Search Results for: pac
166 results found.
1.0 2023Dec4 PAC agenda
[…] N/A TABLED ITEM S N/A 6. Correspondence for Information N/A 7. Date of Next Meeting PAC Meeting Date Submission Deadline Location TUESDAY , January 2 , 202 4 Dec ember […]
https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/1.0-2023Dec4-PAC-agenda.pdf
PDF document
PAC-MEMO-Millennium-Drive-Application-Withdrawal
PAC-MEMO-Millennium-Drive-Application-Withdrawal
PDF document
2021Nov15HollandDrHrgFINAL
[…] exclusive of civic holidays: DRAFT By-law 2-10-29 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_003 2 /2 DRAFT Development Agreement The Agenda package for November 15 Public Hearing will be available here: https://www.rothesay.ca/town- hall/agendas/ Written objections to the proposed amendment will be received by the undersigned until 12 noon on Wednesday, November 10, 2021 and will be provided to Council for the public hearing. Please note that all records in the custody or under the control of the town of Rothesay are subject to the provisions of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act , SNB 2009, c. R-10.6 and may be subject to disclosure. Records may be shared with internal departments, Council, external agencies or released at a Town committee meeting, which may be public. Any questions regarding the collection of this information can be directed to the Rothesay Town Clerk. Mary Jane E. Banks, BComm Town Clerk – Rothesay (Rothesay@rothesay.ca) 506-848-6664 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_004 ROTHESAY MEMORANDUM TO : Mayor and Council FROM : Planning Advisory Committee DATE : November 10 , 2021 RE : Holland Drive (PID 00056614, 00065094, 00056598 ) The Planning Advisory Committee passed the following motion at its regular meeting on Mon d ay , November 1 , 2021: MOVED … and seconded … the Planning Advisory Committee table the following motion pending the receipt of a supplementary report from Staff: A. The Planning Advisory Committee hereby recommends that Council enact By – law 2 – 10 – 29 to rezone the lands located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) from Single Family Residential – Standard Zone to Multi – Unit Residential (R4) to allow for the development of two 48 – unit apartment buildings subject to the execution of a Development Agreement, as amended in accordance with the Community Planning A ct. B. The Planning Advisory Committee hereby recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement, as amended, to allow for the development of two 48 – unit apartment buildings on lands located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) . CARRIED. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_005 Planning Advisory Committee N ovember 1 st , 2021 To: Chair and Members of Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee From: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 Subject: Rezoning Holland Drive – ( PID s 00056614 , 00065094 , 00056598 ) Applicant: Andrew Baskin Property Owner: A.C. Baskin Investments Inc . Mailing Address: 63 Jenkins Dr ive Quispamsis , NB E2E 0J6 Mailing Address: 63 Jenkins Dr ive Quispamsis , NB E2E 0J6 Property Location: Holland Drive PID: 00056614 , 00065094 , 00056598 Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zone: Single Family Residential R1B Application For: 2 – 6 story ( 48 Unit ) Apartment Building s Input from Other Sources: Operations , KVFD ORIGIN An application from Mr. Andrew Baskin, Director of A.C. Baskin Investments Inc. to consider rezoning land located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) from Single Family Residential to Multi – Unit Res idential (R4) to allow for the development of two 48 – unit apartment buildings subject to the terms of a Development Agreement. BACKGROUND : At the October 5 th , 2021 regular meeting of the PAC the Committee did recommend that Council schedule a public hearing for the application. Subsequent to that recommendation from PAC, Council scheduled a Public Hearing for Monday, November 15, 2021. During the October 5 th , 2021 PAC meeting the applicant was also asked to address the following items: 1. Details regarding their s tormwater plan showing the potential infrastructure necessary for stormwater management . 2. Investigate the possibility to create a connection to either the Canadian Tire or Sobeys parking lots . T he applicant is still preparing responses t o the items above and S taff also require additional time to prepare a report and anal ysis for PAC . FIRE SAFETY : Staff also continue to provide transparency around the issue of building height and potential impacts on the Kennebecasis Valley Fire Department (KVFD). The considerations regarding building h eight indicate that the height is a not the primary issue for firefighting. R ather the building ’s size and large number of units/occupants c reates for the KVFD an accumulating demand the need for more firefighting staff and resources. