PRINCESS AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO
RIDEAU HALL (LISGAR ROAD TO ROCKCLIFFE PARKWAY)
RÉFECTION
DE LA PARTIE DE L'AVENUE PRINCESS CONTIGUË À RIDEAU HALL (DU CHEMIN LISGAR À LA
PROMENADE ROCKCLIFFE)
ACS2008-PWS-INF-0005 Rideau-Rockcliffe
(13)
Appearing
before Committee to give a PowerPoint Presentation and to answer questions on
the aforementioned item were the following:
· Wayne Newell, Director of Infrastructure Services, Public Works and Services (PWS)
· John Manconi, Director of Surface Operations, PWS
· Wayne Bennett, Manager of Construction Services East, Infrastructure Services Branch, PWS
· Neil Stout, Program Manager, Municipal Rehabilitation, Construction Services East, Infrastructure Services Branch, PWS
· Scott Edey, Program Manager, Street and Community Lighting, Traffic & Parking Operations Branch, PWS
· Diane Irwin, the National Capital Commission (NCC) Project Manager.
Mr.
Newell began by providing a brief background on this project and noted the
three outstanding issues being brought before Committee for direction today,
which are the construction of a sidewalk, the intersection design, and the
street lighting on Princess Avenue.
Following an introduction of staff and NCC representative present, Mr. Bennett gave a detailed PowerPoint Presentation on the aforementioned item, copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Stout addressed the sidewalk and traffic triangle issues, and Mr. Edey, the lighting issue.
Ms. Irwin also provided the following comments on behalf of the NCC. She reiterated the importance of protecting the heritage fence, Rideau Hall, and the surrounding community. Since lighting is a municipal matter, she noted NCC’s satisfaction with staff assurance that the locations of the lighting poles would take into consideration the protection of mature vegetation along the edge of the wooded side of Princess Avenue.
Before opening the floor to questions to staff, the Committee heard from the delegations:
Peter Lewis, Rockcliffe Park Residence Association (RPRA), submitted the following presentation, which is also on file with the City Clerk:
The RPRA wishes to
acknowledge and thank City Council and the Transportation Committee for the
opportunity to formally present our thoughts and concerns regarding the matter
of the Princess Avenue Reconstruction.
As a basis to this presentation, the
RPRA takes the view that the area under consideration, namely Princess avenue
from the new roundabout at the NCC Parkway and heading South towards Rideau
Hall East Gate and beyond to Lisgar Road, falls within the Village of
Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District as shown in Schedule A to the
Rockcliffe Secondary Plan in Vol. 2A of the OP, and has been since the OMB
confirmed the bylaw designating the district in 1998. Furthermore, this fact has been confirmed by City Heritage Staff.
It is in this light that we wish to
make the following comments:
1: Sidewalk along Princess Avenue from Rockcliffe Parkway to connect
with Sidewalk at Northern end of Lisgar Road (Near intersection of Maple Lane)
In the
spirit of maintaining the Heritage standards established within the village of
Rockcliffe Park, the
RPRA’s first preference is for no sidewalk and no cobbles on this
section of Princess Ave. However there
are some practical considerations as well. There are some 140 metres to the
west of the Princess Gate where the proposed sidewalk would be very close to
the Rideau Hall heritage fence. In the
winter, there is presently very little room for roadway snow to be cast onto
the south verge adjacent to the heritage fence. Any sidewalk that might be proposed for those 140 m of the south
verge of Princess would require snow to be blown and removed (salt laden snow
windrows could not be blown onto the Rideau Hall Fence) as a regular operation
lest the sidewalk be left impassable.
If the City establishes a sidewalk with its attendant maintenance
obligations, plowing with occasional removal would not be an option. This would be an expensive undertaking for a
little used pathway.
Further to this point, Observations
by residents and users of Princess Ave are that very few walkers and joggers
use the road or the grassy verge adjacent to the fence in any season and most
certainly not in winter. The Princess
Gate entrance to Rideau Hall is not a general public entrance except for access
to the skating rink and possibly a few special events as may be held from time
to time. Indeed the public is generally
barred from using this entrance and as such, the proposed sidewalk would NOT
facilitate pedestrian access to Rideau Hall.
However, If City Council deems it
essential that a pathway must be built, that it serves a greater interest, the
RPRA’s alternative position is that a narrow stone dust pathway be built, one
which the City could, for practical reasons, chose not to maintain in the
winter.
