Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-015 - Draft Regional Official Plan 2029l KIT R Development & Technical Services REPORT Report To: Mayor and Members of Council Date of Meeting: ~ January 25, 2009 Submitted By: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning X519-741w2319~ Prepared By: Brandon Moan, Senior Planner X519-741.2E48~ Tina Malone-IlUright, Senior Planner X519.741-2755} ward~s~ Involved: All vVards Date o Report: .January 21, 2009 Report No.: DTS-09-015 Subject: Draft Regional ~]fficial Plan 2029 REC4MMENDATl~1N: THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be.requested to address the comments and concerns regarding the First Draft of the Regional official Plan 2D29, outlined in Report DTa-Q9-0~5. BACKGROUND: The Regional Municipality of vllaterloo is updating its Gfficial Plan as required by the Planning acl. The Region has invited the City of Kitchener and other stakeholders to provide comments by January 31, 2049. REPORT: Context and Overview of the Process The current Regional Official Policies Plan ~RaPP} was originally approved on November 23, 1995 and has since been amended 29 times, The PlanningAcirequres that all official Plans be updated at least every 5 years and all official Plans in the Greater Golden Horseshoe must conform to the Places to Grow Growfn Plan by June 1Q, 2009. City of Kitchener staff have participated in the Region's ~Jfficial Plan review process starting with general discussions in 2005 and more formally through the RaP Municipal Illlorking Group that was formed in the fail of 2007, Alain Pinard is Kitchener's primary representative on the RAP Municipal Vvorking Group. Several other staff Pram the Planning Division have attended meetings and provided comments as well. The first complete draft of the Regional Official Plan was released to the public in September 2008. Since that time the RQP Municipal 'working Group has continued to meet to discuss areas of concerns and supplementary meetings have been held that involve the CAGs and other senior municipal officials in the Region. Rod Horne and Kevin Curtis of the Region appeared before DTS Committee on November 17, 2DD8 to give an overview of the Draft Regional Official Plan ~D~Q Draft ROP 209}, DTS Committee was also provided with a copy of Regional Report P-D8-D93 that summarizes the document and process. A copy of Report P-08-D93 is attached as Appendix "A" for reference purposes. The Planning Division coordinated Kitchener's internal review process. The Draft Regional Official Plan ~D29 was distributed to all interested Kitchener staff who were also asked to provide comments. A "round table" meeting of Kitchener staff was held to clarify items, prompt comments and share thoughts on the Draft ROP 249. Approximately ~D staff from Planning, Engineering, Transportation Planning and Economic Development attended the round table meeting. The Region of vllaterloo is holding a public meeting in Kitchener on vllednesday, January 28, ~oo~, The Region plans to adopt a new Regional Official Plan by June ~DD9. General Comments and Concerns The Draft ROP ~DZ9 includes many positive elements The overall vision of creating more compact urban communities that have more transportation choices, including a new Rapid Transit System, is consistent with. Kitchener's growth management initiatives and is wholeheartedly supported, Overall, the document promotes a more mixed use, livable and environmentally~responsible region which would strengthen our ability to adapt to a changing energy market A large portion of the document is based on seven transit-oriented development ~TOD~ principles. vlle support the shift in approach by the Region to adopt these guiding principles. Uve do note that many of the principles are typically achieved through City~level initiatives and that the Major Transit Station Area Pilot Project includes 15 TOD principles. Policies related to Alte~nativelRenewable Energy Systems and Air duality are also welcomed These policies are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and supportive of Kitchener's S~ra~egic Phan far ~~ie ~'nvlra~r~en~ April ZoDS}~ It is also recognized that the Draft ROP 2D29 includes many new policy initiatives that are required by the new planning framework of the Government of Ontario and it would appear that there has been much effort in trying to adapt these requirements to the vllaterloo Region context, There are several aspects of the Draft ROP 2D~9 that require additional discussion ar clarification with the Region. The more major topics or issues are outlined in this report. Additional questions and comments that are more specific .will be sent by staff to the Region under separate cover or discussed at a ROP Municipal vlJorking Group meeting. Roses Re ion versus Area Munici alines The draft ROP represents a fundamental shift from the current ROPP regarding the Region's role in municipal planning. The draft ROP would have the Region involved in many areas of detailed local planning. Not only are these planning matters outside of the Region's traditional jurisdiction, but there is concern that the Region does not have the resources to effectively carry out these responsibilities. Notable examples include: • Policy ~. F.1 and others outline at least 11 development criteria that the Region and Area Municipalities need to consider in reviewing planning studies or development applications. Many of .these criteria are local in nature and relate to matters such as scale, physical character and the context of established neighbourhoods. The wording implies that the Region has an interest and will make decisions on these aspects of planning and development. Revisions to clarify areas of Regional and Area Municipal interests are needed. • Policy 2.F.~ states that the Region will ensure municipalities identify and designate potential locations for small and mediumWsized food stores and provide for direct and convenient pedestrian linkages between neighbourhoods and food sites. • Policy 3.C.