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_006 2 Staff understand that this means for the KVFD t he proposed six – story building would present no gr eater risk than a four – story 48 – unit building . T he KVFD also notes that the recommended additional fire protection measures (included in the draft development agreement) if imp lemented would represent a n overall lower risk profile than a four – story building with the same number of units. Staff also note that th e KVFD has been acquiring the necessary equipment to support fighting fires in buildings equipped with standpipe system s 1 . However, t he acquisition of a longer ladder truck is not being recommended at this time. The KVFD also note that the department is investing in specialized training this fall and exercises are scheduled to commence in early November applicable to all residential apartment buildings equipped with standpipe systems. WATER CAPACITY : The proposed development is subject to a development agreement that stipulates the details and obligations of the respective parties (Rothesay and the Developer) concerning the developmen t of the subject property. When a development agreement is necessary, Council must review Policy IM – 13 in the Municipal Plan, which states as follow s . Policy IM – 13 Council Shall c onsider development agreement applications pursuant to the pr ovisions and criteria as set out in various policies of this Plan and consideration of the following: a) That the proposal is not premature or inappropriate by reason of: 1) The financial capability of Rothesay to absorb any costs relating to the development; 2) The adequacy of municipal wastewater facilities, storm water systems or water distribution systems ; … Staff determined that Rothesay requires a water capacity study (pressure and volume) for both domestic water and firefighting. Staff are providing the applicant with background technical documents/data and information regarding the technical terms of the work that must be completed. Staff note that the water capacity study could result in the requirement for new infrastructure, which would be the respo nsibility of the developer. Staff are recommending that PAC table the application pending with the results of the water capacity study. The standard procedure for a rezoning is that Council receive from PAC a recommendation on the rezoning and the development agreement in advance of the public hearing. However, the i ssues regarding water capacity are substantial enough that S taff are requesting additional time to bring a recommendation forward regarding the app lication and developmen t . S taff note the attached development agreement does contain an amendment to correct a typographic error c orrecting the numb er of un its from 48 to 96 in PART 31 of the agreement. 1 Standpipe systems are a series of pipes, which connect a water supply to hose connections on each floor of an apartment building, essentially an extension of the fire hydrant system within a building. When responding to a call firef ighters will carry hose packs up to the building floor level where they will connect their hoses to the standpipe system start their operations. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_007 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend THAT the Planning Advisory Committee T ABLE the following Motion pending the receipt of a supplementary report from S taff : A. PAC HEREBY recommends that Council enact BY – LAW 2 – 10 – 29 to rezone the lands located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) from Single Family Residential – Standard Zone to Multi – Unit Residential (R4 ) to allow for the development of tw o 48 – unit apartment building s subject to the execu tion of a Development Agreement, as amended in accordance with the Community Planning Act. B. PAC HEREBY recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement, as amended, to allow f or the development of two 48 – unit apartment building s on lands located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) . ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A DRAFT By – law 2 – 10 – 29 & Development Agreement ( A mended ) Report Prepared by: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_008 Planning Advisory Committee September 7 th , 2021 To: Chair and Members of Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee From: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Date: Wednes day, August 25, 2021 Subject: Rezoning Holland Drive – ( PID s 00056614 , 00065094 , 00056598 ) Applicant: Andrew Baskin Property Owner: A.C. Baskin Investments Inc . Mailing Address: 63 Jenkins Dr ive Quispamsis , NB E2E 0J6 Mailing Address: 63 Jenkins Dr ive Quispamsis , NB E2E 0J6 Property Location: Holland Drive PID: 00056614 , 00065094 , 00056598 Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zone: Single Family Residential R1B Application For: 2 – 6 story ( 48 Unit ) Apartment Building s Input from Other Sources: Operations , KVFD RECOMMENDATION PAC removes from the TABLE the application from the application from Mr. Andrew Baskin, Director of A.C. Baskin Investments Inc. to develop two six story (48 unit) apartment buildings on three parcels of land off H olland Drive . BACKGROUND: At the July 5, 2021 regular meeting PAC did TABLE the application for 2 apartment buildings located off Holland Drive pending the receipt of a supplemental staff report containing the following: 1. Staff review of Traffic impact assessment; 2. Polling results; 3. Review by KVFD; and 4. Draft development agreement and rezoning By-law. The property is currently zoned single family (R1B) and designated for HIGH DENSITY residential uses. The property was designated, as a future High-density residential area because it is located in close proximity to several major commercial uses (Canadian Tire and Sobeys), and the Hampton Road . A hi gh-density residential land use located adjacent to Hampton Road promotes greater access to local shops and services by future residents within a walkable distance. The proximity of high density residential to Rothesay’s commercial areas also reduces sprawl by utilizing the existing streets and municipal service utilities (sewer and water). TRAFFIC St aff did review the submitted Traffic Impact Statement and noted that the proposed development would generate 522 trips daily, and that delays at the southbound approach of the Marr Road / Chapel Road intersection will increase; however the approach will remain below capacity and the intersection will continue to perform efficiently overall. The study concludes that signal control at the Marr Road / Chapel