that his Company was asked by
the City to leave as many trees as possible untouched in Orchard Grove Extension.
Accordingly, Metro Development did not engage in top soil removal and sold an
untouched lot to Eric Wiens Construction Limited which, in turn, sold a lot, not a house
and lot, to Mr. Turner.
The City Solicitor suggested to Committee that Mr. Turner's concerns with regards to
adverse drainage and top soil are legal issue that should be between Mr. Turner and
Wiens Construction and not something this Committee should be commenting on.
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Ioarmoni and seconded by Alderman Pietrangelo
that the staff continues its efforts to confirm that the storm drainage system, constructed for the
Orchard Grove Extension Subdivision, is in accordance with the approved engineering design
and undertake the necessary repairs, as required.
-4-
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-0%25.
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Campbell and seconded by Alderman Kerrio that
no further action be taken by City staff on Mr. Tumer's additional concerns.
Motion: Carded
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
g) Kalar Road Indoor Soccer Facility - Verbal Update
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Pietrangelo and seconded by Alderman Morocco
that staff be allowed to work with Copperlen on the Kalar Road Indoor Soccer Facility until a
report is prepared for Council on August 8, 2005.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
NEW BUSINESS
a) It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Volpatti and seconded by Alderman
Ioannoni that City staff contact the Regional Municipality of Niagara and obtain
additional information on how the City of Toronto is revising their recycle program and
can these changes be implemented in the City of Niagara Falls.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2005-07-25.
ADJOURNMENT
It was ORDERED on the motion of Alderman Pietrangelo seconded by Alderman Morocco that
the regular meeting of the Community Services Committee be adjourned at 4:58 p.m. and move
to an 1N-CAMERA session.
Community Services Department MW-2005-104
' Municipal Works
]-he City et ,~1~ Ed Dujlovic
NJQc~Qrc hOt$~ t,l~ ~=wBi~, 4310 Queen Street Director
~J~,,.P.O. Box 1023
~ii~/T'-- web~~'"~ site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih edujlovi@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
August 8, 2005
Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chairperson,
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members: Re: MW-2005-104
Grassy Brook Sanitary Serving Review
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Final Report and Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Environmental Study Report for the Grassy Brook Sanitary Servicing
Review Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) be received and approved and further
that staff be directed to file the Environmental Study Report and advertise the Notice of Study
Completion in accordance with the requirements of the EA process.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on August 16, 2004, City Council adopted the recommendations of report MW-
2004-123 which authorized the engagement of Philips Engineering Ltd. to complete the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to identify the preferred alternative for servicing the
Grassy Brook Service Area.
Based on a review of existing and future conditions the following problems/opportunities were
identified;
need for sanitary services to accommodate new development projects identified
for the Grassy Brook West area,
desire to connect existing residential and commercial properties as new
development proceeds,
need for cost effective servicing scheme that allows individual properties to
develop independently where practical to do so, and,
minimize potential impact to all aspects of the environment.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation 8, Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
August 8, 2005 - 2 - MW-2005-104
Public Information Centres were held on Febrnary 23, 2005 and May 12, 2005 during which time
the project team received valuable input from area residents. A comprehensive circulation to
various agencies and local interest groups was also an integral part of this project.
Five alternatives were identified and analyzed based on their estimated costs, flexibility for
phased construction and functionality.
The recommended alternative (Alternative #5) is shown on the attached plan. Also attached is a
copy of the Executive Summary which provides additional detail in this regard. The estimated
cost of the preferred solution is $7.2 million which will be financed entirely from the
Development Charges Reserve Fund.
Staffis seeking authorization from City Council to file the Environmental Study Report and
advertise the Notice of Study Completion which will initiate a 30-day final review period.
