Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-16-077 - Planning & Development Advisory Committee REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: December 5, 2016 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 WARD(S) INVOLVED: City Wide DATE OF REPORT: November 18, 2016 REPORT NO.: CSD-16-077 SUBJECT: Planning & Development Advisory Committee ______________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That Council select Option ______ as outlined in report CSD-16-077 in response to a motion to explore Planning and Development Advisory Committee options. BACKGROUND: On August 8, 2016 City Council passed the following resolution: process; and, WHEREAS transparent channel of communication between the development community and the City of Kitchener can serve to provide a balanced perspective towards the City's growth objectives and help form a more cooperative partnership; and, WHEREAS the City of Kitchener currently has eight formal advisory committees mandated to provide advice to Council on a range of topics from arts and culture to environmental issues to economic development; and, WHEREAS the City of Kitchener 2015-2018 Strategic Action Plan lists nine planning projects which are currently being undertaken by Planning staff or are anticipated to commence with the next few years; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to investigate and explore options for the potential establishment of a Planning and Development Advisory *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 2 - 1 Committee comprising of citizen members and a broad cross-section of development industry stakeholders, with a focus on providing a forum for consultation on major planning policy documents; and, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a report on the proposed committee and/or related options be provided on or before the December 5, 2016 Planning and Strategic This report is a follow up to that resolution. REPORT: This report presents five different options for Council to consider. In order to assess the options this report also provides information with respect to workload, staffing levels, project timelines and other considerations. Planning Division Business Plan Projects The Corporate Business Plan identifies 8 Planning Division projects that are currently underway and which will carry on in 2017, and in some cases beyond 2017. Another seven projects are scheduled to start at various times throughout the 2017 2019 timeframe. The projects are summarized in Most of the projects have timelines of two or more years and generate one to three focussed rounds of consultation per year. Staff examined the work plans for the 2017 2018 projects, and conclude that this is unlikely to generate sufficient materials and discussion items to have meaningful meetings of a Planning and development Advisory Committee on a monthly basis. It is estimated that Planning Division projects alone could generate enough agenda items to have 3-4 meaningful meetings a year. Current Community Engagement Practices All major Planning Division projects include extensive community engagement at different stages using a broad range of tools and methods. Face-to-face consultation can be formal/structured (e.g. PSI Committee and advisory committees, advertised information meetings) or less formal (e.g. public site walks, porch parties and kiosks as popular events). Newsletters, dedicated webpages and social media are commonly used tools. Three projects that are underway are using the on-line Engage Kitchener tool in addition to many of the approaches already cited. The engagement process forthe Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) also included a bus tour and clickable voting technology at one of the public forums. Most Planning projects produce a deliverable that is approved by Council. Also, the deliverable is often a statutory document under the Planning Act which requires one or more statutory public meetings, in addition to any other community engagement that appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board. 2 - 2 In order for Council to have a complete picture of the scope of engagement on Planning Division projects that is done, summaries of three projects are provided in Appendices B, C and D. Appendices B is an example of a completed city-wide project (Official Plan Review) and Appendix C is an example of a completed project for a specific geographic area (PARTS Central). Appendix D is an example of a city-wide project that is underway (Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review) for which the community expectations for engagement are high. Development Industry Engagement The City currently engages the development industry in many different ways. The Waterloo Region Homebuilders Association (WRHBA) Liaison Commit primary sounding board with the development industry. This group, which includes 10 representatives from the development industry, meets monthly with staff from Building, Planning and Engineering to discuss a diverse range of topics. Staff from other divisions are invited on an as-needed basis. The industry members include representation from the following sectors: homebuilding, development, engineering consulting, planning consulting and law. Committee is an effective way to receive