Vancouver City Council |
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 24, 2003
Author/Local: J. Griffin/7928
RTS No. 3337
CC File No. 5804
Meeting Date: May 13, 2003
TO:
Vancouver City Council
FROM:
General Manager of Engineering Services
SUBJECT:
Local Improvement Reballots from February 12, 2003, Court of Revision
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Court #610, Item #003, NOT BE APPROVED for pavement and curbs on Skeena Street from 27th Avenue to 28th Avenue.
B. THAT Court #610, Item #021, NOT BE APPROVED for lane pavement on the lane south of 11th Avenue from the lane east of Waterloo Street to Blenheim Street and the lane east of Waterloo Street from 11th Avenue to the lane south of 11th Avenue.
C. THAT Court #611, Item #015, BE APPROVED for full width lane pavement on the lane south of 11th Avenue from Balaclava Street to Carnarvon Street.
POLICY
Policies governing the Local Improvement Process are set out in the Vancouver Charter and the Local Improvement Procedure By-Law. The projects dealt with in this report have gone through the legal requirements in the process, but Council has requested additional information on project support/opposition through the reballot before giving final approval.
PURPOSE
At the February 12, 2003, Court of Revision, Council instructed staff to reballot two local improvement petition projects. Staff also balloted owners on a previously approved initiative project to clarify the type of lane improvement wanted. The results are as follows:
Court #610, Item #003 (Petition)
Pavement & curbs on Skeena Street from 27th Avenue to 28th AvenueAt the Court of Revision, one owner rescinded support. Staff balloted owners to determine if there was sufficient support for this project to proceed.
Number of owners
14
Required 2/3 majority
10
Ballot results:
In Favour
9
Opposed
4
Total responses
13
Several attempts were made to contact the one owner who did not respond. This owner did not sign the original petition. Based on the ballot results, there is insufficient support for this project to proceed.
Recommendation: Project not be approved
Court #610, Item #021 (Petition)
Lane pavement on the lane south of 11th Avenue from the lane east of Waterloo Street to Blenheim Street and the lane east of Waterloo Street from 11th Avenue to the lane south of 11th AvenueAt the Court of Revision, owners were not clear as to the type of lane treatment available. Staff balloted owners to determine their preference.
Number of owners
21
Required 2/3 majority
14
Ballot results:
In Favour of full width pavement
7
In Favour of centre strip pavement
4
Not proceed at this time
5
Total responses
16
The remaining five owners did not return a ballot despite several attempts to contact them. Based on the ballot results, there is insufficient support for this project to proceed.
Recommendation: Project not be approved
Court #611, Item #015 (Initiative)
Lane pavement on the lane south of 11th Avenue from Balaclava Street to Carnarvon StreetThis project was approved at the February 12, 2003, Court of Revision for centre strip lane pavement. However, several owners that called after the Court of Revision were under the impression the initiative project was for full width pavement despite having received a notice indicating it was for centre strip pavement.
These owners are very concerned and advised that if they had been more aware they would not have supported the lane initiative because the center strip lane improvement would not resolve flooding and other drainage issues they are experiencing.
Center strip paving involves the installation of a new driving surface only with connections to garages. The sides of the lane would not be disturbed which means that any landscaping, ditches or verges would remain. In most cases the surface water percolates into the nearby ground, however for this lane, staff concur with property owners that natural drainage could continue to be a problem. Therefore full width is recommended.
Full width pavement involves the installation of a new driving surface, ditches would be removed, an underground tiling installed, and the paving of the shoulder area. This work would contain any surface water falling within the lane and be directed into a proper storm sewer system and should resolve or provide relief to those owners that have drainage issues.
To confirm which type of lane treatment a majority of owners prefer, they were sent a letter explaining the situation and were balloted. Owners were advised that the recommendation to Council would be based on the responses received and the preference of the majority of respondents.
Number of owners
17
Ballot results:
In Favour of FULL WIDTH pavement
11
In Favour of CENTRE STRIP pavement
4
Total responses
15
The remaining two owners did not respond despite several attempts to contact them by ballot and by phone.
Recommendation: To resolve the drainage issues brought to our attention by several adjacent owners and based on the ballots returned this Project to proceed with FULL WIDTH PAVEMENT.
* * * * *