Planning and Regulatory Services Department Planning Policy Division

Transcription

1 ormo RICHMOND HILL II ' 6 II I 0 0 INCORPORATED Agenda Hem 7 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Planning and Regulatory Services Department Planning Policy Division SUBJECT: Ed Sackfield Arena Twinning Project & David Hamilton Park Master Plan () PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Ed Sackville Arena twinning project and propose a revised work plan for the project which involves first completing a Master Plan for David Hamilton Park. RECOMMENDATIONS: a) That $75,000 be allocated from the Town's Cash in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Reserve to a capital account to fund the David Hamilton Park Master Plan project; and, b) That staff issue a Request for Proposals and hire a consultant to undertake the David Hamilton Park Master Plan. Contact: Patrick Lee, Director of Policy Planning, ext J. Patrick Caron, Director of Asset Management, ext Submitted by: Ana Bassios Commissioner of Planning and Regulatory Services Stephen Fick Acting Commissioner of Environment and Infrastructure Services 225 East Beaver Creek Road, Richmond Hill, ON L4B 3P4 T RichmondHill.ca

2 Page 2 Approved by: BACKGROUND: In 2012, a feasibility study was initiated to investigate whether it would be possible to add a second ice pad to Ed Sackfield Arena (located in David Hamilton Park on Valleymede Drive). The feasibility study (prepared by PBK Architects) was completed on October 5, 2012 and confirmed two possible configurations for twinning the Ed Sackfield Arena ice pad. The feasibility study was presented to Budget Committee of the Whole on November 13, 2012, and referred to the Recreation Plan process (which was underway at the time) for further consideration (SREIS ). One of the main goals of the Town's Recreation Plan was to assess and identify the Town's future indoor recreation facility needs through to As approved by Council in October 2013, the Recreation Plan recommends that the Town should advance priority indoor recreation projects associated with two new ice pads, an indoor turf facility, an indoor walking track and an indoor tennis facility, through the establishment of related 2014 capital budgets. On October 29, 2013, Budget Committee of the Whole considered SRCS regarding Recreation Facility 2014 Capital Budget Requirements. Based on the Recreation Plan recommendations, and the existing feasibility study for the addition of a second ice pad to Ed Sackfield Arena, SRCS recommended that a 2014 capital account for the architectural and engineering design phase of the Ed Sackfield Arena twinning project be established and that the indoor walking track be incorporated into the twinning project. Council approved the recommendations of SRCS on November 25, Ed Sackfield Arena Twinning Project Work on the Ed Sackfield Arena twinning project design commenced in 2014 with the hiring of WSP Global to provide project management services. In May/June detailed project work plans, which anticipated the following schedule, were developed: June to Sept Oct to July 2015 July 2015 to Jan Jan. to Mar Mar to Nov Retention of architectural/engineering services -Program development, schematic design & design development -Detailed design