feedback from the development industry. It is noted that the ICI sector of the development industry is not systematically represented on the WRHBA Liaison Committee but many of the current members do business in this sector. By virtue of having members who are developers and development consultants, ICI representation is almost guaranteed. It is also noted that the Liaison Committee operates differently than an advisory committee. Industry representatives are appointed by the Association and the group does not include any Council representative(s). In addition to engaging the WRHBA Liaison Committee, it is commonplace to dedicate significant components of any engagement process to the development industry as a whole. Workshops and interviews that target the development industry are tools that have proven to be effective. Members of the development industry can also choose to participate in consultations that are open to the entire community. Members with a connection to the Development Industry are commonplace on some other Council reference (Council Policy I-195) specifically target the housing development sector for membership. Also, EDAC members representing the ICI Retail Sector and the Consultant Industry often have a strong connection with the development industry. In the case of Planning Division projects where the deliverable is a statutory document under the Planning Act, members of the development industry usually account for the majority of written comments and delegations before Council. They have full awareness of opportunities to express their views and there is no apparent reluctance from this industry to communicate directly with Council. 2 - 3 The Structure and Resource Requirements of Current Advisory Committees There are currently 8 advisory committees. The mandates and the way that they function vary considerably which explains the different levels of staff support that they receive. A few notable examples for which we have data are highlighted below in order to understand the staffing implications of the different committee models presented later in the report. Three of the advisory committees are administered by Legislated Services and five of them are not, as shown in the table that follows. Advisory Committees Administered by Legislative Services 1.Environmental Committee 2.Heritage Kitchener 3.Safe and Healthy Community Advisory Committee Advisory CommitteesNotAdministered by Legislative Services 1.Arts and Culture Advisory Committee 2.Compass Kitchener 3.Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee 4.Downtown Action and Advisory Committee(DAAC) 5.Economic Development Advisory Committee(EDAC) Note:Legislation Services also administers meetings of Council, standees committees and several committees with approval and quasi-judicial functions such as the Committee of Adjustment, the Property Standards Committee and the Dog Designation Committee. The advisory committees that are supported by Legislative Services are the busiest and require more staff support. Legislative Services staff support for these committees ranges from 23.5 to 28 hours per meeting, which accounts for 15% of a Committee , or ± 0.20FTE from Legislative Services per committee. Of the advisory committees supported by Legislative Services theHeritage Kitchener and the Environmental Committee are believed to be the busiest. With the addition of staff support from the Planning Division (± 0.40 FTE for Heritage Kitchener and±0.20 FTE for the Environmental Committee) the total staff support for these two committees is ±0.60 FTE and ±0.40 FTE respectively.In comparison, Economic Development Staff devote approximately 16 hours of total staff time in a month to support the Economic Development Advisory Committee, which corresponds to ± 0.11 FTE. Heritage Kitchenermandate is quite broad and includes many statutory functions that include making decisions on Heritage Permit applications. The Heritage Committee also does work through subcommittees and participates in promotional events outside of the ±10 Heritage Kitchener meetings per year. These efforts are included in the 0.40 FTE calculations. Also noteworthy is that most of the agenda items are generated by Heritage Planning staff. 2 - 4 In contrast, The Economic Development primarily as a sounding board on topics of importance to the Kitchener business community. EDAC does provide feedback on project based work, some of which is generated by Economic Development (e.g. Make it Kitchener Strategy, Kitchener Market Strategy). It is also common to have EDAC agenda items generated by others (e.g. New Official Plan, CRoZBy, Neighbourhood Strategy). The 0.11 FTE calculations provided earlier exclude the staff time of other divisions. Impacts on the Timing of Projects Creating a new advisory Committee that is dedicated to planning and development projects would add to the scope of work of projects which often means that projects will take longer to complete. Itmight be possible to offset this impact if work through the new Planning and Development Advisory Committee were to replace a lot of the engagement that is already taking place (e.g. eliminate WRHBA Liaison Committee involvement and/or the involvement of other advisory committees and reduce industry stakeholder sessions). If work with a new advisory committee