Regarding Curbs. If there must be barrier curbs on both sides
of the road, we kindly request that they be the less harsh mountable curbs.
As a last point not specifically on
this issue but related, the RPRA would like to see the road maintained at its
current 6.5 m width. There are
two reasons for this. Firstly to match the general width of Mariposa Ave. with
which it connects and secondly as a traffic calming measure. It is becoming increasingly recognized in
Urban centers that narrower streets provide a measure of traffic calming that
cannot be obtained by signs (Speed and Stop) or even speed bumps.
2: Western Leg of Princess Road: Rideau Hall
East Gate to Lisgar Road.
Please note that there is a slight correction between
this presentation and the notes included in the Public Works report.
The RPRA’s position is (again, considering the Heritage status) that the road should be retained on that segment between the Princess Gate and Lisgar Road, following its present route. However in recognition of stated safety issues, we propose that this section of Princess Ave be designated One Way in a Southbound direction, that is proceeding from Princess Gate to Lisgar Road with a Stop sign replacing the current Yield sign at the intersection with Lisgar Road. This would significantly reduce the number of possible conflict points in that intersection. We in no way support a proposed plan for a bi-directional road that intersects both Lisgar Road and Princess Ave at 90-degree angles. This plan would be pointless, unsightly and be rendered obsolete through lack of use.
Whatever plans the City finally
approves, we would like to ensure that.
In order to maximize water infiltration to the trees and shrubs in the
triangle described by Princess Ave, Lisgar Road and the Western leg of Princess
Ave there should be no curb bordering the triangle. Should a barrier be absolutely necessary, a 2-cobble-wide strip
of stones would provide the desired delineation and allow the desired water
flow.
The trees, shrubs, and flowers were
planted by the former village of Rockcliffe Park and are currently tended by
volunteers, not the NCC.
3:
Lighting along Princess Ave and Lisgar Road
In the matter of Right of Way Lighting, the RPRA takes its position
based on the fact that the area falls within the Heritage district of
Rockcliffe Park Village.
City staff have erred in designating Princess Avenue from Sussex Drive
to Lisgar road as “All Other Areas” for
purposes of applying the Lighting. The street
lighting policy for the heritage conservation district should therefore apply
to this part of Princess Ave. A spacing
of lights (approximately 80 m intervals) was recommended for this area by the
Gabriel Lighting study for the HCD of Rockcliffe Park because “It is the policy
for NCC parkland to the north and west of Rockcliffe to be unlit. Roads adjacent to this parkland do not
require as much light to provide contrast against dark surroundings.” The current level and style of lighting has
been this way for decades with no reported or discernable problems. Furthermore, there is a variety of wildlife
in this greenspace, including fox and deer and an unnecessarily high level of
lighting, which is designed for a more heavily traveled area, may negatively
impact on the habitat of these animals.
The technical standards for this lighting are contained in the Gabriel
report and are included in the Public Works and Services report to the
Transportation committee. They specify
wooden light poles and Luminaires of a specific design, brightness, and colour.
On the Lisgar Road section, there is general RPRA agreement to
“leave as is” with the request to replace the existing concrete pole with a
wooden pole and brackets of the design in current use for incandescent lights
in the heritage district. The
luminaires should also be replaced as part of this project with those
consistent with the rest of the lighting in the area.
We wish to be clear that contrary
to the perceptions of City Staff, the RPRA does NOT wish to retain overhead
power wires for the lighting and heartily supports the plan to bury these
cables.
This brings my submission to an
end. On behalf of the RPRA, I would
like to thank the members of the Transportation Committee for their time and
consideration.
Iola Price, speaking as a private resident submitted her written presentation and a PowerPoint Presentation, which are on file with the City Clerk. Using the drawing and pictures contained in her PowerPoint provided the following comments:
I am speaking as a private citizen to both agree and disagree with the staff report.
I disagree with Recommendation 1 to construct a concrete sidewalk with a barrier curb on the south-western side of Princess Avenue.
I agree in part with Recommendation 2 – I agree that the section of Princess Avenue between the Princess Gate and Lisgar Road should be removed. I disagree with the staff recommendation to construct a concrete sidewalk there.
I disagree with Recommendation 3 that new street lighting on Princess Avenue should be installed to conform to the Right of Way Lighting Policy.
I further disagree with the staff edges of the Princess Triangle, especially the north-east (Lisgar Road) sides of the road (see the drawing distributed).
