03/10/2015 ADDITIONS TO COUNCIL, TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015
PRESENTATIONS
1. Copy of Sschool Zone Safety Presentation, Transportation Services
PLANNING
1. PBD-2015-11 - Warren Woods Estates Phase 4
a) Email from staff regarding the building height change
BY-LAWS
Additional Bylaw
2015-26 A by-law to designate Block 15 and 16, Plan 59M237 & Block 15, except Part 1,
Plan 59R-9866 and Block 27, Plan 59M108 to be deemed not to be within
registered plans of subdivision for the purpose of subsection 50(3)of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990 (DB-2015-001)
03/09/2015
School Zone Safety
Presentation
School Crossing Guard Program
Parking Enforcement
Marzenna Carrick,Julie Ellis, Paul Brown
Transportation Services
Introduction
• Mitigate traffic safety issues around
schools through the collaboration of
Traffic staff and Parking staff
• Safety Concerns around schools
Cars, School Buses, Pedestrians
Competing to maneuver within a small area in
short timeframe
• Reduced Visibility, Driver and Pedestrian
Distraction , Road Rage
result in increased collision potential
1
03/09/2015
Introduction
• Enhancing 2 programs
is to educate the students so they understand
the role of SCG and road safety
increase public's (motorists) awareness and
remind them of their responsibility to ensure
road safety by adhering to the HTA and
municipal bylaws
improve training for school crossing guards to
provide better and safer service to the public
Program History
• Until mid 2014
Crossing Guard Coordinator contracted
Scheduling/Dealing with day to day issues
• Coordination of 60 guards
City employees
$400,000 (2013)
45 locations
Average employment 5 years
Longest employment 20 years
Medical exam
Pass a police clearance check
2
03/09/2015
Program Developments
• Mid 2014
Brought in house and expanded program
Primary Emphasis is on "SAFETY" around
school zones with the following objectives
• Training— Formalize Training for Guards
• Education — Implement Safety Outreach Programs
• Awareness — Develop Partnerships
T.E.A. - Training
• Formalize training program
Revamped School Crossing Guard
Handbook into a user friendly reference
manual
Included HR staff and NRP rep.at annual
orientation meetings to share new
policies/regulations
Professionally produced I5min "How To"
Training Video to ensure message
consistency
3
03/09/2015
T.E.A - Education
Implement Safety Outreach Programs
Students
• In Class Safety Education Program
• App. 15 presentations at 5 schools in 2014
• JK—Grade 3
• View video,role play, Q&A,safety package as reminder
• Ongoing program in collaboration with the Children's Safety
Village
• Produced Animated Safety Video for school age
children
T.E.A - Education
. Implement Safety Outreach Programs
General Public — Safety Awareness
Campaign
• Posters,Web,Social Media, Newspaper, Media
Release, Distribution — schools,businesses, city
facilities
Agencies/Organizations
• Children's Safety Village
• Developed a school crossing component to their road
safety curriculum
4
03/09/2015
. —
• s10 STOP
sc
'*' STOP N , ,
• , 1, ...MINN..
1: 0 VA\ret 11:44 il - % i ' 1,
1
T.E.A. — Awareness
• Develop partnerships with agencies
Various Committees — School Crossing
Guard, School Travel Planning
• Promote school safety by endorsing best
practice and promoting active transportation
Niagara Regional Police
• Introduced formal reporting process to guards
for Road Rage incidents
Schools and School Boards
Team effort to address safety issues
5
03/09/2015
Parking Enforcement
A.M.P Drive-off Enforcement
Program
CIP
PM
PM-,4p\1‘
29
6
03/09/2015
Safety Before Convenience
• High volume of vehicles and pedestrians
in School Zones
• Traffic issues and safety concerns occur in
short timeframe
Visibility issues
Traffic congestion
• Illegal parking
• Accessibility issues for emergency vehicles
Enforcement Challenges
• Parking officers attend school zones on a
rotation structure
to enforce the regulations
remind the parents of the safety concerns
• Challenges occur when
Parents unload the child and drive off before
a ticket can be issued (cat and mouse game)
Parents place less focus on children's safety in
lieu of getting away from the officer
Repeated pattern of drive offs
7
03/09/2015
Enforcement Challenges
• Police presence has resulted in a short term
solution as the illegal parking / drop off
activity returns as soon as the police are no
longer present
• Number of locations where residents,
parents and the school board request
enforcement:
Heikoop Cres
Dorchester Rd
Culp St
Forestview Dr
McMicking St
d
f t ': ' ‘
A `•
1.00
ll
As shown here on McMicking St.
parents continue to unload
passengers in a signed No Stopping
while the officers are present
8
03/09/2015
Blocked driveways
illir;""!W
• �r
Child Visibility
A(rJ}
s •
* .