~ encourages Area Municipalities to provide reduces parking standards but more importantly Policy 5.C.1 requires Area Municipalities to implement parking strategies in collaboration with the Region that support the ROP. Although the parking policies are generally consistent with Kitchener's Transparkatian Demand Management ~TDM} objectives, there is no rationale for Regional involvement in these matters. • Policy 2.C.4 is very prescriptive as to how Area Municipalities are expected to plan for and design Urban Growth Centres downtowns} in collaboration with the Region. Although generally consistently with Kitchener objectives, in many cases there is na clear Regional interest and no need for Regional involvement. The draft ROP is also very directive. Area municipalities are directed to implement very prescriptive policies throughout the document, but especially in Chapter ~. This format leaves little opportunity for independent decision-making by the area municipalities. For example, the RUP restricts Commercial Centres and Offices and Institutional Uses to very specific locations that are targeted for intensification Policies ~.F.~' -~ 2.F.12}. Existing Commercial Centres, Offices and Institutional Uses not located in specified areas that want to expand may be impacted. Conversely, the Region's involvement in true .Regional destinations with regional impacts appears to be reduced. The Regian should maintain a strategic role in Planning but detailed municipal planning should be left to the local municipalities. This matter continues to be discussed by the ROP Municipal Working Group and the Region's CAOs. Fx ectations and lm acts on Workload The Draft ROP ~4~9 contains numerous polices that commit araa municipalities to future actions, studies and projects. These policies may result on unrealistic expectations on the City of Kitchener from the public, Some off these policies contain deadlines but .others do not. Glorification on the deadlines is needed and staff needs more time in order to understand the impact on workload. The words "Area Municipalities will.. ," preface many policies. Notable examples include: • Area Municipalities will approve a secondary plan or other appropriate planning document for their Urban Growfh Centre ~Poiicy ~.C.~} • Area Municipalities will prepare station area plans as secondary plans or other appropriate planning documents within their Official Plans Policy ~.C.B} • Area Municipalities will identify and designate boundaries of Major Local Nodes Policy Z.C.1~'} • Area Municipalities will identify and designate boundaries of Major Urban Greenspace Policy 2.C.19} • Area Municipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a registry of properties Policy 3, F.3} 3 • Area Municipalities will include policies in their Gfficial Plan to identify and conserve Cultural Heritage Landscapes and such landscapes will be documented through an inventory or conservation plan Policy 3.F.4} • Area Municipalities will develop accessibility policieslregulations in their official plan and zoning by-law Policy 3,G.~} • Area Municipalities will prepare and implement parking strategies Policy ~.C. ~ } • Area Municipalities will complete inflow and. infiltration and sanitary capacity studies and establish a program to implement recommendations of the approved studies prior to consideration of expansion of Regional waste~ater treatment plants Policy ~.G.4} • Area Municipalities will designate and zone Landscape Level Systems and Core Environmental Features in their Gfficial Plans and zoning by-laws ~Palicy 7.A.2} • Area Municipalities will ensure that policies, mapping and zoning by-laws andlor other appropriate development controls are in place to protect Source vUater Protection Areas ~Palicy 8.A.2} Trans artation Plannin 1Dominance of Ra id Transit It is agreed that Rapid Transit can be a catalyst for shaping vllaterloo Region's urban communities and Kitchener supports this initiative. However, sa many policies are dependent on Rapid Transit being constructed somewhere in the Central Transit Corridor CTC}, yet the Environmental Assessment has not been finalized and construction is not assured. This uncertainty makes it very difficult to give meaningful andlor detailed comments regarding transportation alignments and urban form policies in the affected areas. It may be necessary to provide additional comments after the ultimate alignment and form of rapid transit technology} is known. It is also unclear what urban farm outside of the CTC is being promoted. Will Transportation Corridors outside the CTC be subject to Transit oriented Development ~TGD} policies or is the Draft RGP 2x29 contemplating traditional arterial road development in these areas? The policies about provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities should be applicable and incorporated on Regional Roads. Perhaps this will be clarified upon completion of the Regional Transportation Master Plan. Regional. staff have already explained that the "new" RGP will need . to be amended in order to implement the pending Transportation Master Plan. The Draft RGP could also be more explicit that the current "loop system" for transit routes would be replaced by one where several "cross corridors" feed into any Rapid Transit system. This matter continues to be discussed by the RGP Municipal Utlarking Group and the Region's CAGs. Emplo~mentllndustrial Lands There is concern that the Nan-Residential Land budget puts too much emphasis on a quantitative approach and insufficient emphasis on qualitative aspects of land supply and market forces. The long-range plan for employment lands leaves too few options far future industrial lands growth, The draft RGP puts all of our fiuture industrial lands "eggs" in "two baskets"; East Side for serviced employment lands and Hwy 49~ 197 for unserviced employment lands. The East Side lands are