Road would improve traffic operations at the Chapel Road approach; however, the overall 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_009 2 intersection delay would be higher as traffic signals would also force traffic on Marr Road to stop periodically. Staff have included a clause w ith in the development agreement (Attachment A) that secures a capital cost contribution toward signalization should Rothesay proceed with a capital project to improve the intersection of Marr and Chapel. Staff also note that the traffic study recommends a new sidewalk connection along Chapel Road between the proposed development and the existing sidewalk facilities on Chapel Road south of Parkdale Avenue. This could be facilitated with extension of sidewalk along the east side of Chapel from the developmen t to Scribner Crescent, a crosswalk on Chapel Road at Scribner, and sidewalk along the west side of Chapel from Scribner to Parkdale. Staff are recommending that all sidewalk costs be born by the developer including a potential sidewalk connection from the development to the Hampton Road . POLLING: Staff sent a polling notification letter to surrounding property owners and did receive several inquiries and written submissions. The primary concern relates to increased traffic and traffic safety. Several sp ecific suggestions to address traffic were made such as the addition of stop signs at Parkdale and Chapel, and traffic lights at Marr and Chapel. Residents did also express some concern regarding the presence of a large building within the view plane of t heir backyards and the concern of their backyard being overlooked by residents in the top floors of the proposed six – storey building. KENN EBECASIS VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT: As is required by Municipal Plan Policy FR – 7, the KVFD must review proposals for new development projects to ensure that public safety and firefighting concerns are addressed. A memo from KVFD Chief Ireland is attached (Attachment C). KVFD notes that n ewly constructed mid – rise buildings are inherently safe and have fire protection systems installed in order to comply with the National Building Code (NBC). Chief Ireland also points out that th e “ risk to firefighters and occupants increases in proportion to the height of a building and the height of the fire above ground level. ” The N ational Building Code (N BC ) addresses these risks by imposing additional fire protection requirements on buildings whose top floor level is more than sixty (60) feet above gr ade. However, a six – storey building fall s just below these criteria, which means that a six – storey building is high enough to create additional risk to firefighters and occupants, but not high enough not to require additional fire protection systems to mit igate those risks. For th e above reasons, the KVFD states with regard to this development and more generally , “Adding more of these types of buildings to our coverage area changes our risk profile and requires training and resources that go beyond our c urrent capacity.” No t withstanding the concerns expressed by the KVFD they do offer that should the project proceed that PAC consider requiring the applicant to include the following additional safety measures found in t he National Building Code that are intended for higher buildings. This would help to lessen the impact of a fire on occupant safety and help to improve the operational efficiency of the limited number of responding firefighters. Staff have included these requirements in the DRAFT developme nt agreement (Attachment A). 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_010 3 APPROVAL PROCESS: The application is to rezone the subject property to the R-4 Multi-Unit Residential Zone to permit 2 48 unit apa rtment buil ding s by development agreement. The application is being reviewed pursuant to the policies of Rothesay Municipal Plan 1-20. The standard procedure for a rezoning is that Council receive from PAC a recommendation to hold a Public Hearing and that both the rezoning (by-law amendment) and the development agreement be prepared in advance of the public hearing. PAC should take note that a recommendation to hold a public hearing does not equate to endorsement of the proposal but rather i s a required step in the administrative process of allowing the applicant to address Council and the public. Assuming that Council sets a date for a Public Hearing the PAC will have an opportunity, at a later meeting, to forward a recommendation to Council on the merits of the application prior to the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the Planning Advisory Committee consider the following MOTION: The Rothesay Planning Advisory Committee HEREBY recommends that Rothesay Council schedule a public hearing to consider rezoning the lands located off Holland Drive (PIDs 00056614, 00065094, 00056598) from Single Family Residential – Standard Zone to Multi-Unit Residential (R4) to allow for the development of two 48-unit apartment buildings subject to the execution of a Development Agreement in accordance with the Community Planning Act. ATTACHMENTS: Map 1 Location Map Attachment A Polling Results Attachment B DRAFT By-law 2-10-29 & Development Agreement Attachment C Memo from Kennebecasis Valley Fire Department Attachment D Traffic Study Report Prepared by: Brian L. White, MCIP, RPP Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_011 4 ATTACHMENT A – POLLING RESULTS: Dear Sir, My wife and I would like to object to the application for two 48 apt. buildings too be built off Holland drive, later to be named Chapel road. All traffic from the apts. would be channeled up towards the south end of Chapel to intersect with the Marr road. Anyone trying to turn left during peak periods would