Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-07-100 - Proposed Modifications to Draft Approved Plans of Subdivisionii ID ~_ ~... .~ REPORT Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: June 18, 2007 Submitted By: Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning 519-741-2325 Prepared By: Andrew Pinnell, Planner 519-741-2668 Ward(s) Involved: All Date of Report: June 1, 2007 Report No.: DTS-07-100 Subject: Proposed Modifications to Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Planning staff be directed to modify the draft approved plans of subdivision outlined in Appendix A of Development and Technical Services Report DTS-07-100 where and in a manner deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning, to include updated and/or revised draft approval conditions forthe provision of sidewalks, to require on-street parking plans, to update environmental clauses, and to provide conditions for landowners to proceed independently of one other. These modifications should be implemented at such time as: a. a landowner submits a written request to the City to modify their draft approved plan of subdivision, or b. City staff deem it appropriate and/or necessary to initiate a proposed modification to a draft approved plan of subdivision. 2. That Planning staff be directed to notify the landowners of the draft approved plans of the City's intention to modify the draft approved plans of subdivision outlined in Appendix A of Development and Technical Services Report DTS-07-100. BACKGROUND: In November 2005, City Council responded to community concerns over certain previously approved draft plans of subdivision that do not contain conditions of draft approval that are now considered standard in all draft approved plans and/or do contain conditions of draft approval that may be outdated or incomplete. Consequently, Council approved staff's recommendation (Staff Report DTS-05-191, attached) to consult with the landowners of draft approved plans of subdivision (Landowners) and the Waterloo Region Home Builders' Liaison Committee (Home Builders) to obtain their input with respect to modifying draft approved plans of subdivision by updating and including revised conditions to deal with: 1. the provision of sidewalks on both sides of streets in residential communities; 2. the provision of on street parking plans; 3. environmental/tree saving/tree management requirements; and, where appropriate and necessary, 4. conditions related to servicing to allow adjacent developers to proceed independently of one another Planning staff met with the Home Builders on May 19, 2006, and with the Landowners on September 11, 2006 in order to present an overview of and to gather input with respect to the City's proposal to modify certain draft plans. Selected major themes arising from these meeting discussions are discussed in the report section below, while a consolidated list of all comments received is attached as Appendix B. REPORT: Although the City does not make a practice of initiating modifications to draft approved plans, the City does modify certain plans in response to subdivider applications, where appropriate and necessary. The City does have the authority to modify the conditions of draft approval at any time before final approval (i.e., plan registration), as per Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act. The draft approved plans of subdivision that are proposed to be modified are listed in the attached Appendix A of this report. A bold "X" indicates the conditions of draft approval requiring updating to reflect current standards. Proposed Sidewalk Clause Modification The City's current sidewalk policy requires that sidewalks be provided on both sides of streets, except within business parks and industrial areas. This requirement helps implement the City's recently adopted Pedestrian Charter in which the City states that it seeks to uphold the right of pedestrians of all ages and abilities to safe, convenient, direct and comfortable walking conditions and to provide a walking environment within the public right-of-way that encourages people to walk. Council has required sidewalks on both sides of most streets so to encourage and support walkability within the City. Staff advise that certain plans do not contain the standard condition of draft approval requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street. This condition was not included because the plans were approved before pedestrian policies were effected. Example Comments of Home Builders I Landowners Regarding Proposed Sidewalk Clause Modification (for a full list of comments see Appendix B~ ^ Concern was raised that there is no proof that providing sidewalks on both sides of streets will mean that people will choose to walk more often ^ There appears to be a double standard with respect to this requirement, as sidewalks are not required on both sides of the street in business parks and industrial areas ^ Consumer choice was raised as an issue because some home buyers intentionally choose houses without sidewalks in front in orderto accommodate tandem parking Staff advise that the intent of this proposed modification is not to limit consumer choice but rather to increase transportation alternatives by encouraging pedestrian activity. The City strives to promote alternative forms of transportation, including walking, with the intent that people will use sidewalks if they are accessible. Further consideration was given to requiring sidewalks in industrial areas and business parks at the April 23, 2007 DTS Committee (Report DTS-07-071). If these draft approved residential plans are not updated to reflect the standard 2 requirement, the pedestrian network would be compromised and the City would have to install sidewalks at the taxpayer's expense at a later date. In addition, the Province's Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe speaks to pedestrian friendly development: "The transportation system within the Greater Golden Horseshoe will be planned and managed to offer a balance of transportation choices that reduces reliance upon any single mode and promotes transit, cycling, and walking (3.2.2.)