already appearing to be less viable than when the Regional Growth Management Strategy ~RGMS} was adapted, if the East Side must be developed as a complete community with .other land uses then maybe we need to consider additional locations for serviced industrial land. ~Vlle now know that the Cambridge portion of the East Side lands have many constraints and the owners of large parcels in the vlloolwich portion are intent on residential development. W11hat happens if there is a successful appeal at the G.M.B. and the East Side lands must be developed as a complete community? The technical analysis in 4 support of developing the East Side Lands for large industrial businesses during the RGMS process predates Places to Grove and the possibility of complete communities. An update study that addresses the current planning framework would be useful. As noted, the draft Rt~P dues not identify long range plans .far new employment lands within the urban municipalities, specifically the City of Kitchener. The impact of wellhead proectian policies on existing emplayrnent lands also required further review. Clarification is also needed as to haw employment area and commercial centres fit into the concept of complete communities. These matters continue to be discussed by the RAP Municipal vllorking Group and the Region's CAas. Cvn~ fete Communities The concept of complete cornrnunities is a good one and represents good planning. The definition vn the Draft ROP Zg~9 is the same as Places to Grow Growth Plan. However, clarification is needed in order t~ understand at what scale it is being implemented in this Region and for .what purpose. The term is used on several occasions but it is not clear if "community" refers to the Region, the area municipalities, communities within area municipalities or neighbourhoods. This matter continues to be discussed by the R4P Municipal Working Group and the Region's CAas. lm lementation of Tar ets More information is needed on how the Region, together with area municipalities, will implement the policies related to density and infill targets. The draft R4P gives the impression that the Region is taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach so that there is little opportunity far .local dif~erentiatian and innovation. In recent meetings Regional staff has clarified that it will be possible to have variation from one development to the aher, as long the overall average meets the targets. This clarification is helpful and should be further explored. The methodology for how the density and intensification targets are measured and the monitoring thereof requires additional clarification and perhaps consistency amongst the area municipalities. The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy ~KGMS} Background Study provides our first product that measures intensification and density and can be utilized to assist with ongoing monitoring of these targets. Clarification is required regarding the Region's role in administering and setting the specific intensification and greenfield targets for each city area municipality. Annual targets could be problematic and a "railing average" over a period of ~ or 5 years is preferred because one or two large apartment buildings can significantly alter the statistics in a given year. The Region's Land Budget calculates remaining greenfield land. Based on this calculation a density target of 6D residents and jobs per hectare is established for the in the Designated Greenfield Areas of urban municipalities. The calculations and the ability to achieve the density target require confirmation. As Hated in the KGMS, ,Kitchener planning staff are actively developing a strategy to try and direct densities in the mast appropriate locations. Once this work is completed, additional comments will be provided to the Region. This matter continues to be discussed by the RAP Municipal Working Group and the Region's CA4s. 5 Countryside Line The Draft ROP identifies a Countryside Line that traverses the southwest corner of Kitchener. This fine was originally shown conceptually in the Region's Growth Management Strategy ~RGMS}and is proposed to be formally established in the ROP. The purpose of the Countryside Line is to contain future urban growth and to protect farmlands and sensitive natural areas, It is defined as a "longterm boundary", The lands in southwest Kitchener are further designated Protected Countryside which is defined as "permanently protected agricultural (ands and natural areas". "Permanent" and "long-term" mean two different things and have very different implications. The authority to establish permanent boundaries under the current planning framework and the. merit of doing so given the possibility of new technologies in the future requires further investigation and discussion with the Region. Developing areas adjacent to the Countryside Line will be designed and serviced~very difrerently depending if the Countryside Line in permanent orlong-term. There would appear to be merit in harmoniz'ng the time horizons for the Countryside Line and the Protected Countryside. Cultural Herita a ResourceslLandsca es There are numerous concerns and questions regarding the cultural heritage policies, Many of the cultural heritage policies state or imply that the Region will be involved in heritage planning functions far which they have no jurisdiction under the Ontario Heritage Act or that they will influence focal heritage planning by prescribing how cultural heritage resources are identified and evaluated. There are also concerns with inconsistent terminology. Staff will be sending more detailed explanations that provide specific policy references to the Region. The Draft f~OP also requires Area Municipalities to determine the potential presence of archaeological resources as part of the development review process This would be a new area of responsibility More information is needed to understand whether this function