be backed up without some change to the current system. I cannot beli eve that having a turn light would slow traffic more than without. At the north end of Chapel is where it will effect house nos. 19, 22, 21 and 23. There driveways are very close to the existing end of Chapel Rd. ( especially Nos. 19 and 22 ) this will now become a blind hill with cars coming over this hill at speed. Scribner crescent has a stop sign but 90% of people never actually stop. My wife and I w ill be very fearful of exiting our driveway especially when winter arrives. Our conclusion is that this area is an accident waiting to happen, something would have to be put in place to control this junction. As for the Ped estrian Crossing we have the s ame fears as stated above, Dark mornings, blind hill, people rushing to work and school buses. These are our concerns if this application goes through, personally we feel that there is no need for any more apt. buildings at this time. Regards, William and Anne Cummings Rothesay. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_012 5 Rothesay August 20 2021. Submission to the Planning Advisory committee of the Town of Rothesay pertaining to a Request to Re zone a portion of land on Holland Drive and build two Apartment buildings on it. Also, the proposal of extending Chapel Road to Holland Drive, with the vehi cle traffic to be directed thru Chapel Road with no access to Holland Drive from the two proposed new buildings. My wife and I moved to the Village of Fairvale in 1976 when we moved to the Saint John area from the Toronto area. We purchased 26 Chapel Road on the corner of chapel Road and Parkdale. After 45 years we continue to live there and have enjoyed the neighborhood. Access to Chapel Road in 1976 was either thru Robinson or Parkdale it was a Dead – end North of Robinson and a Dead end just North of were Scribner joins Chapel Road. Scribner Crescent had 3 Apartment buildings on it and the traffic from it flowed in to Chapel Road at two locations, just as it is now. Since then, one Apartment building burned down and was rebuilt, one other apartment building was added on Scribner. Rumor has it that the Community Garden and the Ballfield will be sold, allowing another Apartment building. As well Scott Bros build the Townhouses on Scribner, Hills view and Shadow Lawn, all traffic continuing to flow into Chapel Road from the two Scribner entrances. When Scott Bros Build Chapel Hill Estates a request was made, I do not remember if Fairvale was already amalgamated with Rothesay at the time, to extend Chapel Road from Robinson to the Marr Road, this was granted with an understanding that on the North end of Chapel the barrier would stay, eliminating Chapel Road becoming a short cut between the Marr Road and Hampton Road, this has partially worked although the shortcut is now, Hampton Road, Parkdale, Chapel Road, Marr Road and vice versa. There are some 3 way stops at Robinson and Scribner, not at Parkdale and Chapel Road. The request for nearly 200 more cars and service vehicles to have ONLY access to Chapel Road must be seriously considered. I have studied the Traffi c Studie and it looks as there is little or NO concern to be for the continuation of the Road to the development as per the proposal. There are however items that are not covered. I suggest strongly that this Committee visit the site prior to any discussio ns to get a better understanding of this request. 1. The Cost to the Town of Rothesay extending Chapel Road taking into consideration the difference of the height of the land. 2. The agreement NOT to extend Chapel Road to Holland Drive when Chapel Road was e xtended to the Marr Road. 3. There is a large amount of water flowing down Scribner during heavy rain and snow melt, some ft this ends up in the Ditch, most of it however flows over the road onto Chapel Road and down, past the barrier, the hill. If Curbs ar e built it will be even worse as the water will run down the new Portion of Chapel Road down the Hill, during winter lots of ice. 4. There are 5 School busses that stop at the corner of Chapel Road and Parkdale, not sure who plans or approves were School b usses should stop, however this is a fact, they stop going Nort or South on Chapel and East on Parkdale. Stopping on a straight stretch of road would make more sense. Parents that bring their children to the Bus stop park on the West and east side of Chape l Road, there are no curbs there and they are able to be mostly off the road, if curbs installed, they would block the road. 5. Very Few people living on Chapel Road were notified of this proposal although they will all be affected if the request is approve d 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_013 6 We have no objection to rezone and build Apartments on the property identified We strongly recommend that the Barrier continues to be at the present location and that Holland Drive or another Service Road be considered Gwen and Casey Hoogeveen 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_014 31 28 30 29 32 27 36 34 33 39 32 37 37 41 46 47 45 44 48 43 42 38 35 41 47 44 4 3 39 48 Rothesay Boundary Property Civic Address 0 0.03 0.05 0.01 mi 00.04 0.08 0.02 km 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_015 Kennebecasis Valley Fire Department O f f i c e o f t h e F i r e C h i e f To: Town of Rothesay Director of Development Services Brian White From: Fire Chief Bill Ireland Re: Holland Hills – Proposed Six Storey Apartment Building Date: July 5, 2021 This memo is in response to your request for comment on the height of the proposed six storey apartment building (s) to be located on Holland Drive in Rothesay. My comments are based on the elevation drawings you provided which illustrate a six – storey, multi – unit resi dential building that