I also disagree with the proposal, also not outlined in the report before you, to make Princess Avenue 7.0 metres wide.
As you can see from the photos on the screen, there is very little room between the road edge and the heritage fence on the boundary of Rideau Hall. At its narrowest point, there is a scant 1.5 metres between the fence and the road edge. Constructing a 1.5 m sidewalk that could not be cleared in the winter is an expensive proposition. I understand from conversations with senior personnel at Rideau Hall that they have not requested a sidewalk – they delegate all such decisions to the NCC. Very few people would use the sidewalk and although the concept of a sidewalk has been endorsed by our neighbour New Edinburgh, they do not much use that path and a grassy strip would suffice in the summer. Grass is much easier on the feet for walkers and runners and the path that is there now has served for the 30 years that I have observed the area. Grass is much more in keeping with the rural character of the area and would enhance the visual aspects of the fence.
If a curb is absolutely necessary on the southern edge of the road, it should be a mountable curb as on the wooded northern side of the road. For one thing, it would make the life of snow plow operators much easier when they try to move the snow from the road onto the road allowance edge. There should be no cobbles between the curb and the grass, or a stone dust path if that is an acceptable alternative. Cobbles and a concrete sidewalk lessen water infiltration into the ground (needed by trees) and decrease the amount of greenspace.
Recommendation 2—Removal of the Western Leg of Princess Avenue alongside the heritage fence.
Eliminating this section of the road and reconfiguring the north-eastern side of the road where it intersects with Lisgar Road would solve a number of issues. It would increase greatly the amount of greenspace in the Princess Triangle, it would eliminate the need for a sidewalk along the fence, it would enhance the visual/heritage aspect of the Rideau Hall fence and would be traffic calming as cars would need to make a full stop before turning either right or left at the intersection with Lisgar Road.
The Princess Gate is used by staff entering the grounds by car, for delivery vehicles but is not available as an entry point by the public except on very rare occasions. If the western leg of the road is removed, there will be no public parking adjacent to the triangle and hence no need for a sidewalk or a curb there.
Recommendation 3 – Right of Way Lighting on Princess Avenue between Rockcliffe Parkway and Princess Gate.
This street is part of the Heritage Conservation District (HCD) of Rockcliffe Park and as such, should be treated as the rest of the district has been treated – low levels of lighting with wide spacings between poles. Again, a conversation with a senior staff member of Rideau Hall says that lighting and other matters beyond the property boundary are not their concern – they delegate to the NCC.
Very few pedestrians use this area, either during the day or at night and increasing the lighting level and installing concrete poles is contrary to the heritage district guidelines. In fact, during one of the public consultations, a senior member of the NCC stated that low levels of lighting were actually safer for pedestrians than high levels. It is also stated in the lighting strategy prepared for Rockcliffe Park that “it is the policy for NCC parkland to the north and west of Rockcliffe to be unlit”
Staff originally misread the map showing the boundaries of the HCD and while acknowledging that the project lies within the boundaries of the HCD, now seem unwilling to accept that the road should be treated and lit like the rest of the Village. In regard to the issue of concrete versus wooden poles, I would point out that when Lisgar Road and Dufferin were rebuilt a few years ago, the city installed wooden poles there and it is not even a HCD. So why can’t an existing HCD have its guidelines respected.
There have not been any traffic accidents of which I am aware and, at night, cars use headlights and, as noted by residents who live in the vicinity, very few people walk along that street. It leads to no public transit stops. There is no need to light this road to an urban level.
When the road is reconstructed and the wires buried, the city could eliminate poles that that serve now only to carry wires. This would be a cost-saving measure. The recommended light level for the HCD can be produced by 50-watt metal halide bulbs of 3200K set 6.5 m above the ground and set 80 m apart on wooden poles.
There is a staff agreement to “leave as is” the lighting on Lisgar Road because it is in the HCD so why not leave the lighting on Princess Avenue “as is”? It too is part of the HCD.
Prior to amalgamation, Village had four specimen Sugar Maple trees planted on the east side of the Princess Triangle, facing Lisgar Road (see diagram). I understand that the staff now propose to install barrier or mountable curbs on the Lisgar Road side and on the side facing the Pine Hill Woods. Since planted, those trees and the shrubs in the interior of the triangle have been nourished by water running off the road. A curb on the Lisgar side will stop the infiltration of water into the triangle. So I ask you to instruct staff to eliminate the curb on the east side of the triangle, facing Lisgar Road. I would prefer not to see a curb on the north-west side of the triangle – we have functioned for years without a curb and there has been no obvious problem. The HCD Guidelines state that Rockcliffe Park is largely free of sidewalks and curbs and it should remain that way in order to preserve its character. One size (i.e. Ottawa rules) does not fit all.