." Staff propose, where it is deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning, that the current sidewalk draft approval condition be applied to the subdivision plans as identified in AppendixA of this report. The subdivision plans marked with a bold "X" would be modified to include the following condition prior to servicing. "The SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that sidewalks are required to be constructed on both sides of all streets within the subdivision in accordance with the CITY'S Sidewalk Location Policies." Proposed On-street Parking Plan Clause Modification Due to concerns/issues with limited on-street parking related to small lots, and driveway locations and widths, City staff have recently started requiring on-street parking plans as a condition of draft approval. A policy was adopted by Council on April 30, 2007 that requires subdividers to submit an on-street parking plan for all lots or blocks within the plan intended for street-fronting residential development. The plan must demonstrate how the subdivider intends to provide on-street parking at a ratio of one parallel on-street parking space for every two residential houses. The main consideration of this modification is to accommodate vehicle parking in appropriate locations and numbers within the subdivision, especially for visitors. Example Comments of Home Builders 1 Landowners Regarding Proposed On-street Parkin Plan Modification (for a full list of comments see Appendix B~ ^ Requiring the completion of a parking plan after the lot fabric has been approved could result in significant changes to the overall design and layout of the plan of subdivision. These changes may result in reduced unit counts and the density of residential development ^ Innovative alternatives to on-street parking should be considered, for instance: passing by-laws requiring garages to be legal parking spaces, developing municipal lots within subdivisions, encouraging developers to provide storage sheds so that garages can be used for cars and not other materials, changing front setbacks to allow more parking in front of buildings ^ The proposed clause seems to conflict with the proposed sidewalk clause: the on-street parking plan clause adds cars, while the sidewalk clause encourages alternate transportation. It does not make sense to promote walkability yet increase parking The purpose of the on-street parking plan is not to encourage the use of the automobile, but to accommodate visitor parking demand within subdivisions that otherwise could cause parking or traffic problems. The policy is flexible enough to provide the developerwith anumber of alternatives. Staff propose, where it is deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning, that the following condition of draft approval be applied to the plans identified in AppendixA of this report. "Prior to servicing, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to provide an on-street parking and driveway location plan forthe subject lands showing a minimum of 1 on-street parking space for every 2 3 dwelling units, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Transportation Planning, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning." Proposed Modifications to Environmental Clauses Staff have identified a number of draft plans that contain environmental 1 tree management / tree saving clauses which are outdated and no longer appropriate. For example, one draft approved plan only contains tree saving measures in areas subject to easements, others contain wording which is not clear. Example Comments of Home Builders I Landowners Regarding Proposed Environmental Clause Modification (for a full list of comments see Appendix B) ^ Concern over the fact that if a new environmental report is required to be prepared, that this could take much time and money to complete ^ This could have a significant effect on the design of a plan including the potential loss of developable area ^ This proposed modification should consider each plan individually and should not be a blanket to all plans Staff agree that this modification should not be a blanket clause for the draft plans identified in Appendix A since in each case the environmental situations and clauses included (or not included) in the agreement differ. The wording for the modifications would be tuned specifically to each plan that requires updating. The modified conditions would reflect the uniqueness of each draft plan of subdivision. In order to best protect and improve the natural environment, staff propose that the subdivision plans identified in AppendixA as requiring modifications to their environmental conditions of draft approval, be modified as deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning. Proposed Modifications to Servicing Clauses Staff have noted that there are certain cases in which a landowner may be prepared to proceed with development of a subdivision ~"upstream developer"), except for certain servicing limitations. These limitations are due to an adjacent landowner ~"downstream developer"), who is not prepared or willing to proceed, and through whose land the former landowner requires services. This situation creates problems forthe city and the upstream developer because