3 Page 3 The above work plan reflects a 42 month timeline for execution. The construction phase budget for the project was planned to be requested in the third quarter of 2015, at the completion of schematic design. November 2017 was targeted for project completion. David Hamilton Park Master Plan and Ed Sackfield Arena Twinning Project The Ten Year Capital Forecast anticipates that, following completion of the Ed Sackfield Arena twinning project, a David Hamilton Park Renewal project would commence with design in 2016 and construction in Consistent with the process for prioritizing park renewal projects set out in the Parks Plan, David Hamilton Park is a priority candidate for renewal because it will be 30 years old in 2017, contains assets which are at the end of their lifespan, and is a preferred site for additional outdoor recreational facilities (e.g., a splash pad) that will bring the catchment area for the park in line with target service levels. Additionally, it should be noted that the design component of a renewal project for David Hamilton Park was initiated approximately ten years ago at which time a conceptual re-design of the park was presented to the local community. While the construction phase of the project did not proceed at that time, there continues to be an expectation regarding implementation amongst local residents. During the process of developing the Request for Proposals to retain an architectural design firm for the arena twinning project, it became increasingly evident that adding a second ice pad to the Ed Sackfield Arena, without considering the overall layout and outdoor recreation facility programming at David Hamilton Park, could be problematic. Questions related to the parking requirements for the new arena and the impact of additional parking on the park came to light. The arena twinning feasibility study proposed approximately 300 new parking spaces based on the consultant's interpretation of the existing zoning by-law. The feasibility study suggested that new parking spaces would be accommodated by removing the existing playground and extending the existing parking lot into the park area directly behind residential lots. No proposal was determined to replace or move the playground that has served the residents for almost 30 years. Subsequent inquiry into parking requirements for the arena project has brought into question the need for the number of new parking spaces proposed in the feasibility study and revealed that a detailed parking study for the project may be necessary to facilitate planning approvals. Other concerns with the incorporation of the second ice pad into the park also arose. For example, the David Hamilton Park renewal project contemplates adding a splash pad to the park and it would not make financial or functional design sense to construct the arena before determining whether the splash pad necessitates associated indoor ancillary facilities (i.e., change rooms and/or a mechanical room for water recycling). Site circulation (i.e., walking routes through the park) could also be more effectively planned if undertaken coincident with, rather than after, decision-making around the arena configuration. Finally, it was increasingly recognized that potential economies of scale, more comprehensive public engagement, and reduced overall construction times (for the combined arena and park renewal projects), could be gained if the arena twinning and 03 3

4 TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Page 4 park renewal projects were integrated. If the projects were conducted separately, construction of the arena was expected to occur in with park construction to follow ( ) resulting in ongoing construction in the park for the greater part of four years. A Master Plan would determine: the preferred ice pad building configuration; the amount of additional parking required and the preferred location for any additional parking spaces; the playground and splash pad location and configuration; whether any additional outdoor recreation facilities should be added to the park; whether any of the existing sports fields require upgrades/asset replacements; preferred configuration of walking paths through the site (i.e., site circulation); and whether outdoor recreation facilities (e.g., the proposed splash pad) generate a need for additional ancillary indoor facilities. In the fall of 2014, staff from various departments met and determined that the best course of action for proceeding, and avoiding future issues around integrating the new ice pad into the park, would be to undertake a Master Plan for David Hamilton Park. A revised work schedule, incorporating a preliminary Master Plan process was developed. Major milestones in the proposed revised schedule are as follows: Feb. to Apr May to Nov December 2015 Oct to Jan Feb to Oct Oct to Mar Mar to May 2017 June 2017 to Feb Retention of Master Plan consultants -Public Consultation, Parking Study, Preferred Design - Master Plan completion - Retention of architectural/engineering services - Program development, schematic design & design Development - Detail design The above work plan reflects a 49 month timeline for completion of both the arena twinning and the park renewal. A budget for construction of both the arena and park would be requested through the 2017 capital budget process with construction of the arena and park to be completed in Q1 of Should work on the Ed Sackfield Arena twinning project recommence immediately (without park master planning), the anticipated work schedule would be as follows: 034

5 Page 5 Mar to June 2015 July to Apr Apr. to Oct Oct. to Jan Feb to Sept Retention of architectural/engineering services -Program development, schematic design & design development - Detail design This work plan reflects a 42 month timeline for completion of the arena twinning only. A budget for construction of the arena would be requested through the 2016 capital budget process. Renewal of the park would follow over an additional two year timeframe with design in 2018 and construction in FINANCIAL/STAFFING/OTHER IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations of this report propose that $ be allocated from the Cash in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Reserve to a capital account to fund the completion of a Master Plan for David Hamilton Park. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommendations of this report aim to ensure that investment in the community is undertaken through wise use and allocation of resources. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the 7 month delay in the opening of the new ice pad, the development of a Master Plan for David Hamilton Park prior to undertaking the arena twinning project will provide for a more orderly and comprehensive approach to the projects. The Master Plan will ensure better planning of the site overall, and will facilitate one construction period rather than two separate periods (thus minimizing impact to neighbouring residents), while providing for a more holistic public participation process. 03 5