I disagree with the staff proposal, not outlined in the staff report, to make Princess Avenue 7 metres wide. The residents of Rockcliffe believe that we have an agreement with the City that when roads are rebuilt, they will be re-built “as they were”. The current width of Princess varies greatly, due to patching over the last decade or two. I expect that it was once about 6.5 metres wide. Mariposa and Lisgar Road are scheduled for rebuilding and their general width is 6.5 metres, and we will be watching to ensure that they will be rebuilt to that standard. It makes little sense to build Princess Avenue to a 7-metre width and then narrow the road down to 6.5 m once it intersects with Lisgar and thence onto Mariposa. And, narrow roads are natural traffic calming. A 6.5 metre wide road could be shifted northward by 50 –80 cm, thereby increasing greenspace along the heritage fence.
I also disagree with the staff drawing that increases the sweep of the intersection where the northern leg of Princess meets Lisgar Road. Not only will there be interference with the roots of the maple tree but snow will be piled against it in the winter. Keeping the road as it is (close to 90 degrees as possible) is preferable.
At the request of the Committee, Chair McRae read the following comments left behind by Andy Robinson, who had to leave before the Committee’s consideration of this item:
I, Andy Robinson, support for the street lighting and sidewalk on Princess Avenue for safety reasons.
I very much support the efforts of the Residents’ Association to protect the heritage district.
Because this section of roadway is a small strip between Rideau Hall and lands owned by the NCC, it need not be looked at as setting any standard for the rest of the Village.
Therefore, my support of the staff recommendations should not be interpreted as any encouragement to change standards in the remained of the Heritage District, or to be seen as in opposition to the efforts of the RPRA.
Having heard from the delegations, Councillor Legendre, the Ward Councillor asked for the Chair’s indulgence to clarify and say a few words on the backdrop of this project, which he noted would have been built a year and a half ago had it been a normal road in a normal planning. He recognized staff additional efforts and the NCC’s positive participation throughout the very lengthy and difficult exercise. He also extended his thanks to the RPRA. He reiterated that this project being in a heritage district corridor makes it different, and because of that he asked Committee Members to suspend the normal rules and to think about that aspect of it in their deliberation.
In response to questions from Councillors Doucet, staff provided the following clarifications:
·
Currently the power line on Princess for the street lighting is above
ground.
·
Staff is only proposing to put in enhanced street lighting and at the
same time bury just the street lighting wires.
Therefore, the actual cost increment beyond what is already being done
for the road and the sidewalks is not a significant issue.
· Power cables for residents or the Governor General are not being buried – it is strictly for those lights on Princess.
· Currently, there are overhead power lines along Lisgar and they are not being touched. Only the power lines for street lighting are being touched.
· It would be incumbent upon staff to look at opportunities to bury power lines when doing sewer, water and road improvements; and upon Council to allocate funds when approving such projects.
In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson on Councillor Legendre’s proposed motions, the following clarifications were provided:
· Stone dust is extremely difficult to maintain in the winter. Without a separation with the curb and a hard surface, the snowplow would push all that stone dust around.
· It is staff’s opinion that stone dust would turn into a muddy mess in a very short number of years.
· The NCC has expressed a great deal of concern about any dirt and grid being pushed up onto their fence.
· Staff does not believe that stone dust would separate the pedestrians from the road and it also is definitely not an all weather surface; it would be impassable in the spring or during extremely wet weather.
· Mountable curb is not in staff opinion conducive to the separation of pedestrians because cars can drive over it. Staff clearly does not want cars to drive on the sidewalk, park on it or deviate onto it.
· The road is not very wide – 7 meters, just enough for two vehicles to pass with a little bit of room and staff does not want vehicles to stray up on a mountable curb.
· Mountable curb gives an appearance that would cause drivers to possibly drive a little quicker than they might with the barrier curb. The most important thing is the edge for the snowplow; the NCC is extremely concerned about the fence and that forces the plow blade to remain on the road and it does not allow pushing the bank up onto the fence.
· The NCC owns the Princess Triangle, and cars tend to deviate from the road surface when there is no delineated edge.