development of the subdivision may not be able to occur in a timely manner. In order to resolve this issue, the City has, in recent years, required a condition of draft approval, which allows one developer to proceed independently of another. This gives the upstream developer choices - they may pay more to proceed on their own timing, or wait and pay only their share. Example Comments of Home Builders I Landowners Regarding Proposed Servicing Clause Modification (for a full list of comments see Appendix B~ ^ Concern was raised that the downstream developer cannot make changes after servicing ^ This clause should not be a blanket clause because it will affect mortgaging. The City should gain a good understanding of financing realities ^ A method must be determined to ensure that both upstream and downstream developers pay their share for servicing While it is true that the downstream developer may not be able to feasibly make changes to their plan after servicing takes place through their lands, they could receive servicing at no cost 4 to themselves. The City seeks fairness in allowing developers to proceed within reasonable timeframes and it should be to the downstream developer's benefit forthe City to require servicing easement conditions. The downstream developer mustweigh the benefit of receiving free servicing against the potential loss of choices in the servicing design of the subdivision. While the City strives to ensure objectivity in the provision of servicing to subdivisions, the City does not involve itself in cost sharing negotiations 1 mediation related to the provision of services between developers. These discussions and agreements are to be worked out between the developers themselves. Through this initiative, staff have identified one draft plan that requires a servicing clause. If this plan is not modified to include the proposed clause, another plan may be placed on hold for months, years, or indefinitely, which may prevent the efficient development of the city and may hinder the City's objective to maintain an adequate level of housing forthe future. Consequently, staff propose that the following condition of draft approval be applied to the plan identified in Appendix A of this report: "Prior to the registration of the first stage of the plan, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to provide an easement(s) to the CITY, for the purpose of providing servicing to adjacent lands, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering in consultation with the consulting engineer for the SUBDIVIDER. The deed for the easement(s) shall be provided in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor." Considerations For All Plans Requiring Modifications Staff recommend that the proposed modifications be applied on an individual (i.e. plan-by-plan) basis and that staff be given flexibility whether or not to modify certain plans outlined in Appendix A, for the purpose of: 1. allowing slight alterations to the proposed clauses in order to suit the needs of each draft plan, as each plan has its own characteristics, and 2. allowing a draft plan to not be modified if further research reveals that a modification is not appropriate or necessary. The recommendation contained within this report is that "Planning staff be directed to modify the draft approved plans of subdivision outlined in AppendixA of this report, where and in a manner deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning..." in order to allow for this flexibility. In addition, Staff advise that certain Landowner concerns with the proposed modifications may be able to be resolved or diminished at such time as the City would modify a plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct capital costs for the City are associated with this proposed initiative. If plans are not modified to require sidewalks on both sides, the City may eventually need to pay to install sidewalks at the taxpayer's cost. COMMUNICATIONS: City staff met with the Waterloo Region Home Builders' Liaison Committee on May 19, 2006, and with the Landowners of draft approved plans of subdivision on September 11, 2006 and presented an overview of the proposed changes and gathered input with respect to the City's proposal to modify certain draft plans. The written and verbal feedback received from both groups is consolidated within a list of comments attached as Appendix B. A copy of this report 5 will be sent to all affected parties prior to the June 18, 2007 Development and Technical Services Meeting. CONCLUSION: In general, the Home Builders and Landowners expressed concern over the proposed modifications and their effect on the plans outlined in Appendix A. After considering these comments; however, Planning staff remain convinced that modifying the plans outlined in Appendix A is the best option especially given the public interest as it relates to appropriate and orderly subdivision development. Consequently, Planning staff recommend approval of the proposed modifications. Andrew Pinnell, BES Planner Atta~hmPnts• Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning ^ AppendixA-Considerations for Modifications to Draft Approved Plans ^ Appendix B -Consolidated List of Comments Home Builders and Landowners comments) ^ Staff Report DTS-05-191 ^ Draft Approved Plans Outlined in Appendix A 6 Z Q J a 0 w O a a a a 0 0 z 0 a U D O O z O a w 0 z 0 U Q X D Z W a a a N 3 t~ V ~ X X X X X X X X 3 as ._ ~ ~ ~~ _ 0 N ~ N ~ 0 '- C 3 X X X X X X y 0 L ~ ' ~ v = a W s ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ._ ~ y ._ ~ _ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~, ~ x x x x x x x x x x x x x ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ cn a c = o = ~ ~ ~ o ~~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ,_ ~ ~ N ,; X Q i ~ ~ L ~ 3 N , ~ V ~ ~/ v/ L ._ (~ S ~_ i N N N _ t~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ± W > . _> U N (n Z ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ > '~ ~ +, ~ ~ N > ~ Z ( Z ~ > Q = ~ ~ O ~ p >, ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ n ~ ~ '_ _ 0 N °~S ZN 0 N m o~ ~ •~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ C ' C ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ N o 2 °~ ~ ~ p c~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ p °~ ~ ~S ~ _ '1 ~ ~ ~ m ~ - ~ r ~ N ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ L C ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ C ~+ ~ ~+ v O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ = ,~ N ._ N t~ J m ~ m = N ~ U J U J = ~ ~ = y = ,_ O ~ ,~ O ~ ~ N .. ~ O ~ O ~ O O ~ O ,,,, ~ O p ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O }' ~ ~ .. W 0 ~ W ~ 0 ~ W W W ~ W W W V ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '_ 'i ._ ~ C ~ ~ x c~ ~ ~ ' CO c~ N ~ ~ 07 O f` ~ ~ CO ~ ~ ~ N N y ~+ (~ (~ ~ ~ O O ~ O O N O ~ O O O = ~ '- X > 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON O N N N Q ~ V , ~ '- CO ao I` 00 00 0o a0 ao ~ rn N w N ~ M rn ~ rn ~ N rn o f` w 00 rn ~ o c~ o .. .. ~ 0 0 v,a 0 ~, 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ z z Appendix B -Consolidated List of Comments (Home Builder and Landowner Comments) 1. Proposed Sidewalk Clause Comments. • In Waterloo, it's considered negative aesthetics to have sidewalks on cul-de-sacs •3 There is a potential conflict between sidewalk clause and on-street parking from a functional point of view • When sidewalks are needed most, such as during the winter months, they are usually not accessible due to snow and ice not being cleared • More sidewalks does not mean that people will actually use them •3 Residents often choose a lotwith no sidewalks to allow for tandem parking •3 This modification would result in additional expenses for the developer not originally budgeted • Although sidewalks on both sides of the street would be located within the street right- of way, the addition of a second sidewalk may impact the lot layout and relationship to the street • A sidewalk modification may result in intermittent sidewalks • This modification is a double standard, as it is not proposed to pertain to business parks (i.e. Bingemans Centre Drive & ShirleyAve}. Sidewalks are not required in business parks and perhaps they should be • Potential issues with snow removal if sidewalks are made closer to the curb •3 This modification be made on a case by case basis •3 The City should be looking at installing bike lanes instead of requiring a second sidewalk on streets • This modification would impact parking and if there is not much traffic on street, why is it an issue? • Consistency should be required when implementing this modification • There is no proof that people will walk more if there are sidewalks on both sides of the street; people will still use their cars • This clause should not be required on cul-de-sacs, as people will walk down the road instead • It does not make sense to require double sidewalks on a cul-de-sac in a development where no other sidewalks exist. It is questionable as to whether double sidewalks will encourage walking and how much positive effect they might have. Questions: • When did Council Policy I-1120 (sidewalk policy) come into effect and was there a public process for this? • Would this clause applytosmall streets and cul-de-sacs? • Are bike racks, as required through site plan control, actually used/effective? • Will consideration be given on a site by site basis or across the board? • How will new plans be integrated within existing neighbourhoods? 2. Proposed On-Street Parking Plan Clause Comments. • It may be difficult to manage this proposed modification because it may affect the design of the subdivision • Required on-street parking after draft approval may limit the variety of lot sizes in the subdivision • Without the provision of on-street parking, driveway widening will become more prevalent ~:• There are aesthetic concerns associated with on-street parking ~:• The average household owns 2 or more cars and driveways are too small, which increases driveway widths and leads to more cars on the street ~:• It is impossible to comply with Transportation Planning's target for on-street parking for lots 34 feet in width or less • Flexibility must be expected in applying this modification, strict application will not work • Concerns with garbage pickup; conflict with on-street parking leads to congestion • After utility and service requirements, there is not much space left for on-street parking • The City should create criteria that can be negotiated with respect to this proposed modification ~:• Concern was raised over whether this modification was reasonable for lotted plans as opposed to lotless blocks ~:• Managing driveway ramps and curb cuts may help to provide more on-street parking ~:• This clause seems to conflict with the proposed sidewalk clause: on-street parking plan clause adds cars, while sidewalk clause encourages alternate transportation. It does not make sense to promote walkability yet increase parking ~:• Perhaps there should be accommodation for small and/or fuel efficient cars (e.g. less parking area required, bonus for fuel efficient cars} ~:• Perhaps the whole front yard should be paved if that's what the home buyers are doing, contrary to the by-law. It is questionable as to whether City Enforcement would be able to keep up, as they have trouble now with other issues • In North Dumfries, developers provided storage sheds for