would appear to contain approximately 48 dwelling units. I have previously reported to Council through the Board of Fire Commissioners that the increase in newly built or planned multi – unit, multi – storey buildings in our coverage area further exposes an existing gap in our resource/risk equation . My comments in this memo are limited to the additional specific challenges that a six – storey building would present for the Kennebecasis Valley Fire Department based on our current equipment and resources . As has been previously communicated to Council, the current KVFD staffing levels do not conform to consensus – based industry standard s for interior firefighting operations in buildings co ntaining more than two – dwelling units and/or greater than two storeys in building height . The National Fire Protection Association standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations by Career Fire Departments (NFPA 1710) requires an initial response force of twenty – eight (2 8 ) firefighters to a fire in a three – storey, garden style apartment building 1 . The KVFD is currently staffed with eight ( 8 ) firefighters on – duty . Alternate means of ensuring firefighter and occupant safety hav e been identified and implemented where possible. An evaluation of further improvements and mitigation strategies is ongoing . 1 NFPA provides guidelines for deployment to “typical” structures within a fire department coverage area. These include single family dwellings, strip shopping centres, apartment buildings and high – rise buildings. The response recommendations for a “typica l” 3 – storey apartment building are applicable as the minimum standard for the subject 6 – story apartment building. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_016 Newly constructed mid – rise buildings are inherently safe and have fire protection systems installed in order to comply with the National Building Code (NBC) . I t is generally ac knowledged that the risk to firefighters and occupants increases in proportion to the height of a building and the height of the fire above ground level. The NBC addresses these risks by imposing additional fire protection requirements on buildings whose top floor level is more than sixty ( 60 ) feet above grade. A six – storey building typically would fall just below these criteria, which means that a six – storey building is high enough to create additional risk to firefighters and occupants, but not high enough not to require additional fire protection systems to mitigate those risks. At present, the highest building(s) in our coverage area do not exceed four storeys. Based s olel y on the elevation drawings provided and with no knowledge of the site configuration, building set – backs, etc., I would expect that our ladder truck would be able to reach the fourth floor of the proposed building at a maximum. Our only elevated aeri al apparatus has a ladder length of seventy (70) feet and a maximum vertical reach of approximately forty (40) feet depending on site conditions. For occupants of the building and firefighters operating above the reach of aerial devices, the only viable means of access/ egress during a fire incident is the interior stairs . The e xtra protection afforded by laddering the building to provide a secondary means of egress , to move personnel and equipment or to conduct a rescue is not possible . Moving equipment and firefighters up four or more stories is an arduous task. If it is not properly managed, firefighters may be exhausted and unable to fight the fire or rescue trapped occupants. Additionally, joint use of stairways by firefighters moving upward and occupants attempting to evacuate may increase the overall evacuation time of the occupants, as well as delay the firefighters’ efforts to begin critical tasks such as fire suppression or search and rescue operations. In general, occupants being rescu ed by smaller crew sizes and by crews that used the stairs to access upper floors are potentially exposed to a significantly greater volume of toxins from the fire. While the exact risk exposure for an occupant will depend on many factors including the fir e growth rate, their proximity to the fire and the floor on which the fire is located ; the building height and on – scene deployment levels can have a dramatic effect in determining the fate of building occupants. As the level of the fire floor gets higher, reliance on standpipe system s to supply water for fire suppression also increases. In addition to the distance from the fire engine to the upper floors, there is also an elevation – based loss in pressure when using a preconnected hose line attached to a fire engine . A s a result, standpipe systems are typically used to fight a fire above the second floor. Th is requires firefighters to transport fire hose and nozzle appliances and valves up the stairway and make a connection to the standpipe outlet one floor above or below the fire floor. KVFD has recently acquired the necessary hose and appliances required to utilize standpipe 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_017 systems but currently lacks the proper training and experience with these systems for suppression tactics to be highly effective. Hands – on training is planned for this fall and the department will be better prepar ed to use standpipe systems for fire suppression before th e proposed building is completed. Beyond the emergency operations perspective, m ost of the passive safety systems included in the building design rely on regular testing and maintenance to function as intended . While the National Fire Code (NFC) places the burden to properly maintain building safety systems on the building owner, real world experience has proven that factors such as cost, low prioritization and human