P~ spect fully submitted: ~/
Manager of Development Chief Administrative Officer
Approved 'by:
'Ed Duji(~'~iC, P.Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
S:\REPORTSL2005 Reports\MW-2005-104 - Grassy Brook EA Final Report.wpd
CITY OFNIAGARA FALLS Grassy Brook Saoitary Service Area
Class Environmental Assessment
Project File
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Project File
The City of Niagara Falls has completed a Class Environmental Assessment to investigate the
provision of municipal sanitary servicing to the Grassy Brook West Area. The Grassy Brook
West Area is located in the soutl%vest end of the City of Niagara Falls, and is bounded by the
Welland River to the north, Biggar Road to the south, the QEW to the east and Crowland
Avenue to the west (ref. Key Plan). This Project File Report documents the background to the
study, existing and future conditions within the study area, the need and justification for the
project, the planning, design and consultation process leading to the preferred alternative,
anticipated positive and negative impacts, and proposed mitigation.
This project is planned in accordance with the requirements of the "Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment, June 2000," Schedule 'B'.
Background to the Study
The Grassy Brook West Area is within the urban boundary of the City of Niagara Falls.
Provision of sanitary servicing to this area will be funded through development charges. A
number of property owners within the Grassy Brook West Area have indicated their intention to
proceed with development of their property. The City of Niagara Falls intends to proceed with a
phased implementation plan for this project, in response to the committed intentions of the
developers.
Various studies have included the Grassy Brook Drainage Area within the sewershed of the
Niagara Falls High Lift Pump Station. In particular, the Niagara Water and Wastewater Master
Plan Servicing Update, CH2M Hill, 2003, has identified the Grassy Brook West Area as
tributary to this pumping station. This station was upgraded by Niagara Region in 2001, and has
a firm capacity of 750 L/s. Existing peak dry weather flow (2003) is approximately 500 L/s.
Periodic overflows occur dur/ng wel weather events, however, Niagara Region and the City of
Niagara Falls are progressing with a program to reduce extraneous flows and to provide
additional capacity to the system.
Existing and Future Conditions
As part of the initial phase of the study, a review of existing and future conditions has been
completed. The objective of this review was to enable a comprehensive identification of existing
and future problems and deficiencies related to the roadway, as well as enviromnental constraints
and sensitivities. An investigation has been completed for the following factors:
· land use
· utilities
· watercourses and fisheries
· wetlands
· vegetation and wildlife
· existing sanitary infrastructure
July 2005 i Philips Engineering Ltd.
CITY OFNIAGARA FALLS Grassy Brook Sanitary Service Area
Class Environmental Assessment
Project File
Need and Justification
Based on the review of existing and future conditions, as well as preliminary consultation with
stakeholders, the following problems/opportunities have been identified:
· provide sanitary service to future approved development, within the Grassy Brook West
Area, when and if developmcn~
· provide a technically sound, constmctible servicing solution;
· permit hook-up of adjacent existing properties as development proceeds;
· provide servicing in a cost effective manner, and
· minimize potential impact to all aspects of the environment and provide mitigation where
impacts are unavoidable.
Development and Evaluation of Alternative Planning Solutions
Alternatives were identified for consideration in addressing the problems and opportunities noted
above. Alternatives were considered for the configuration of a sanitary sewer system, the
location of a pumping station, and the configuration of a forcemain outlet, separately. The
following alternative sanitary sewer systems were considered:
· Alternative 1: Construct sewers on Grassy Brook Road, Montrose Road and parallel to the
CPR, draining to a pumping station in the northeast.
· Alternative 2: Construct sewers on Grassy Brook Road and Montrose Road, draining to a
pumping station in the northeast, with gravity sewers within the Grand Niagara lands.
· Alternative 3: Construct sex,ers on Grassy Brook Road and Montrose Road, draining to a
pumping station in the northeast, with a private pumping station within the Grand Niagara
lands.
· Alternative 4: Construct a sewer on Montrose Road, draining to a pumping station in the
northeast, with a private pumping station within the Grand Niagara lands, draining by
forcemain to the main pumping station. No gravity sewer would be provided on Grassy
Brook Road.
· Alternative 5: Same as Alternative 2, with details of servicing of lands on Biggar Road and
Lyons Creek Road indicated explicitly. Servicing of lands on Biggar Road and Lyons Creek
Road, internally, through over sizing of local sewers, is preferred. Where required by out of
phase development, construction of sewers on Lyons Creek Road and/or Biggar Road will be
completed.