311111111111111W
;�.,k Vie,
y
* §ar ,,-' �w :c''*,
9
03/09/2015
Safety Over Convenience
1
4144 ,
.14
-AP tilir
cr ,111 1,
j a
Regulation Comparison
RO.A A.M.P
• Can be placed on
• Must place ticket on vehicle,
windshield • Given to driver of
• hand to individual that vehicle
is in care and custody • Mailed to the owner of
of the motor vehicle vehicle if identified as
illegal and having left
the scene before
delivery of the
infraction.
10
03/09/2015
Proposed Method of Enforcement
• Notification to parents through school
newsletter of new ticket issuance method
• Parents get ONE warning (no penalty) on
first offence with a mailed letter identifying
the activity in question once the program is
launched
• Future actions of Drive offs result in mailed
out Penalty Notice with fines imposed.
Conclusion
Expected Results
• Parents are more educated on the
regulations in the area
• Reduced risk of injury or accident
• Increased safety for officers
• Better support for residents and schools
• Mailed out penalty Notices can still be
reviewed under existing parking
processes
11
03/09/2015
QUESTIONS?
12
Dean Iorfida
From: Ken Mech
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 3:02 PM
To: Dean Iorfida
Subject: FW: FW:Warren Woods Phase 4 -- City File Nos.AM-2014-010 and 26T-11-2014-002
FYI
Ken Mech, MCIP,RPP
Manager of Current Planning
905-356-7521 Ext. 4107
From: Ken Mech
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 1:33 PM
To: 'Glenn Wellings'; jwilker@thomsonrogers.com; Alex Herlovitch; Jennifer Vida (JVida@ucc.com)
Cc: Andrew Bryce; Anamika Dilwaria; Gary.sommer@cytec.com; ken.milo@cytec.com; bob@robertodell.com
Subject: RE: FW: Warren Woods Phase 4 -- City File Nos. AM-2014-010 and 26T-11-2014-002
Glenn,
We are fully aware of Cytec's concerns regarding the 12.5 metre height regulation. This figure was included in the report
to be consistent with the regulations contained in the approved by-law(By-law No. 2014-52) for the Warren Woods
Phase 3 plan of subdivision. Unfortunately we only became aware of Cytec's preferred height of 11.5 metres after the
planning report was finalized. Based on a conversation that I had with Jennifer Vida this morning, it is the City's
understanding that Bob O'Dell is ok with 11.5 metres. It is my intention to inform Council of the agreed upon change to
the by-law during the presentation at Council tomorrow evening.
Assuming Council will approve the subdivision and zoning amendment tomorrow evening, we will prepare the draft by-
law and circulate it to you for review prior to its presentation to Council for passing in a couple weeks.
Ken Mech, MCIP,RPP
Manager of Current Planning
905-356-7521 Ext. 4107
From: Glenn Wellings [mailto:glenn@wellingsplanning.ca]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:11 AM
To: jwilker@thomsonrogers.com; Alex Herlovitch
Cc: Andrew Bryce; Anamika Dilwaria; Gary.sommer@cytec.com; ken.milo@cytec.com; Ken Mech; bob@robertodell.com
Subject: RE: FW: Warren Woods Phase 4 -- City File Nos. AM-2014-010 and 26T-11-2014-002
Good morning all. Anamika/Alex/Ken, I have downloaded and reviewed City Staff Report PBD-2015-11. Thank you for
including the notification clause as requested by Cytec in the recommended conditions of draft approval. We continue
however to have concerns regarding the proposed height regulations in the draft Zoning By-law. The proposed height
regulation does not indicate the lesser of the two (i.e. 2.5 storey or 12.5 metres)and secondly, the 12.5 metre height is
not reflective of a 2.5 storey height (see note below). Please advise that the By-law will be amended as per the e-mail
from Jeff Wilker below. Given that the meeting is tomorrow, we would ask for confirmation as quickly as possible. I
would appreciate receiving a copy of the draft Zoning By-law and any amendments thereto.Thanks.