would be formally delegated from the Region to the Area Municipalities, and under what conditions. if the Area flllunicipalities end up assuming this function, there needs to be access to the specific mapping and training to understand how to implement archaeological assessment requirements in the development review process. Planned Gornmunit Structure NodeslCorridors The Draft ROP proposes a planned Community Structure based on a system of nodes and corridors and other development areas connected by a networlt of roads, transit routes, cycling paths and pedestrian connections. Kitchener supports this concept which is generally consistent with broad principles in our current Official Plan and the KGMS. Further, the Transit Corridors identified on Map 5a support the planned function of many Mixed Use Bodes identified in l~Citchener's Official Plan, l-loweve, some aspects require clarification and further discussion. The term "Reurbanization Corridor" is problematic because it is likely to be confused with lVlixed Use Corridors identified in l~Citchener's Official Plan, some of which are the same as the Reurbanization Corridors and some of them which are not. Also, some "Reurbanization Corridors" or portions or corridors do not appear to have much reurbanization potential, If Reurbanization Corridors are dependent on Rapid Transit then it premature to finalize their locations until the rapid Transit EA is completed. Potential conflicts such as this can be reduced if the ROP focuses on general guidance such as that provided in Policy 2.2 instead of providing direction that is too detailed. 5 Greenlands Network The Draft RCMP proposes a Greenlands Network that is comprised of several components, It is not clear what aspects of the Greenlands Network the Region wishes to manage or regulate itself and what functions are being assigned to Area Municipalities: The Region definitely has an interest in development adjacent to any Regionally significant elements of the Greenlands Network, specifically the Landscape Level Systems and Core Environmental Features. It is not clear.what the Region's interest is with respect to other elements of the Greenlands Network that are not Regionally significant ~e.g. Supporting Environmental Features}. Qther Areas that require clarification include: • Under what- circumstances will a Nafural Nabita~ lrrven~ory be requested or required by the Region? Policy 7.A.1~ • Is a RQP amendment required in artier to change the name andlor mandate of EEAC? Policy 1.A. ~ implies that it is, • It is not clear who will determine the need for, and the scope of, an EIS for Sigr~rfican~ 1/a~1eylands. These are identified as Regionally significant as part of the Core Environmental Features yet Policy 7.G.3 would imply that Area Municipalities are responsible for these EISs and Regionally Sr`gnr`~icant I/alleylands. • The components of the Core Environmental Features ~ESPAs, significant habitat of endangered ar threatened species, Regionally significant woodlands, significant valleylands~ are not shown on Map 4. vvhile this may be appropriate for the (JP Maps, some other mapping source ~G15?~ must be made.available by the Region and, preferably, referenced in the RAP .policies. Source Water Protection The objective of source water protection is obviously a necessity in this community. The Region is applauded for its determination in protecting our drinking water supply and initiatives that support water conservationlsustainability. Section 8 of the Draft RQP ~OZ9 provides the expected new policies regarding different categories of source water protection. Given the location of certain wellhead protection areas and the category of uses that may not be permitted, this may have same impacts on certain industrial or other land use areas in Kitchener. For example, the City's new Central Maintenance Facility is located in 1Nellhead Protection Area ~ in which road salt and snow storage is not permitted. The industrial area around. Mani~ou Drive and other locations may. be impacted by the policies and additional work and discussion is required with the Region to fully determine the potential impacts. vve also note that there are several existing pitslquarries that are within areas where this use would no longer be permitted. The implications of these policies require further review and "grand fathering" provisions and transitional policies require further discussion with the Region. The Region is encouraged to develop and explore new wells that are not impacted by current uses that could possibly replace existing wells such as those in the Manitou Drive area. Additional General observations and Comments: As noted in Section 2A of the Draft RQP ~g29, the Regional allocation of the Provincial population forecast is consistent with a past Regional report. vve presume there is a high level of confidence as it is noted these are to be used as the basis for planning decisions. The noise policies require review to determine if there are any changes or flexibility for intensification areas. Should the RAP contain policies with respect to airport lighting and its impact on adjacent sensitive land uses? 7 ^ There are new policies that will have implications on condominium conversion applications and review. Condominium conversation in Kitchener would be subject to new criteria. ^ vve note that the Ottawa Street extensionlbridge over the Grand River is shown. vve also note that the Fairway Road extension that has. been subject to an EA and detailed design is not shown on the Roads map. Clarification is required. Can the RGP consider any policies to specifically identifying the need for an additional connection to Highway 401? Confirmation is required about the use of several words and terms in the policies, such as "sustainability", "vitality", "access". ^ Several new initiatives are noted such as the creation of an Eco-Industrial Network and a Pedestrian Plan. The implications require further review and discussion. ^ Clarification is required to ~deterrr~ine what the actions anal implementation will be with respect to the new energy system policies. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no direct Capital Budget impacts as this time. There will be implications to city staff workload and timing in order tv complete the initiatives that are identified. Ct~MMUNICATI~NS; The purpose of this report to provide a response to a Regional project and therefore, no formal notice is required. The report will be available on the City's website for interested individuals. CgNCLUSIaN~ Staff from the Development & Technical Services Department and .Economic Development revievued the Draft Region of Vllaterloo Gfficial Plan 2D~9 and helped formulate comments. This report identifies many of the larger issues on the ,document. These issues may require additional discussion or clarification with the Region in order to determine the full implications of the policies. It is recommended that this report be forwarded to the Region for consideration and a response. Staff may have additional comments once the next version of the Draft ROP is released expected in April ~DD9}. __ - -- Tina Malone~vllright, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner ~=-:.. ~S ~;: B an t~~, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Alain Pinard, MA, MCIP, RPP Interim Director of Planning Attachment Appendix "A" -Regional Report P-08-093 8 ~~ Report: P-48-~9~ REGIt~N OF wATERLQO ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ' `~' PLANNING, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ~~~~ Communi Plannln ~ ~ ~ ~ TO: Chair Jim vllideman and Members of the Planning and Uvarks Committee DATE September 3D, ZDDS FILE C~JDE: D~6~50 SUBJECT: FIRST DRAFT ~F THE NE~III REGIaNAL OFFICIAL PLAN ~RQP~ RECaMMENDATIAN: THAT the Regional Municipality of vllaterloo authorize staff to proceed with the following, regarding the I~irst Draft of the New Regional Official Plan, as explained in P-o~-o93, dated September 3a, coos: a~ initiate a comprehensive community consultation process regarding the first draft of the proposed new ROP dated September 30, 2D08; b} set January 3~ , ~oD9 as the last date far the receipt of comments regarding the first draft of the proposed new ROP; and c~ report back to Regional Council early in ZDa9, summarizing and responding to comments received during the community consultation process, and seek authorization to prepare the final ROP for consideration by Council in June DOD. SUMMARY: An Official Plan for the Region of Illlaterloo is required under the Provincial Planning Act, It functions as a legal document, guiding the growth and developmentof the community. Regional Official Plans must also be formally reviewed every five years, in accordance with the Planning Act. Regional staff has prepared the first draft of the proposed new Regional Official Plan CROP}. Thy draft ROP 4attached separately is the culmination of almost two years of work, builds on the strengths of the existing Regional Official Policies Plan and represents a major milestone in the ongoing implementation of the Regional Growth Management Strategy. This report highlights some of the key policies in the ROP, outlines the expected timeline for completing the document, and presents the preliminary community consultation process to obtain feedback and formal comments. The ROP, like the existing Regional Official Policies Plan ~ROPP~, bring tagetherthe broad planning policy and regulatory framework established by the Province o Ontario with policies detailing Regional interests tv provide a basis for exercising the Region's role in the review and approval of development applications as Drell as guide corporate investments in infrastructure. All of the policies in the draft RCMP address or provide support for:.. • Regional corporate interests • Provincial interests that have been delegated to the Region • Provincial interests as expressed through the Planning Act or Provincial Policy Statement 514668 Page 1 of 12 September 39.2908 Report: P~98-093 The ROP also provides policy support for Area Municipal interests and reflects the responsibilities of the Area Municipalities. A comprehensive .community consultation strategy will be implemented in order to receive comments on the first draft RCMP, with this input being incorporated into a community consultation summary and response document Input received from the Province, Area Municipalities, the Grand River ConservatianAuchority, other key policy and development reviewagencies, the private sector and the broader community, will be integral to successfully completing the final RAP. The final RGP would be brought to Regional Council for consideration in June 2x49 to ensure that the Region complies ~vith the requirement to bring its Plan into conformity vuith the Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe the Growth Plan} by June 1 ~, 2009. In accordance with the provisions ofthe Planning Act, the RC)P will be comprehensively reviewed every five years. These reviews will also include mandatory updates. REPC3RT: Background The Region of vllaterloo is required to adapt an official plan under the Provincial Planning Act, This official planfunctions asa legal document, guiding thegrowth and developmentofthe community. The first draft of the Regional C)fficial Plan ~RC)P}, is an important step in preparing a Plan to replace the existing Regional C3fficial Policies Plan ~RGPP~, which was originally approved by MMAH on November 23,1995. An official plan is legal document that contains goals, objectives and policies to manage and direct physical bland use} change and the effects on the social, economic and natural environment of a municipality. Upper-tier municipalities must have an official plan, whereas lower tier municipalities may have a plan. The Region of vvaterloa's first RaPP was approved in 1975. The current RC)PP was approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1995 and to date, has been amended 29 times. Regional publicworks and land use related by-laws must conform to the RaP. The draft. RaP brings together the broad policy and regulatory framework established by the Province of Gntario with Regional interests to provide a basis for exercising the Region's role in the review and approval of development applications, including: the protection of regional corporate interestsf ensuring compliance with the RC)P; exercising delegated approval authority responsibilities onbehalf of MMAH ;and exercising approval authority responsibilities assigned to the Region through the Planning Act, The ROP also guides corporate investments in infrastructure. There are several key reasons why a new RaP must be prepared, particularly: 1. To address the social and economic. changes which have occurred since the approval of the existing RC)PP in 1995. For example, public expectations in environmental planning and transportation choice have risen dramatically. At the carne time, the Region's population has grown from 419,709 at year-end 1995, to 59G,899 at yearend 2098. 2. To provide a means for aligning the Region's strategic vision with the Regional Growth Management Strategy ~RGMS} and recent Provincial planning initiatives €e,g. the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, the Safe Drinking vllater Act and tho Clean llvater Act}. Thy 54668 Page 2 of 12 September 3D. ~DD~ Report: PMQS-OD3 RCP's 1lision includes increasing reurbanization, developing a rapid transit system within the Central Transit Corridor, brawnfield redevelopment, establishing affirm countryside line, creating new employment lands, protecting groundwater resources, and protecting sensitive environmental systems. In short, the regulatory environment and level of planning have become more complex and the Region is working to achieve the community vision established through the RGMS. 3. Ta complement other Regional initiatives currently underway related to health and the built environment, such as the Affordable Housing Strategy, the Arts, Culture and Heritage Master Plan, and the Hurnan Services Plan. 4. To improve the overall .readability and usability of the document, and t~ rely mare on implementation guidelines that are recognized in the RCP, but not included in their full content. The RCP will be printed in larger 12 paint Sans Serif font to maximize visual accessibility. 5. To include new policies and significantly revised policies related to for example: source water protection; salt management; walking and cycling; transportation choice; aggregate extraction; and cultural heritage landscapes. In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, the R4P will be comprehensively reviewed every five years. These reviews will also include mandatory updates. Sco a of the Draft RaP The draft RCP, like the RCPP, brings together appropriate interpretations of the broad planning policy and regulatory framework established by the Province with policies detailing Regional interests to provide a basis far exercising the Region's role in they review and approval of development applications as well as guide corporate investments in infrastructure. All of the policies in the draft RCP address or provide support far; Regional corporate interests Provincial interests that have been delegated to the Region Provincial interests.as expressed through the Planning Act ar Provincial Policy Statement The draft RDP also provides policy support for Area Municipal interests and reflects the responsibilities ofthe Area Municipalities. The draft RCJP has the maximum 2o~year planning horizon ~i.e. to 2D~9} ,allowable under the Planning Act, incorporate Provincial population and employment projections and intensification targets, and provides much stronger linkages between land use and transportation planning. The draft R4P also makes mare reference to implementation guidelines ~e.g. the Region's Salt Impact Assessment Protocol} to help minimize the size of the Plan and to provide Council with greater flexibility in addressing some of the more detailed aspects of planning. The draft RQP better reflects the concept of "complete community" in recognition of the need to further integrate physical planning with public health and social services planning to achieve a high quality of life. However, the degree of integration that can be achieved by the draft R4P is limited by the applicable legislative framework. Consequently, the draft ROP policies support, but do not directly address, many significant public health and social service policy issues, such as the provision of local food in area food stores and a more equitable distribution of housing types and services across the Region. ~145~5 Page 3 of ~ Z September 30. ~Q98 Report: P-98493 Area Municipal official plans must conform to the RCMP. Area Municipal official plan policies can, however, be more restrictivethan the I~GP and maps are typically at a largerscale sothat land use designations and other features are usually shown at a much finer level of detail ~e.g. at the individual property boundary level}. TheCities ofCambridge, Kitchenerand Waterloo and theTownship ofNorth Dumfries are all inthe process of reviewing their official plans, while the Townships of Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich will be starting their reviews in the near future. The RGP is required to be brought into conformity with the Growth Plan by June ~~, ~OQ9. Area Municipal official plans will be amended as quickly as possible thereafter to conform to the Growth Plan and the RGP. It is currently expected that Area Municipal councils will be adopting new or revised Area Municipal official plans that conform to the RGP in ~4a9l~D o. ~~t lii~iv ~ ~~ ill ~ seu~ p ~~ t~ h There are three policy areaswhere considerable revisionsta policies andlormapping thefirstdraft of the RGP are expected prior to or fallowing