In addition to the system alternatives noted above, several alternatives were considered for the
location of the pumping station, and configuration of the forcemain.
The system alternatives were evaluated by the study team, based on a number of environmental
and technical factors. In addition, the options and preliminary evaluation were presented to thc
July 2005 ii Philips Engineering Ltd.
CITY OF NIA GARA FALLS Grsssy Brook Ssnitsry Service Ares
Project File
public and agencies at two public information centers, and through discussions with property
owners. The preferred sanitary sewer system is Alternative 5, as it provides a cost effective
solution to servicing needs, avoids the need for two pumping stations, and addresses the interests
of all property owners within the Grassy Brook West Area.
Description of Preferred Design
The preliminary design is documented in detail in Section 6.1 of the Project File. The following
is a brief summary of some key aspects of the preliminary design:
· Construct a system of sanitary sewers, consisting of sewers on Grassy Brook Road, Montrose
Road, and servicing lands on Biggar Road and Lyons Creek Road, ranging in diameter from
200 mm to 300 mm, at depths of 3.5 m to 11 m.
· The sewers servicing lands on Biggar Road and Lyons Creek Road will be constructed
internal to the development, where possible. When required by timing of out of phase
development, construction of sewers on Biggar Road and Lyons Creek Road will be
permitted.
· Sewers internal to proposed developments will be constructed by the developer (with the
exception of the sewer servicing Biggar Road and/or Lyons Creek Road noted above).
· The pumping station will be located at the intersection of Montrose Road and Grassy Brook
Road.
· The outlet to the pumping station will consist of a 200 mm or 250 mm forcemain,
constructed along Montrose Road by directional drilling under the Welland River, draining to
a mink sewer constructed from Browns Road to the existing 1350 mm mink sewer at
Canadian Drive.
· Purchase of property will be required for construction of the pumping station.
En virontn en tal Issues and Corn rn itrn ents
As a result of the impact assessment conducted by the Study Team, as well as input received
from reviewing agencies, a number of environmental issues have been identified, and
commitments have been made. These are discussed in detail in Section 7.1 of the Project File,
and summarized in Table 8.1. Some key issues and commitments are as follows:
· Directional drilling of forcemain and gravity sewers under watercourses, wetlands and CPR;
· Minimize vegetation removal within the fight-of-way by alignment selection, in detail design
phase;
· Reduce disruption to traffic by locating sewers within the boulevard, where possible;
· Possible minor relocation of utilities, and
· Property purchase requirements to be minimized where possible.
July 2005 iii Philips Engineering Ltd.
Community Services Department MW-2005-105
. s ~i~[_Municipal Works Ed Dujlovic
The City of
. 4310 Queen Street Director
N~ogara Fall
P.O. Box 1023
C c[Do~,~~Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
~T'~ web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih edujlovi@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
August 8, 2005
Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chairperson
and the Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW-2005-105
Montrose Business Park
Site Servicing and Lot Configuration Issues
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that stafffbe directed to invite proposals for the completion of the engineering
design of the stormwater management and lot grading, waterworks, sanitary sewers and roadways
for the Montrose Business Park and that these costs, estimated to be approximately $145,000 be
financed from the proceeds of the sale of this property.
BACKGROUND:
The Business Development Department has recently received some interest in the availability of
industrial lots in the City in particular in the vicinity of the Montrose Business Park. Council has
approved some real estate transactions to date (Metrus, Alo Manufacturing, Finetex and Star
Warning Systems) however each proposal was considered on its own merits on a piecemeal basis.
Planning and Municipal Works Department staff have been working to prepare a new conceptual
design for the balance of the Business Park so that the newly-identified environmental issues could
be taken into consideration and a proper servicing scheme could be designed.