were added to the scope of major projects without eliminating any other forms of engagement, it is estimated that this would add approximately 6-8 weeks for each 12 months of scheduled project work. That is, a 12 month project would take 13.5 - 14 months to complete. Citizen-Industry Mix and Committee Size The composition of this advisory committee would be different than most in that it would be a hybrid of members who earn their livelihood dealing with the matters before the commWhile a variety of perspectives can be beneficial, disparities in technical knowledge present an uncertain and challenging dynamic. It will be a challenge to structure meetings in a way that obtains meaningful input from all members.Background information/explanations will be important to community members but are not likely to be valued by industry members who will want to focus on detailed technical matters and legal implications. It needs to be decided if it is expected that the committee members reach consensus. Reaching a consensus may be more challenging for this committee than is typical. Asking both groups to comment separately may in fact be more efficient. The deferred motion before Council does not specify the size or mix of the advisory committee. If Council proceeds with a hybrid committee it is suggested that industry and non-industry representation be equally weighted. Given that members are intended to represent the entire community, it is suggested that the committee comprise at least 12 members. Meeting times A decision will have to be made on when the committee would meet. Some advisory committees meet during office hours and others meet during the evening. Meeting 2 - 5 during the day can limit the pool of candidates, especially members of the community who work. Daytime meetings would also be more challenging to schedule given existing staff commitments and competition for suitable meeting rooms. EDAC minimizes impacts on staff time during the work day by having part of the meeting take place during lunch. EDAC incurs about $2,500 per year in meeting expenses which includes lunch. However, the cost of evening meetings would be higher because all staff who are part of a bargaining unit would qualify to be paid at an overtime rate. Most major Planning Division projects are led by staff who are part of a bargaining unit and their involvement is necessary in order for the committee to be effective. Other Considerations Many land use planning decisions have the potential to impact land values. As such it is possible that members from the development industry would feel compelled to declare pecuniary interests on a number of agenda items. Consultants who represent a diverse range of development interests are likely to be impacted the most. This constraint is not a factor in the ways that we currently engage the development industry. Although it is difficult to predict, staff do not think that forming a Planning and Development Advisory Committee will reduce the number of legal appeals, nor the number of delegations before standing committees and Council. Industry representatives will always reserve the right to defend their individual development interests or those of their clients, irrespective of comments expressed on behalf of a larger industry in a committee setting. Options Staff have developed the following options for Council to consider. For each option commentary is provided regarding potential implications. (1) Do nothing Do not create a new advisory committee and do not change the structure of any of the existing committees. Commentary: There would be no impacts. Staff would continue to engage the community and the development industry using the extensive approach previously outlined. Staff are comfortable with this option. (2) Create a new advisory committee with a comparable structure to existing advisory committees Committee members would be appointed by Council and there would be one or more -law and code of conduct (Policy I-05) would be in effect. 2 - 6 Commentary: As noted previously, it is unlikely that sufficient agenda materials and materials would begenerated to have 10 -12 meaningful meetings a year. A potential high rate of pecuniary interests on the part of development industry members may limit the pool of candidates or limit participation at meetings. It is possible that this committee would compete with some of the other advisory committees for members. The mix of citizen and development committee representatives would still need to be determined. If work with this committee is adding to the scope of projects without eliminating other forms of engagement, projects will take longer to complete. It is estimated that this would add approximately 6-8 weeks for each 12 months of scheduled project work. If the mandate were expanded somewhat in order to generate more agenda items, it is recommended that no final decision be taken until an issue paper has been prepared which identifies all of the costing considerations (e.g. additional staff). Legislative Services has already advised that they do not have any capacity to support another advisory committee. For all of the reasons mentioned above, staff do not support this option. (3) Create a new advisory committee that meets 3-4 times a year Option 3 is similar to Option 2, except the number