Regional Council's adoption of the final R4P in 2809. The first area relates to the implementation of Rapid Transit policies. The selection of a Rapid Transit technology, route and station sites will not occur until later this fall, so related policies and mapping will not be addressed until the Final RCMP. Second, mapping and policy refinements related to Significant Valleys and Valleylands are also expected to be part of the Final RGP as the Greenlands working group has yet to finalize their recommen~atians regarding this issue. The third area where policy and mapping revisions are expected relate to matters being addressed through the new Regional Transportation Master Plan ~RTMP}.The RTMP process is running concurrently with the R{3P process, and some revisions may occur as part of the final RGP, whereas others may be considered in the form of an amendment to the RAP after it is in effect. ovl~ ~sidnll v ice olici Regional Council directed staff to review the issue of continuing to provide the opportunity for additional residential severances €consents} to be considered in the BeverlyArea afthe Township of North Dumfries. The original review was completed in ~99~. However, there is a need to assess the policy implications of more recent Provincial legislation, particularlytheSofe Drinking vltaterAct and the Clean Water Act. This issue is currently under active review with the Township of North Dumfries and the existing RGl'P Policy 5. ~ .4.~ is contained in Section GE -- Lat Creation and Lot Adjustment Policies ofthe draft RAP. Landowners in the Beverly Area will be notified by direct mail of the review and the opportunities to provide comments on the draft RGP policies. Hi hli hts of the First Daft oche New ROP The first draft of the RGP contains many new and revised policies that build on the foundation established by the existing RGPP. Some of the key areas new andlor revised policies contained in each of the chapters of the first draft of the RGP are described below. ln~ti~ • The RaP Vision has been revised to match the Vision in the Region of Waterloo Strategic Plan 1~i~ do o ions a uniie~ .. ~ Anew Planned Community Structure is introduced to implement the Growth Plan including Urban Growth Centres and Rapid Transit Station Areas 5~ 4668 Page 4 of 1 ~ September 30, X008 Report: P-08-093 • New residential intensification and combined population and employment density targets to implement the Growth Plan • New employment land policies • Revised urban boundary expansion criteria Revised commercial policies ~iv~~i~i~~ i~ vivo e _ • New human services policies • New policies regarding alternativelrenewable energy systems and air quality • New walking, cycling and transportation demand management paficies • Revised affordable housing policies • Revised cultural heritage policies including cultural heritage landscapes u~A~ ~ tip ~ ~~~~3~o ~ ia~~~ u~ie~ iy • New employment areas and physical infrastructure policies • New collaborative partnership policies ffi e:~ • New walking and cycling network policies • Neva waste management policies • Revised road design, construction, operation and road allowance policies • Revised wastewater treatment policies, including the deletion of references to new communal systems • Revised water supply policies • New .protected countryside designation and policies • New policies providing for the consideration of minor expansions to Rural Settlement Areas and Rural l~mplvyment Areas • Revised policies related to agricultural uses, secondary uses, rural institutional uses, and recreatronaf and tourism Uses • Revised policies supporting on-farm businesses and agritourism • Beverly area residential severance policies under review ~'°t~ ~ ~ ~~~l~a ~~s ~ ~ • New Greenlands network framework consisting of Landscape Level Systems, Core ~nviranmental Features and Linkages • New environmental stewardship policies • Revised fistvfadverse impactsta be considered when assessing the environmental impacts of development applications • Revised natural hazards policies • New chapter with revised Source Ilvater Protection paficies including salt management to implement the Safe Drinking vllater Act and a framework for implementing the Clean vllater Act ~~i~ i~g ~~~ R~~aurce~ • New policies regarding the assessment of cumulative impacts of new mineral aggregate operations . 5146E8 Page 5 0# 12 September fig. ~DO~ Report; P-g~-g93 • New policies regarding new mineral aggregate operations within vllellhead Protection Areas ~ulfilln ~t~n n ot~l les • New stakeholder consultation and communication policies • New complete development application polices ~~~.:` Consistent with the desire to improve the overall readability and usability of the document, the RC7P maps have been prepared using SRI ArcMap. This program is more user-friendly and better at in displaying cartographic elements ~e.g. a wider selection of colours and patterns than our previous mapping software. In addition, some of the maps have been made easier to read through a combination of revised neap legends and reducing the scale of the maps. ~~ ~~y For a comparison of the current R~PP and the fiirst draft of the RCMP, please refer to Attachment ~ . Community Consuitatian Process - Pirst Draft Community consultation an the first draft of the RQP will be facilitated through. • direct mailings of CDs or hard copies ofi the first draft to persons, groups, businesses and agencies currently on the RUP stakeholder list • advertisements in local newspapers • the RAP website • open houses, workshops and seminars. • electronic and print newsletters and brochures • meetings with a variety of external stakeholder groups such as planning and engineering consultants, the vlEaterloo Federation ofAgriculture,the Prosperity Council, f=irst Nations, the K-w Hon~ebuilders Association, mineral aggregate producers, the local school boards and the waterloo Region Healthy Communities Coalition • meetings with Regional Advisory