· Staff would prefer to see an edge and has respected the fact, as much as possible with the heritage value to go with mountable curb around the triangle in an effort to look more rural and to intercept drainage as storm sewage are being installed. Staff hopes that this will cause drivers to respect the edge.
· Unfortunately, unlike private homes, the grass and edge do not get the maintenance from the City or the NCC than it would from private homes in Rockcliffe.
· The photograph referred to by staff during its presentation shows the pedestrians with vehicles is a fairly good example of why staff thinks the 7 meters roadway is probably a minimal standard for safe cycling and car movement.
· The work being proposed on Lisgar is to replace and respect the Rockcliffe Heritage by having a fairly narrow roadway on Lisgar. The proposal on Lisgar is 6 meters but staff feels that Princess is deserving of a little safer environment for everyone - cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and therefore recommending the 7 meters.
· The lighting being proposed is not totally concrete; it is the one with the exposed aggregate concrete base up about 8 feet, and then from there a black steel pole to the fixture.
· In the new right-of-way lighting policy, the heritage conservation districts have been granted a special status that they can certainly pick from any of the approved fixtures and poles within the policy. However, if they do not like what is in there, they can then enter in negotiation with City Staff to collectively come up with design criteria for the individual heritage conservation area.
· There is no mention in the policy that the lighting will be a 50-watt metal halide lamp at an 80‑meter spacing. That is something that has to be flushed out as a future process
· The policy states that whatever is decided on has to be used throughout the whole heritage conservation area. So, whatever is approved on Princess would have to be put in throughout the rest of the whole area.
· More consultation would be in order on the lighting issue.
· 3200 K acorn-shaped fixtures is just a specific style. The old City Standard was high pressure sodium – and they wanted this white light source, the metal halide lighting; the 3200 K reference is just the colour; the whiteness of the light – that is just technical and yet to be decided.
· The RPRA delegation or representative has to realize that they do not get to pick one and then it is arbitrarily accepted by staff; it is written in the policy that they have to come up with a consensus in something mutually agreeable to all and once agreed upon that would be used throughout the whole conservation district.
· NCC prefers a barrier curb as opposed to stone dust and mountable curbs because barrier curb would provide a guide for the snowplows and would help to protect the heritage fence.
· NCC thinks that the staff proposal of the coloured concrete would aesthetically be appropriate along that edge because the front entrance, the main gate used by the Governor General and dignitaries, as well as Thomas Street and Rideau Gate has coloured concrete.
· NCC would not be maintaining the stone dust but would be maintaining the grass verge and is of the opinion that stone dust would be more intensive in terms of maintenance in the springtime.
· The only concern on the light that NCC would have is whether it would have any effect on the vegetation along that edge of Princess Avenue. As part of the roundabout project, that type of lighting has been installed from the main gate of Rideau Hall down to and connecting up to the Rockcliffe Parkway, so it would be in keeping and could be very appropriate although that is for special circumstances only.
· The proposed concrete and metal pole is more expensive than the wooden pole. Typically a wooden pole of that height would cost approximately $800. The luminary and fixture would cost additional $700-800 on top of that. A concrete pole of that type because it is ornate 3 sided would be between $1200-1500 for the pole plus the costs of the hardware, which is the steel rod that goes into the top of the pole, and the urbanite fixture run about $350-400.
In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, staff provided the following clarifications:
· The length of the proposed closure of Princess Avenue is 140 meters.
· Traffic counts on Princess Avenue is 800 vehicles per day.
· With the proposed closure, the volume will remain the same but there will be no vehicle movements on the long leg of the triangle.
· The amount of potential conflict is reduced from 50 down to 30 – thus a very significant improvement in safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
· Currently, there are 6 lighting fixtures on the full length of Princess rather spotty and different spacing. The proposal with the new fixture is to go to 9 fixtures at a more regular spacing.
· If lighting and spacing are changed then the rest of the area has to conform to that. Staff reiterated that should a lighting design be collectively agreed upon, then that would be used throughout the whole district; there would not be another choice of fixture, wattage, etc.
· The current proposal in terms of lighting is strictly on Princess; staff is not prejudging Rockcliffe in term of the project. Staff has not touched lighting on Lisgar Road; so the current heritage conservation district from staff perspective is maintained on Lisgar and in the Village.