of meetings would be reduced so that all meetings are meaningful. Commentary: Option 3 is an improvement over Option 2 in that unproductive meetings are eliminated thereby making better use of staff time, as well as the time of committee members. All of the other impacts and challenges associated with Option 2 would remain. It would be possible to offset the impacts on projects timelines and staff workload IF engagement through the Planning and Development Committee were to replace much of the engagement on project-based work that is currently being done. The offsetting -based work engagement with the WRHBA Liaison Committee and severely curtailing engagement with the other advisory committees. The Planning Division would be responsible for all staff support. Council would still and meeting times. Although this option is workable with the offsets described above, staff are of the opinion that input received from existing engagement methods is broader and more and valuable because it represents a broader cross section of the community and development industry participation is not constrained by potential pecuniary interests. Twelve committee members would not provide same breadth and depth of input now 2 - 7 taking place. Staff do not support any variation of this option where the impacts on projects timelines and staff workload are not offset as described above. (4) Invite ± 2 representatives of Council to attend ± 2WRHBA Liaison Committee meetings a year Commentary: The thinking behind Option 4 is to provide representatives of Council with the opportunity to hear industry perspectives directly in a different context and perhaps at a different stage of the project process. Industry representatives would continue to appear before standing committees and Council prior to decisions if individual development interests are impacted. Co-ordinating the Planning Division project-based work with the designated meetings presents a challenge but it should be possible to develop a workable model. If Council believes there is value in having a few Council representatives participate in designated WRHBA Liaison Committee meetings staff would have to do more work to sort out the logistics (of appointing representatives and how many) and report back. Other than the issues identified above, Option 4 avoids most of the other impacts and challenges associated with Options 2 and 3. (5) Increase the number of development industry representatives on other advisory committees. Commentary: The thinking behind Option 5 is to provide the development industry with more opportunity to provide input through the existing advisory committee system. This option would be the easiest to implement after Option 1 and major impacts associated with the other options would be avoided. However, there may be a challenge recruiting additional development industry representatives to fill these positons. If Council is interested in pursuing this option it is recommended that staff obtain more input from the stakeholders associated with other committees in order to understand all of the possible implications before a decision is made. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: The exploration of different advisory committee models supports the Strategic Plan Priority of Efficient and Effective Government. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with Option 1. The financial implications associated with the other options have yet to be quantified but only Option 2 is expected to have significant financial implications (e.g. additional staff resources). Most of the additional costs associated with the other options will be for staff time to sort out 2 - 8 logistical and transitional issues. Option 5 is expected to have the lowest financial implications after Option 1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM Thi council / committee meeting. CONSULT This matter was discussed at the WRHBA Kitchener Liaison Committee. These discussions were initiated by industry members. The general sentiment expressed by industry members of the Liaison Committee is that the current engagement model is working well. A letter on behalf of the .WRHBA further explains the CONCLUSION: In follow-ustaff developed and analysed five Planning and Development Advisory Committee options. All of the options except for Option 1 (do nothing) require additional follow up work and decision-making.The follow ups associated with Options 2 and 3 are more significant than those for Options 4 and 5. Staff are of the opinion that current engagement tools are working well and that varied opportunities are available to both the development industry and the community at large. Option 4, Option 3 and Option 2. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO (Community Services) - Planning Division Business Plan Projects 2015 2019 Summary of Official Plan Review Engagement Process Summary of PARTS Central engagement process Summary of CRoZBy engagement process to date Correspondence received from WRHBA date November 16, 2016 2 - 9 Appendix City of Kitchener Planning Division Business Plan Projects 2015 2019 Project20152016201720182019 PARTS Central StationsRT Station Complete Area Plan Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhood(RIENS) PARTS Midtown RT Station Area Plan PARTS Rockway RT Station Area Plan Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CRoZBy) Development Incentives for Affordable Housing Phase2 Community Energy Investment Strategy Hidden Valley Land Use Study Cultural Heritage Land Landscape Strategy Phase 2 Urban Design Manual Growth Management Strategy Review Lower Doon Land Use Review Homer Watson / Conestoga College City Node Master Plan PARTS Fairway Station Area Plan Incentives for Design / Architectural Innovation and Excellence 2 - 10 Appendix Summary of Official Plan Review Engagement Process 1. Committee/Council Meetings Official (statutory) public meeting PSI Committee March 8, 2010 1st Draft PSI Committee June 20, 2011 Update PSI Committee - November 7, 2011 2nd Draft PSI Committee June 10, 2013 Council Strategy Sessions August 12, 2013 and August 26, 2013 Official (statutory) public meeting PSI Committee March 17, 2014 PSI Committee June 9, 2014 Council June 30, 2014 2. Advisory Committees Heritage Kitchener March 8, 2011 Downtown Advisory Committee March 10, 2011 Public Art Working Group March 14, 2011 Arts and Culture Advisory Committee March 15, 2011 Economic Development Advisory Committee March 23, 2011 Environmental Advisory Committee March 24, 2011 Compass Kitchener April 6, 2011 Cycling Advisory Committee April 12, 2011 Safe and Healthy Community Advisory Committee May 5, 2011 Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee May 26, 2011 Joint Citizen Committee November 2, 2013 3. Circulation of First Draft to Advisory Committees July 7, 2011 4. or Subcommittee August 19, 2011,October 7, 2011,December 19, 2013,February 21, 2014 5. Open Houses Public Open Houses - September 23 and 24, 2013 DevelopmentIndustry Session - October 11, 2013 6. Newsletters(4) February 2011, June 2011, April 2013, February 2014 7. 23Meetings with Consultants/Property Owners after 3rd draft 8. 8 Meetings with Consultants/Property Owners re: final draft to Committee 9. Dedicated webpage, social media (Twitter) 10. Other Newspaper ads, posters in Community Centers, portable signsfor open houses, 200 persons/agencies/groups on contact list,information kiosks, approx. 1,300 comments 11. Master Plans and Studies that Provided Input into Official Plan CREL, CRIA, Natural Heritage Study, Transportation Master Plan, Etc . Each involving its own public consultation/engagement process 2 - 11 Appendix Summary of PARTS Central Engagement Process 1. Public Information Meetings November 19, 2014 20 persons signed in May 26, 2015 41 persons signed in December 9, 2015 51 persons signed in 2. 2014 Stakeholder Interviews 12 meetings - December 9 and 10, 2014 3. Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance Annual General Meeting May 23, 2015 4. 2015 Stakeholder Interviews 7 meetings June 9 and 10, 2015 5. Schneider Creek Porch Party July 2015 6. Site Walk with Schneider Creek Neighbourhood October 6, 2015 7. Christkindl Market display (with rendering and pamphlet) - 2015 8. Downtown Action and Advisory Committee April 28, 2016 9. Committee/Council Meetings CSI Committee September 8, 2014 PSI Committee May 9, 2016, Council approval May 16, 2016 10. Meetings with Consultants/Property Owners before final draft to Committee 5 meetings ± April 2016 11. 12. Dedicated webpage, social media (Twitter) 13. Other Newspaper ads in the Citizen, Post and Record 195 persons/agencies on Contact List including Neighbourhood Associations Approx. 250 comments Excludes PARTS Phase 1 and Phase 2 Community Engagement for system-wide components which preceded PARTS Central project 2 - 12 Appendix Summary of CRoZBy Engagement Process to date The project is still in progress (± 50% complete) 1. Open Houses (6) June 10, 2014 - Forest Height CC drop-in only June 11, 2014 - Stanley Park CC drop-in only May 13, 2014 - City Hall, Presentation, Q & A + drop-in (169 attendees) May 14, 2014 - City Hall, Presentation, Q & A + drop-in (107attendees) June 22, 2016 - City Hall, Presentation, Q & A + drop-in (37attendees) June 28, 2016 - City Hall, Presentation, Q & A + drop-in (20attendees) 2. Committee/Council Meetings (3) PSI Committee - May 12, 2014 PSI Committee - March 30, 2015 PSI Committee - May 30, 2016 3. Stakeholder Interviews (21) June- August 2014 Project Launch (11 Interviews) May- June 2015 Component A (8 Interviews) June- August 2016 Component B (2 interviews) 4.Property Owner Meetings (18) May-June 2015 Component A (14 meetings) October 2016 Component A (4 on-site meetings) 5. Stakeholder Information Sessions (5) June 2016 6. Advisory Committee / BIA Meetings (5) Economic Development Advisory Committee -June 22, 2016 Downtown Action Advisory Committee - June 23, 2016 Downtown Kitchener BIA - June 23, 2016 Downtown Action Advisory Committee - September 22, 2016 Economic Development Advisory Committee September 28, 2016 7. Written Correspondence written correspondence sent 3,059 letters as of November 2016 written correspondence received - 1,034 submissions as of November 2016 8.(3) Meeting held/attended March 2015,July 2016 and September 2016 9. Other 6 Newspaper Advertisements 1 Newsletter Brochures displayed in all community centres Presentation to KW Realtors Association August 2015 261Telephone and email follow-ups with individual property owners 9 one-on-one meetings with councillors Dedicated webpage & social media 2 - 13 2 - 14 2 - 15