home owners to store belongings so that the garage could be used for vehicles and to encourage this practice • There is a problem with people using their garages for items other than cars. Perhaps the City needs to look at this issue and take this into consideration in its policies • Perhaps a City by-law could be passed to forbid certain items from being stored in garages ~:• If we do not provide on-street parking, people will be forced to use their garages ~:• The larger the house, the more likely people are to "pack-rat" ~:• The first step should be to get homeowners to use the garages they have for parking • We can prove that parking works, but it is not always convenient relative to location. (i.e. townhouse parking further down the street sometimes causes an annoyance to other home owners) • A consultant commented that he had considered other parking alternatives with the City, but that the City did not favour these alternatives when presented with them in the past: o Parking in centre-island of cul-de-sacs -although this is a great place for kids to play (e.g. street hockey}, this was not liked because City staff apparently advised that this area is needed forsnow piling o Private /municipal parking lot for subdivisions -people would walk to the parking lot to get to their car. Apparently, the City was concerned about maintenance snow removal. The consultant who raised this point also advised that for a townhouse development, the parking is permitted by the City to be provided further away from the units, where people must walk to their cars • This is not so much an issue of modifying conditions, but rather coming up with guidelines that have value • Why the need for on-street parking when we are trying to promote walkability. Why not spend the money on something like bike lanes? Why create additional expenses for developers? • We do not see these parking problems in older neighbourhoods, often with no garages • Wider streets with lots of asphalt for parking is not very appealing • If more parking is created, then people will just fill it up. Driveways will end up being used for derelict vehicles, boats and campers • A suggestion was made to change front setbacks to increase driveway parking and keep cars off the streets • Perhaps some of the front yard could be used for additional parking • Comment made that small lots are not permitted to have double garages and street parking is also minimized with smaller lots • Parking plans will encourage developers to better plan for a mix of housing types and lot sizes • Concerns with costs and delays • Comment made that if overnight parking is not allowed for a good portion of the year (due to snow clearing), what is the point? • Perhaps a Regional Representative should be invited to a future meeting to receive input • What will the creation of a parking plan accomplish in a subdivision composed of all large lots? Casual observation will showthe abundance of available parking in these instances • To require the completion of a parking plan after the lot fabric has been approved could result in significant changes to the overall design and layout of the plan of subdivision. These changes may result in reduced unit counts and the density of residential development Questions/ suggestions: • A consultant asked if parking plans are required for large lots over 12 metres wide and whether this was redundant • Is there any consideration regarding new types of vehicles being introduced into the market, such as Smart Cars, and how this could impact parking requirements in the future • A consultant wondered if any current parking plans seem to be helping • A consultant questioned if there was a minimum percentage of front yard that has to be landscaped and whether some of the front yard could be used for additional parking. • A consultant questioned if there would be zoning by-law conflicts • What happens with plans currently underway? Will there be some kind of grandfathering of the policy? 3. Proposed Environmental Clause Comments. • Developers and the City should collaborate and discuss before making an environmental modification and review each circumstance, individually • The Planning Act has always allowed the approval authority to withdraw draft approval or change the conditions of draft approval; on more recent applications the changed conditions are appealable by any person. It is very rare that the City would modify a draft approved plan • Perhaps this proposed modification is not minor because it could have a significant effect on the design of a plan • Concern over the fact that if a new environmental report is required to be prepared, that this could take much time to complete • This proposed modification should consider each plan individually and should not be a blanket to all plans • Objection was raised against this proposed modification due to: 1 }increased cost for the developer for additional environmental work; and 2} potential loss of developable area, even though the area was previously approved by the City and rezoned for residential development Questions: • A consultant asked as to whether a new environmental report would have to be completed where the City determines that further environmental clauses be applied. • Do tree management clauses need to be updated on plans now being registered and if so, why? • A consultant asked for confirmation on whethertree management plans and environmental studies would need to be updated prior to registration 4. Servicing Clause Comments. • A method must be determined to ensure that both up-stream and down-stream developers pay their share for servicing • Easements have been available for up-stream developers and have yielded positive results • This