1
Glenn
Glenn J. Wellings, MCIP, RPP
Wellings Planning Consultants Inc.
564 Emerald Street
Burlington, ON L7R 2N8
p. 905.681.1769
f. 905.681.8741
c. 416.988.0310
w. www.wellinqsplanning.ca
Please note that effective immediately my new e-mail address is glenn@wellingsplanning.ca. Please update your records
accordingly. Thanks.
From:jwilker@thomsonrogers.com [mailto:jwilker@thomsonrogers.com]
Sent: March-06-15 10:39 AM
To: aherlovitch@niagarafalls.ca
Cc:Andrew Bryce; Anamika Dilwaria; Gary.sommer@cytec.com; Glenn Wellings; ken.milo@cytec.com; Ken Mech
Subject: RE: FW: Warren Woods Phase 4--City File Nos.AM-2014-010 and 26T-11-2014-002
Alex,
Thank you for the clarification.
Glenn Wellings has discussed the matter with Bob O'Dell. We are advised that the houses are 11.4 m in height.
While Cytec appreciates the belt and suspenders approach, and is supportive of your explanation, it appears that the 12.5
height is unduly generous (being 41 feet in old school/Imperial measurements). Cytec therefore supports the inclusion of
the second regulation, on the specific understanding that it in no way trumps the 2 1/2 storey standard, and with the height
restriction being more in keeping with the actual built form, i.e. 11.5 m or so.
Thanks
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Wilker
Partner
Thomson, Rogers
Jeffrey Wilker Law Professional Corporation
www.thomsonrogers.com
3100 - 390 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, M5H 1W2
Direct Line: 416-868-3118
From: Alex Herlovitch<aherlovitchAniagarafalls.ca>
To: "'jwilker@thomsonrogers.corn-<jwilker(o)thomsonrogers.com>,Ken Mech<kmechAniagarafalls.ca>
Cc: Anamika Dilwaria<adilwaria(cilniagarafalls.ca>,Andrew Bryce<abryce(o�niagarafalls.ca>,"Gary.sommer@cytec.com"<Gary.sommera@cytec.com>,
"ken.milo@cytec.com"<ken.milo@cytec.com>,"glennwellingsplanning.ca"<glenn@wellingsplanninq.ca>
Date: 02/03/2015 02:33 PM
Subject: RE:FW:Warren Woods Phase 4--City File Nos.AM-2014-010 and 26T-11-2014-002
Jeff
2
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS
By-law No. 2015 -
A by-law to designate Block 15 and 16, Plan 59M237 & Block 15, except Part 1, Plan
59R-9866 and Block 27, Plan 59M108 to be deemed not to be within registered plans of
subdivision for the purpose of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 (DB-
2015-001).
WHEREAS subsection 50(4) of the Planning Act , R.S.O.1990, provides that the council
of a local municipality may by by-law, designate any plan of subdivision, or part thereof,
that has been registered for eight years or more, to be deemed not to be a registered
plan of subdivision for the purpose of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act , R.S.O.
1990;
AND WHEREAS the said lands are within plans of subdivision registered in 1997 (Block
15 and 16, Plan 59M237) and 1986 (Block 15, except Part 1, Plan 59R-9866 and Block
27, Plan 59M108);
AND WHEREAS to facilitate the legal merger of the subject lands, the passing of a by-
law as provided in subsection 50(4) is necessary;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, in the
Regional Municipality of Niagara, deems it expedient to designate the said lands to be
deemed not to be within a registered plan of subdivision as provided in said subsection
50(4).
THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACT
AS FOLLOWS:
1. Block 15 and 16, Plan 59M237 & Block 15, except Part 1, Plan 59R-9866 and
Block 27, Plan 59M108 shall be deemed not to be within registered plans of
subdivision for the purpose of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.
Passed this tenth day of March, 2015.
DEAN IORFIDA, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR
First Reading: March 10, 2015
Second Reading: March 10, 2015
Third Reading: March 10, 2015
S:\DEEMING BY-LAW\DB-2015-001 2564 Claude Ave\Deeming By-law.docx