intervention can undermine even the best engineered systems. Regular inspection s and e nforcement of the testing and maintenance requirements in the NFC helps ensure building and occupant safety. Routine fire prevention inspection programs require a dditional personnel resources beyond the current capacity of the KVFD. S ummary Key ch allenges for the KVFD when responding to mid – rise buildings include the lack of deployment resources on the initial response, the sheer scope and scale of conducting search and rescue operations, difficulty moving personnel and equipment vertically to the fire area, the potential for significant fire growth fire based on the time it takes to initiate firefighting operations with limited resources, and logistical management of the significant number of firefighters and equipment required to complete critical tasks. The additional building height associated with this proposal exacerbates these challenges. The KVFD supports growth and development in our community but it must be measured against our capacity to protect people and property . I t should be apparent that suppressing a fire and searching for occupants in a typical single – family dwelling is substantially different than fighting a fire in a six – storey building containing 48 dwelling units and potentially 100+/ – occupants. Adding more of th ese type s of building s to our coverage area changes our risk profile and requires training and resources that go beyond our current capacity . Recommendations An effective way to reduce risk is to limit the frequency and impact of an event. The following recommendations are a proactive approach to addressing the increased risk that the additional building height in a six – storey building presents . They would al so help shift the financial burden of addressing this risk from the municipality to the building developer. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_018 As part of your development approval process, I would recommend that you consider requiring the applicant to include the following additional safet y measures found in subsection 3.2.6. of the NBC specific to “high” buildings : • The building should be designed to limit the danger to occupants and firefighters from exposure to smoke by complying with Sentences 3.2.6.2 (2) – (6) • The building elevator(s) should be equipped with manual emergency recall per Article 3.2.6.4. • At least one elevator should be designated for use by firefighters per Article 3.2.6.5 • The building should be designed to include a means of venting smoke from each floor area to aid firefighting per Article 3.2.6.6. • The building should be equipped with a central fire alarm and control facility which includes a voice communication system per Article 3.2.6.7 and 3.2.6.8. T he se addition s to the minimum requirements of the Nationa l Building Code are intended to replicate the same safety standards required in higher buildings. This would help to lessen the impact of a fire on occupant safety and help to improv e the operational efficiency of the limited number of responding firefigh ters . 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_019 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_020 Project #: 2104646 Holland Drive Apartments Traffic Impact Statement CONFIDENTIALITY “This report can only be used for the purposes stated therein. Any use of the report must take into consideration the objective and scope of the mandate by virtue of which the report was prepared, as well as the limitations and conditions specified therein and the sta te of scientific knowledge at the time the report was prepared. Englobe Corp. provides no warranty and makes no representations other than those expressly contained in the report. No information contained in this report can be used by any thir d party without the prior written authorization of Englobe Corp. Englobe Corp. disclaims any resp onsibility or liability for any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, adaptation or use of the report.” 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_021 i Project #: 2104646 Holland Drive Apartments Traffic Impact Statement TTABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 PROJECT BACK GROUND ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.2 STUDY TASKS …………………………………………… ………………………………………………………… 2 1.3 HORIZON YEAR ………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………. 2 2 INFORMATION GATHERING ………………………………….. ……………………………………………………. 3 2.1 STREET AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS …………………… ………………………………… 3 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA AND COVID ADJUSTMENTS ………………………. ……………………………………. 3 3 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE ………………………………. ……………………………………………………….. 6 3.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ………………………………. ………………………………………………… 6 3.2 EXISTING LOS ANALYSIS ………………………………….. …………………………………………………… 7 3.3 FUTURE BACKGROUND LOS ANALYSIS ………………………….. ………………………………………. 7 4 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION ………………………….. …………………………………………….. 9 4.1 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT ……………………….. ……………………………………. 9 5 LOS ANALYSIS WITH DEVELOPMENT …………………………… …………………………………………….. 12 5.1 2028 STOP CONTROL W ITH DEVELOPMENT ………………………. ………………………………… 12 5.2 2028 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH DEVELOPMENT …………………….. …………………………………. 12 6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT …………………………………. ……………………………………………………. 