clause should not be a blanket clause because it will affect mortgaging • There is a need to amend or delete the standard portion of the agreement providing the City the authority to install services and charge back to the developer should the easement condition prevail if the servicing is for the purpose of facilitating the upstream subdivider's timing • Servicing charges need to be approved by the City as policies are in place to require cost sharing • The City should gain a good understanding of financing realities and the policy needs to be clear cut • This clause is a "tool" for up-stream developers to proceed • Concern was raised that the downstream developer cannot make changes after servicing • A commentwas made by a consultant that he wishes obtain an easement over another developer's lands which was not included in the "Considerations for Modification to Draft Approved Plans" chart (part of Report DTS-05-191 } • The City should be careful about how the City proceeds with involvement between two developers • One consultant is supportive of permitting development to proceed exclusive of the status of adjacent properties, as long as appropriate legal considerations are included, but objection to the modification of existing draft approved plans to include such considerations • Comments were stated pertaining to the need to determine methods that ensure that both up-stream and down-stream developers pay their share for servicing Questions: • A landowner asked as to whether the proposed easement would be provided along the proposed roads of the upstream developer 5. General Remarks Comments. • Draft approval is a "promise" that the subdividers can develop in a certain way. The City must be careful when proposing modifications because the owner may lose significantly for not being able to develop as intended • There is a problem with the amount of time it takes to get a plan approved. It sometimes takes years from beginning to end. In the meantime, requirements change and developers are then forced to start overwith modifications • A general comment was made pertaining to all proposed modifications that they may not be reasonable if the subdivision has proceeded to far • Several of the developers had plans awaiting registration and stated that it would be a hardship to have to modify their plans if close to the end of the process • Not supportive of proposed modifications because they will result in a number of potential development and financial implications forthe developer • The opening up of draft approved plans of subdivision sets a bad precedent, given the effort, time, and expense that each land holder must apply to every parcel of land to obtain this approval in the first place. The lead time to development is so extreme that plans must be sought earlier ratherthan laterto ensure that when the time is right to install the development, the planning process has reached completion • This whole review process is a misallocation of resources, which would be properly applied to the approval process, rather than the undoing of past approvals • Very little data exists to give these new rules reason to exist at all, aside from retroactively • There are a number of timing and resource implications that may arise as a result of modifications to existing draft approved plans (e.g. those plans that were originally approved by the OMB, such as Lyndale Estates (30T-97015), require that further modifications be approved by the Board. Previous experience shows that such approvals can be a very lengthy process}. • A fundamental principle of the Ontario planning process must be considered in this exercise; these plans were designed and approved having regard to the regulations, policies, guidelines and values of the day. The City must be careful and fair in evaluating when it should alter the prior approvals to introduce new approaches which in the end may not necessarily create a "better" neighbourhood Questions: • A consultant asked what the timing was for the proposed modifications • A consultant asked how soon the City would act on the proposed modifications • A consultant asked to be kept informed on timing and implementation • Is the City to contemplate such modifications to draft approval in plans where a portion of the plan has already been registered and only a few stages remain? ii ID ~_ ~... .~ REPORT Report To: Development and Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: November 21, 2005 Submitted By: Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning 741-2325 Prepared By: Tina Malone-Wright, Senior Planner 741-2765 Ward(s) Involved: All Date of Report: November 14, 2005 Report No.: DTS-05-191 Subject: Proposed Modifications to Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Staff be directed to consult with the owners of land subject of draft approved plans of subdivision and to consult with the Waterloo Region Homebuilders Liaison Committee to obtain their input with respect to modifying draft approved plans of subdivision to update and include revised conditions to deal with the provision of sidewalks, the provision of on-street parking plans, environmental/tree saving/tree management requirements, and where appropriate and necessary, conditions to allow developers to proceed independently of one another. That once the input on the proposal for modifications is received, Planning Staff report back to Development and Technical Services Committee and advise of the input and obtain direction with respect to proceeding with modifications to draft approved plans of subdivision. BACKGROUND: Given the recent discussions at Council regarding the issues of sidewalks and on-street parking where small lots are predominant, all new