In January 2005, an Environmental Impact Study was prepared by L. Campbell & Associates which
identified potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures that will preclude
development of a significant area of land adjacent to the Warren Creek. In May 2005, a wood lot
assessment was completed by Dougan & Associates which confirmed the need for a 50m wide
environmental corridor linking the Warren Creek and the Welland River ecosystems. The resulting
road pattern and lot configuration is shown on the Project Phasing Plan. (Appendix 1).
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
August 8, 2005 MW-2005-105
To date the City has incurred the following expenses in preparing the properties in the Montrose
Business Park for sale;
Environmental Impact Study (Campbell) $12,000
Wood lot Assessment (Dougan) $ 6,000
· Outstanding Servicing Invoice to Metrus $ 72,000
Legal Survey $10,000
Total Pre-Engineering Costs $100,000
The next steps will involve the following estimated costs;
· Stormwater Management and Lot Grading Plan $ 70,000
Servicing Design and Approvals $ 75,000
Total Engineering Costs $145,000
· Road Construction $ 505,000
Watermains $180,000
Sanitary Sewers $ 285,000
· Lot Grading, Storm Drainage, SWM Facility $ 450,000
Total Construction Costs $1,420,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,665,000
The Montrose Business Park, excluding the lands subject to an option agreement with Finetex and
a 1.6 acre parcel reserved for the future Garner/Southwest Sanitary Pumping Station, totals
approximately 45.18 acres. In order to recover the estimated cost associated with the servicing of the
site the average sale price must be $36,850 per acre. Currently, market prices for serviced industrial
property range from $30,000 to $50,000 depending on their location.
Staff recognizes that there are additional benefits to the City to be gained beyond the straight sale
of land or full cost recovery and therefore recommend that we advance the engineering phase of this
project so that we can obtain more accurate estimates of the project costs. The new estimates will
then be brought back to City Council for their consideration prior to commencing the construction
phase.
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's authorization to complete the engineering design
phase which can be sufficiently financed with the proceeds from the sale of industrial lots within the
Montrose Business Park.
August 8, 2005 MW-2005-105
P~pared by: (~ Respectfully submitted:
GeoffHolman, C.E.T. /' John MacDonald
Manager of Development i,/ Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
~%d 15ujlovic, P.Eng.
Director of Municipal Works
S:\REPORTSk2005 Reports\MW-2005-105- Montrose Business Park.wpd
Montrose Business Park
Layout Alternatives
BROWN RD I
.... ~./ ~ CHIPPAWA CREEK RD
Community Services Department MW-2005-106
Municipal Works Ed Dujlovic
The City ut 4310 Queen Street Director
Niogara Faits~ P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
C or',oOc] web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: edujlovic@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
August 8, 2005
Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW-2005-106
Sinnicks Avenue and Keith Street
Parking Review
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1) a permanent parking restriction be implemented on the west side of Sinnicks
Avenue between Keith Street and Orlando Drive;
2) a permanent parking restriction be implemented on the south side of Keith Street
between Sinnicks Avenue and a point 165 metres west of Sinnicks Avenue
fronting residence 6080;
3) a permanent parking restriction be implemented on the south side of Keith Street
between Sinnicks Avenue and a point 110 metres east of Sinnicks Avenue
fronting residence 5898; and,
4) comer parking restrictions be installed on the north side of Keith Street 20 metres
west of Sinnicks Avenue and north side of Keith Street 20 metres east of Sinnicks
Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been requested to review the parking situation on Sirmicks Avenue and Keith Street in
the vicinity of the Sports Complex located on the east side of Sinnicks Avenue, just south of
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Cullum · Business Development · Building & By-Law Services
August 8, 2005 - 2 - MW-2005-106
Keith Street. The concern at this location stems from vehicles parking on both sides of Sinnicks
Avenue and Keith Street and as a result reduces the amount of available maneuvering space for
other motorists. Parked vehicles also hinder visibility to motorists traveling on both roadways
and impede residents access to their driveways.