· Any changes with respect to lighting to that area will require community consultation, etc. It is not staff’s intention to have the Princess project drive the Rockcliffe lighting policy. Staff’s intent on Princess was to have heritage lighting in compatibility with the NCC and the local road. So, it was never staff’s intent that this project would drive some standards for the entire village.
Councillor Thompson expressed interest in the type of pole being proposed by staff. He believes that it looks nice. Mr. Edey advised that staff proposal for this type of pole was certainly not more the wooden pole versus this particular pole. Staff decided on it because it would fit into the character just specifically for this area with Rideau Gate and what was done last year in the first phase where it came down from the main entrance of the Governor General’s residence down to that new traffic circle.
Councillor Legendre asked for staff comments on the drawing provided by Ms. Price and Slide 25. Staff noted that they are prepared to work with the community on the right radius to avoid tree damage. Extensive work along Princess was done to avoid the mature trees with all the nine streetlights and staff is prepared to work on the details of that curve.
At the request of Councillor Legendre, Ms. Irwin advised that information on the type of lighting poles for consideration made available by the NCC was only provided fairly recently. She did not see a problem with delaying the decision on the type of pole, and confirmed that the poles would be available. Staff also confirmed that this is not a problem. The Committee then agreed that the final determination of the type of pole that will be utilized (wooden poles or NCC-type of composite poles) be determined through further discussions involving City staff, the NCC and the RPRA. Ms. Irwin further confirmed Councillor Legendre’s statement that the fence is a valued resource, which needs to be protected. All agreed that a solution is required to address the extremely narrow corridor and to maximize the separation between the road edge and the fence.
Councillor Legendre then suggested that Committee go through his motions and deal with each separately.
After discussion on the motions, the Committee considered the following
motions:
Moved by Councillor G. Bédard:
That no sidewalk be constructed on Princess Avenue.
LOST
YEAS (2): Councillors G. Bédard, C. Doucet
NAYS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, A.
Cullen, J. Legendre, D. Thompson, Acting Chair C. Leadman
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Recommendation i) be amended as follows:
a) That
the concrete sidewalk be replaced by a stone dust path;
CARRIED
YEAS (6): Councillors R. Bloess, J. Legendre, C.
Doucet, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, Chair M. McRae
NAYS (3): Councillors M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen, G.
Bédard
b) That the curb on the fence side (pathway side) be a mountable curb without a cobbled strip;
CARRIED
YEAS (7): Councillors R. Bloess, A. Cullen, J.
Legendre, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, Chair M. McRae
NAYS (2): Councillors M. Wilkinson, G. Bédard
c) That
there be NO curb on the Lisgar Road side of the Princess Triangle (better water
supply for the trees); and
CARRIED
d) That
Princess Avenue between Sussex/Rockcliffe Parkway to Lisgar Road be 6.5 m
wide.
CARRIED
YEAS (8): Councillors R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, G.
Bédard, J. Legendre, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, C. Leadman, Chair M.
McRae
NAYS (1): Councillor A. Cullen
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Recommendation ii) be amended as follows:
a)
That the
sidewalk be replaced by a stone dust path.
CARRIED
Councillor G. Bédard dissented.
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre:
That Recommendation iii) be amended as follows:
a) That
the streetlighting standards that are to be followed be those
that are appropriate for the Heritage Conservation District (approx. 80 m
intervals);
b)
That the final determination of the type of pole that will be utilized
(wooden poles or NCC-type of composite poles) be determined through further
discussions involving City staff, the NCC and the RPRA, as allowed by
Committee; and
c) That
the brackets be of the design in current use and that the luminaries be the
Cooper Urbanite acorn-shaped fixtures with 50-watt metal
halide bulbs of 3200K.
CARRIED
The Committee then approved the following report recommendations, as
amended by the above motions:
That Transportation Committee
support the staff design plans by recommending that Council approve, as part of
the Princess Avenue and Lisgar Road reconstruction, that:
i) a concrete sidewalk
with a curb be constructed on Princess Avenue to connect the Rockcliffe Parkway
recreational pathway network to the northern end of the existing sidewalk on
Lisgar Road (470m),
ii) a 150m section of
redundant roadway section of Princess Avenue on the west side of the Lisgar /
Princess traffic triangle be removed and replaced with a sidewalk and enhanced
landscaping features,
iii)
new streetlighting on Princess Avenue be installed as
per technical standards detailed in the City of Ottawa right-of-way lighting
policy approved by City Council 10 October 2007.
CARRIED
as amended.