draft plan approvals require sidewalks on both sides of the streets and developers are now required to provide an on-street parking plan to ensure adequate separation between driveways to maximize the amount of on-street parking. Planning staff have noted that there are a few draft plans which contain tree management/tree saving clauses which are outdated and not appropriate. Planning and Engineering staff have also been working with a growing number developers in resolving conflicts as they relate to the provision of municipal services. Historically, conditions have not always been imposed to allow one developer to proceed independently of another developer at such time as they are ready to proceed. In recent years, the City has begun implementing an easement requirement on new plan approvals. However currently, there are a few plans where if one developer does not proceed with construction, this can hold up another developerfor months, years, or indefinitely. REPORT: Planning staff propose that all draft approved plans of subdivision should be brought up to current standards as they relate to the provision of sidewalks, environmental/tree saving/tree management clauses, the requirement for an on-street parking plan, and where appropriate and necessary, conditions to allow developers to proceed independently of one another. Sidewalk Clauses The draft approved plans of subdivision would be modified to reflect the City's current sidewalk policy to require sidewalks on both sides of all City streets, except in industrial subdivisions. On-Street Parking Plan Requirement Given the recent issues with limited on-street parking related to small lots, and driveway locations and widths, recently Planning Staff have begun requiring on-street parking plans as a condition of subdivision draft approval. With all new draft approved plans of subdivision the developer is required to provide an on-street parking plan to show the location of parking on the street so that City staff can ensure the parking is provided in appropriate locations and numbers. All previously draft approved plans of subdivision would be modified to now include a condition to require an on-street parking plan. Environmental Clauses Some of the old draft approved plans contain environmentalltree managementltree saving clauses which are out dated and no longer appropriate. For example, one of the draft approved plan only contains tree saving measures in areas subject to easements, another draft approved plan contains wording which is 18 years old and not clear. For the majority of the draft approved plans, environmental clauses are included in the draft approval however the clauses are in an old format and should be updated to reflect current requirements. Servicing Clauses The purpose of these modifications would be to allow one landowner to proceed with the development of their draft plan without having to rely on the adjacent landowner to proceed first. Where appropriate, staff would propose that landowners that have plans which could have the potential of holding up one developer should they not wish to proceed right away, would be required to provide an easement to the City. Consequently, the developer wishing to proceed in advance of the development of adjacent plan, could install the necessary servicing at their cost in the easement and proceed with their development without having to rely the timing of another developer. For example, these types of conditions were contained in the Lyndale draft approved plan of subdivision, 3oT-97015, to allow the adjacent landowner, Schmidhuber, the opportunity to proceed with the development of their lands should Stage 3 of Lyndale not proceed in a timely manner. The draft approved plans which would require a modification to include or update either the sidewalk provisions, the provision of on-street parking plans, environmental clauses, or servicing clauses are shown in the attached Appendix `A'. A bold "X" indicates which clauses are outdated or not included in the current draft approval. 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There will be staff time spent in consulting with the landowners of draft approved plans of subdivision and the Homebuilders. If at a future point in time Development and Technical Services Committee directs staff to proceed with the modifications, there will be staff time spent in the preparation and approval of the modifications. Some of these modifications to the conditions can be done at the same time as developer initiated modifications but others will have to be City initiated. No direct capital costs for the City. If plans are not modified to require sidewalks on both sides, the City may eventually need to pay to install sidewalks at the taxpayer's cost. COMMUNICATIONS: Notice of the City's proposal to modify draft approved plans of subdivision will be provided to all landowners of draft approved plans of subdivision and to the Homebuilders Association for their input. CONCLUSION: Given the public interest as it relates to appropriate and orderly subdivision development, Planning staff feel it is appropriate to review previously draft approved plans of subdivision in relation to the current policies and practices with respect to sidewalks, environmental/tree management/tree saving clauses, provision of on-street parking, and if possible to resolve developer conflicts relative to timing of servicing. Planning staff will consult with the affected landowners and the Homebuilders' Association and report back to this Committee with the results and recommendations. Tina Malone-Wright, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Attachments: Summary of Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 3