Sinnicks Avenue is a collector roadway extending in the north/south directions. The study
section of Sinnicks Avenue extends between Keith Street and Orlando Drive. Currently there are
parking restrictions on the west side of Sinnicks Avenue, however these restrictions are
temporary and have been implemented until a proper parking study has been completed. These
temporary signs are installed between Keith Street and a point 215 metres south of Keith Street
fronting residence 3805. The width of Sinnicks Avenue is 9 metres and the roadway consists of
sidewalks on both sides. The sidewalk on the east side of Sinnicks Avenue terminates 95 metres
south of Keith Street, hence there is no sidewalk currently on this portion of the roadway. There
are also no curbs on Sinnicks Avenue throughout the length of the roadway in the study area.
Keith Street is a local roadway extending in the east/west directions. There are two study
sections on Keith Street, one extending between Sirmicks Avenue and Orlando Drive (west
approach), the other between Sirmicks Avenue and the eastern limit of Keith Street (east
approach). Both approaches of Keith Street consist of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
Both approaches of Keith Street are also temporarily restricted on the south side of the roadway
until an investigation of the parking situation is complete. The temporary restrictions on the west
approach are installed between Sinnicks Avenue and a point 165 metres west of Sinnicks Avenue
fronting residence 6080, and the temporary restrictions on the east approach are installed between
Sinnicks Avenue and a point 110 metres east of Sinnicks Avenue fronting residence 5898.
Staff has conducted observations to determine the problem caused by vehicles parking on
Sinnicks Avenue and Keith Street, and the best solution to be implemented. During these
observations few vehicles were noted to be parked on either of the study roadways, however,
discussions through telephone conversations with various residents reveal that the parking
problem usually occurs during evening hours when the Sports Complex is operational and
majority of residents have returned from daily activities. These parked vehicles reduce the
amount of manoeuverability space available for motorists traveling on Sinnicks Avenue as well
as Keith Street. This also impedes motorist's ability to enter their driveways safely, hi addition,
when vehicles park on both sides of the roadway visibility is reduced for motorists and
pedestrians.
Currently, there is a parking area on the property of the Sports Complex where patrons may park
their vehicles. Further conversation with residents living near the Sports Complex reveals that
despite the parking facility on the Sports Complex property, patrons continue parking on
Sinnicks Avenue and Keith Street restricting movement to other motorists. The parking facility
is currently not paved, and the existing surface is in need of maintenance. The completion of this
parking facility may alleviate some parking concerns on these roadways by providing motorists
with an adequate off-street parking area. Parking concerns as well as drainage, fencing and a
retaining wall issue at the Sports Complex have also been raised to Planning Staffand are
currently being addressed under the Site Plan process. When completed the Sports Complex will
have a capacity of 50 on-site parking spaces.
A review of collisions on both roadways was also conducted to determine whether a collision
problem exists. The collision review which was conducted for the previous three-year period
reveals that one collision has occurred on Sinnicks Avenue, and one collision occurred on the
August 8, 2005 - 3 - MW-2005-106
west approach of Keith Street. The collision on Sinnicks Avenue was a sideswipe collision and
the collision on Keith Street was a single motor vehicle collision where a motorist struck a
parked vehicle. A collision pattern is not evident, and the collision frequency does not constitute
a collision problc~rn.
Parking questionnaires were delivered to residents in the study sections of Sinnicks Avenue and
Keith Street to determine whether residents would like to implement some kind of permanent
restriction. Through the questionnaire, residents had an oppommity to comment on the type of
parking control that would most benefit their situation. The following results were obtained fi.om
the questionnaires:
Sinnicks Avenue Parking Review
Number of residential establishments petitioned: 32
Number o f responses received: 16 50%
Number of responses not received: 16 50%
Number of responses received: 16
Prefer some kind of parking restriction: 13 81%
Prefer no parking restrictions: 1 6%
Undecided: 2 13%
Keith Street Avenue Parking Review
Number of residential establishments petitioned: 60
Number of responses received: 32 53%
Number of responses not received: 28 47%
Number of responses received: 31
Prefer some kind of parking restriction: 24 77%
Prefer no parking restrictions: 7 23%
Undecided: 0 0%
The analysis of the questionnaires reveals that the majority of residents who retumed the
questionnaires from Sinnicks Avenue are in favour of extending the current temporary
restrictions to Orlando Drive. The majority of residents who returned the questionnaires from
Keith Street were in favour of maintaining the current temporary restrictions on Keith Street.