14 7 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ……………………………………… ………………………………………………………… 15 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RE COMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 16 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_022 ii Project #: 2104646 Holland Drive Apartments Traffic Impact Statement TABLES TTable 1 – COVID-19 Adjustment Factors ························································································ 3 Table 2 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria ·············································································· 6 Table 3 – Background LOS Results ································································································· 8 Table 4 –Traffic Generation for the Proposed Development ·························································· 9 Table 5 – 2028 LOS with Development ························································································ 13 Table 6 – Traffic Signal Warrant Results ······················································································· 14 FIGURES Figure 1 – Study Area ···················································································································· 1 Figure 3 – 2021 Background Peak Hour Volumes ··········································································· 5 Figure 3 – Development Traffic Assignments ··············································································· 10 Figure 4 – 2028 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Development in Place ······································· 11 APPENDICES Appendix A: Development Site Plans Appendix B: Traffic Count Data Appendix C: Level of Service Reports Appendix D:Signal Warrant Worksheet 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_023 1 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement 11INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND A new residential development has been proposed on Holland Drive in the Town of Rothesay. The development will consist of two 6-storey, 48-unit apartment bui ldings as well as a surface parking lot. Each building will include four levels of residential dwelling units and two levels of underground parking. The proposed development site plan, which is included in A Appendix A , shows 184 parking spaces, including 86 surface level spaces and 98 underground spaces (24 spaces per l evel in each building). The plan also includes 12 barrier free spaces – 4 at surface level and 8 underground. The proposed development will include 4 accesses that will connect to a northern extension of Chapel Road. Two of the accesses will provide access to the surface level parking lot and the bottom level of underground parking in each building, and the two remaining accesses will provide access to the secon d level of underground parking in each building. Development traffic will be directed from the Chapel Road extension onto Chapel Road, where it’s expected that most traffic will continue south to Marr Roa d, while some traffic will use Parkdale Avenue to connect with Hampton Road. Although the civic address of the development will officially be on Holland Drive, access to Holland Drive will not be permitted from the d evelopment site as the road will be cut off immediately north of the development. As part of the development approval process, the Town of Rothesay requires that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) be completed for this development. The primary concern is how the development will impact traffic at the intersection of Marr Road and Chapel Road and whether traffic signals will be warranted at the intersection with the additional development t raffic. Engineering by Houghton, the primary engineering consultant representing the developer, has retained Englobe Corp. to complete this TIS. The Study Area for this TIS includes the intersections of Marr Road and Chapel Road, Parkdale Avenue and Chapel Road, as well as the p roposed development, as shown in F Figure 1. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_024 1 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement Figure 1 – Study Area 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_025 2 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement 11.2 STUDY TASKS The main objectives of this TIS were to estimate how much addit ional traffic the residential development would generate and determine what impact, if any, the developme nt traffic would have on the intersection of Marr Road and Chapel Road. The following activities were un dertaken as part of this TIS: x Englobe staff visited the Study Area to review existing conditi ons; x Existing traffic data for the intersection of Marr Road and Cha pel Road that were collected by Englobe in April 2021 were reviewed; oA 1.0 % annual growth rate was applied to these traffic volumes to estimate the future (2028) background traffic volumes for the intersection. 2028 re presents the 5-year horizon period beyond the anticipated full build-out of the development ; x Traffic volumes were collected at the intersection of Parkdale Avenue and Chapel Road to determine existing traffic distributions in the area; x Level of Service (LOS) analyses were completed for the existing and future traffic conditions at the Chapel Road and Marr Road intersection without the development in place; x ITE Trip Generation rates were used to estimate the amount of traffic that will be generated by the new development. These were added to the background traffic vol umes based on the existing traffic distributions at Parkdale Avenue / Chapel Road to estim ate the 2028 traffic volumes with the development in place; x LOS analyses were completed for the 2028 future conditions at t he Chapel Road and Marr Road intersection with full build out of the development. These were completed for the intersection under the existing stop-control and under signal-control; x A review of pedestrian connectivity in the area of the proposed development was completed; and x The methodology, findings, and recommendations of the TIS were documented in this written report. 