Based on the results fi.om the studies and the results of the petitions, it is recommended that the
existing temporary parking restriction be permanently implemented on the west side of Sinnicks
Avenue and extended to Orlando Drive. It is also recommended that the existing temporary
parking restriction on the south side of Keith Street between Sinnicks Avenue and a point 165
metres west of Sinnicks Avenue fronting residence 6080, as well as on the south side of Keith
Street between Sinnicks Avenue and a point 110 metres east of Sinnicks Avenue fronting
residence 5898 be permanently implemented. These parking restrictions will ensure motorists do
not park their vehicles on both sides of the roadway where they would hinder manoeuverability
to other motorists, and reduce visibility to pedestrians.
August 8, 2005 - 4 - MW-2005-106
Although comer parking restrictions were noted on the east side of Sinnicks Avenue to the north
and south of Keith Street, and on the west side north of Keith Street, additional comer
restrictions should be installed on the north side of Keith Street 20 metres west of Sinnicks
Avenue, and on the north side of Keith Street 20 metres east of Sinnicks Avenue. These comer
restrictions will complement the proposed parking restrictions, and ensure motorists do not park
near the intersection where their vehicles may obstruct visibility to other motorists utilizing the
intersection.
The Committee's concurrence with the recommendations outlined in this report would be
appreciated.
Prepared by: -~Respectfully submitted:
/.tI~arl Dren, C.E.T. Jbhn MacDonald
}°'i(~lanager of Traffic & Parking Services i Chief Administrative Officer
Approved by:
o ~ujtowc, ~.~ng.
Director of Municipal Work
Bart Skiba
S:\TPS\TPS 100 Administration\TPS 1.06 Reports~2005 Community Services~August 8\MW-2005-I06 Sinnicks Avenue and Keith
Street Parking Review.wpd
>~
~ o~NDO D~.
~ ~ s~ICKS AVE.
Corporate Services Department PD-2005.59
The City of Planning & Development Doug Darbyson
Niogora Falls 4310 Queen Street Director
P.O. Box 1023
Canada Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca
Tel.: (905) 356-7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-maih planning@city.niagarafalls.on.ca
August 8, 2005
Alderman Selina Volpatti, Chairperson
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: PD-2005-59, Strategic Implementation Plan for the
Downtown Community Improvement Plan Area
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that V Studio be hired to prepare a Strategic Implementation Plan for the
Downtown Community Improvement Plan Area.
BACKGROUND:
In March 2005, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the Downtown
Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP outlines a series of financial incentive programs,
a land use concept and a municipal leadership strategy in a plan for the revitalization of the
downtown area.
Recently Council agreed to partner with the Downtown BIA to utilize the monies from the
Downtown Community Improvement Plan incentive programs to undertake a Strategic
Implementation Plan to provide a detailed approach to revitalization.
A proposal for this work from V Studio, an architectural and urban design consulting firm, outlines
the framework to address such matters as land assembly, creation of new public spaces (including
a public amenities and reuse of the CP Rail bridge over the Gorge) and development of
entertainment facilities, identification of tenant market and other uses.
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Clerks · Finance · Human Resources · Information Systems · Legal · Planning & Development
August 8, 2005 - 2 - PD-2005-59
The City will contribute $60,000.00 toward the cost of the work with the remainder from the BIA.
The study is estimated to take 14 weeks.
by: Respectfully submitted:
Jo'-~__Bamsleyh~ ohn MacDonald
Manager of Policy Planning I u- Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended by:
(~g Darbyson
Director of Planning & Development
"' Serge Felicetti
Director of Business Development
Approved by:
T. Ravenda
Executive Director of Corporate Services
JB:gd
S:~PDR~2005~PD2005-59, Strategic Implementation Plan-Downtown CIP.wpd