1.3 HORIZON YEAR A 5-year horizon period was utilized for the analysis. Should a ll approvals be granted it is expected that the proposed development will be fully operational in 2023, therefo re 2028 was chosen as the future horizon year for the analysis. 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_026 3 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement 22INFORMATION GATHERING 2.1 STREET AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Chapel Road is a collector road that is oriented in the north-south direct ion and has an AADT that ranges between 600 vehicles/day on its north end and 1,500 vehicles/da y on its south end. It features one lane in each direction and has a speed limit of 40 km/h. Chapel Road fe atures a sidewalk along the east side of the street from Marr Road to Chapel Hills Boulevard and along the w est side of the street from Chapel Hills Boulevard to Parkdale Avenue. No rth of Parkdale Avenue, no sidewalk is provided. Narrow gravel shoulders extend along the sides of the st reet where sidewalks are not pr esent. Marr Road is a collector road with an AADT of approximately 7,000 vehicl es/day near Chapel Road. Marr Road is oriented in the east-west direction, has one lane in ea ch direction and a speed limit of 50 km/h. Marr Road features unidirectional bike lanes along both sides o f the street and a sidewalk along the north side of the street. The intersection of M Marr Road and Chapel Road is a stop-controlled intersection. Marr Road is free flowing and a stop sign is present at the north leg on Chapel Road. The south leg consists of a commercial development access. A crosswalk is present across the Chapel Ro ad approach. 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA AND COVID ADJUSTMENTS Traffic volumes were collected by the Study Team at the intersection of Marr Road and Chapel Road as part of a separate study on Monday, April 26 th 2021. These data, which were collected during the AM and PM peak periods, were used for the analysis in this study. The tra ffic count data are provided in A Appendix B . Since traffic patterns have decreased as a result of the curren t COVID-19 pandemic, the Study Team determined that the traffic count data used in this study shoul d be adjusted to better represent typical traffic volumes under normal con ditions. Adjustment factors that were developed by the Study Team as part of a January 2021 study were used. This study compared tra ffic data that were collected in 2016 at two locations in Fredericton, NB to traffic volumes that were c ollected during the COVID-19 pandemic. The average AM and PM peak hour adjustment factors were calculated for the two Fredericton locations and applied to the traffic volume data. The adjustment factors are shown in T Table 1 . Table 1 – COVID-19 Adjustment Factors Study Date AM Peak PM Peak Fredericton, NB January, 2021 1.26 1.20 Fredericton, NB January, 2021 1.36 1.25 Averages ( A Applied to This Study ) April , , 2021 1. 331 1.2 2 2 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_027 4 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement The adjustment factors were applied to the peak hour volumes at the intersection of Marr Road / Chapel Road. The adjusted 2021 AM and PM background traffic volume est imates are shown in F Figure 2 . 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_028 5 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement Figure 2 – 2021 Background Peak Hour Volumes 2021November15HollandDriveHearingFINAL_029 6 Project #: 2105753 Holland Drive Apartment Traffic Impact Statement 33EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE A Level of Service (LOS) analysis was completed for the existin g and future (2028) traffic conditions at the intersection of Marr Road and Chapel Road. The findings are dis cussed in this section. 3.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA The LOS analyses were completed with Synchro 10, which is a tra ffic analysis software that uses the Highway Capacity Manual and Intersection Capacity Utilization p rocedures. The intersection performance was evaluated mainly in terms of t he level of service (LOS), which is a common performance measure of an intersection. LOS is determined based on vehicle delay and is expressed on a scale of A through F, where LOS A represents ver y short delay (50 seconds per vehicle at a stop controlled intersection and >80 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection). A LOS D is often con sidered […]
https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021Nov15HollandDrHrgFINAL.pdf
PDF document
4 2022February4PACStaffRptHighland
[…] Apartment Building + 2 Single Family Dwellings Input from Other Sources: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend that PAC consider removing from the Table an application to rezone land off Highland Avenue and […]
https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/4-2022February4PACStaffRptHighland.pdf
PDF document
2024January8OpenSessionFINAL_Redacted
[…] (Saint John/Digby) 6.3 4 January 2024 Letter to Recycle NB RE: NB Stewardship Plan for Packaging and Paper 6.4 4 January 2024 Response to resident RE: Clark Road Intersection Improvements […]
https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024January8OpenSessionFINAL_Redacted.pdf
PDF document
Final-DRAFT-2020-PLAN-Binder1
[…] August 2020 RE : Municipal Plan Procedure Recommendation: It is recommended the recommendation from the PAC be tabled to the September Council meeting. Background : The Community Planning Act requires […]
https://www.rothesay.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Final-DRAFT-2020-PLAN-Binder1.pdf
PDF document