and Special Committees such as the Ecological and environmental Advisory Committee, the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee, the R~MSIRT Public Advisar~ Committee and the Regional Cycling Advisory Committee • continued meetings with the ROP Area Municipal vllorking Group • A statutory Public Meeting before the Region's Planning and vlJorks Committee R~or~ vi~y n ~~ ocil o site nsuit~lvn The preliminarywarkingdraft ofthe RUPhas also been reviewed by several committees including the Ecological and Environments[ Advisory Committee, the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee, the Regional Growth Management StrategylRapid Transit Public Advisory Committee, and the Regional Cycling Advisory Committee. Many vfi their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the draft RCMP. The following public open houses have been scheduled in consultation with Area Municipal staff and will be advertised in local newspapers, the RQP lNebsite, a general press release and a RAP Newsletter, beginning this week: 51468 Page 6 of 1~ September 30.2008 Report; P-08-093 Goober 9 Wilmot Recreation Complex, Ilviln~ot Meeting Room 1291 Nafziger Road, Baden October 15 Regional Administration Building, Main Lobby 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener Goober 17 Regional Gperations Centre, Glass Roam 1 DD Maple Grove Road, Cambridge Goober 28 Regional Public Health Building, Room 2101211 99 Regina Street, Waterloo Goober 30 Township of North Dumfries Gffices --Slater Hall, 1111 Greenfield Road, North Dumfries November 4 Regional Public Health and Social Services Building, Roam 170 15o Main Street, Gambidge November 6 Township of Woolwich Municipal Gffices, Council Chambers 24 Church Street, Flmira November 20 St. Clements Community Centre Green Street, St. Clements All of the public open houses vuill run from 3;00 p.r~. until 8:00 p.m. Persons, groups and agencies on the RUP stakeholder list have already been advised of these meeting through receipt of this staff report bye-mail or letter. Overall Timeline for Preparing the ROP Staff is working to complete the RGP according to the following timelines to ensure compliance with the Growth Plan Community Consultation -First Draft SummarylResponse Report Regional Council Consideration of Final RGP September 30, Boas --January 31, 2009 'Spring 2DD9 June 2aa9 Area Municipal ConsultationlCoordination Regional staff began meeting with Area Municipal planning staff early in the ROP review process (i.e. 2006) to receive feedback on the strengths and weakness of the current ROPP and suggestions for policies that could be incorporated into the ROP. The first draft also reflects the results of a detailed review of a preliminary working draft of the ROP with a Municipal Working Group (including all of the Area Municipalities and the GRCA) between August 2007 and June 2008. Many of their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the first draft of the R4P. Regional staff will continue meeting with the Municipal Working Group throughout the community consultation period. It is expected that Area Municipal planning staff will also prepare formal reports for the consideration of their respective Councils regarding the first draft of the RCP. 514fi68 Page 7 of ~ 2 September 30.2008 Report: P~08~093 CC~RPaRATE STRATEGIC PLAN: This update directly supports the Region's priorities with respect to implementing Focus Areas ~ and 5 of the Gorparate Strategic Plan. F[NANCIAL IMPLICATlGNS: Budget funds required to prepare the new RCJP have been previously approved by Regional Council. aTHER DEPARTMENT C~3NSULTATIaNS~CaNCURRENCE. Internal consultation with all Departments is ongoing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Camparison of the existing Plan (ROPP) and the draft Plan (ROP) First Draft of New Regional Official Plan (attached under separate cover) PREPARED BY: Kevin Curers, Manager, Strategic Policy Development APPROVED BY: Rob Horse, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services 51468 Wage ~ of 2 September 34.2D08 Report; P-08~D93 ATTA~H~ENT ~ Comparison of the Existing Plan (ROPP) and the Draft Plan (ROPj CURRENT REGIONAL G1=1=1CIAL -- DRAFT REGIONAL GFFIGIA. PQLICIES PLAN ~RQPP~ PLAN ~RC~P} Vision w Sustainable' regional community ~ Sustainable and liveable regional community Environmental integrity ~ Stronger "green" focus Planned growth ~ Culture of conservation ~e.g., air, water, land, energy, air} Implements RGMS and Provincial Growth Plan More integrated, compact and mixed-use development Population Forecast 543,70D people by 2016 ~ 712,ODU people by ~D2D Forecast determined by Region ~ Forecast determined by Provincial growth Plan Planned Community structure Direct growth predominantly to City Urban ~ More detailed guidance for new development within Urban Areas and Township Urban Areas Areas and Township Urban Areas Limited polices for where and how to grow ~ Define a planned community structure based on a system of within settlement areas, "nodes" and "corridors" Direct growth to Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban . Areas, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization .Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Designated Greenfield Areas Build "complete" communities with a mix of land-uses Reurbanization Five percent reurbanization target ~ Provincially mandated 4D°/~ reurbanization target ~minimun~} Policies supporting Regional Community lmprovernent Plans Policies supporting brawnfield incentive programs Greenfield Communities Encourage broad community planning i Minimum densitytarget of 6D residents and jobs combined studies for greenfield areas per hectare 4ha} far cities and 45 far townships to achieve an overall Provincial target of 54 residents and jobs combined per ha. Greater mix of land-uses More pedestrian-friendly, transit supportive designs Employment Lands No specific polices ~ Locate major officeslinstitutional uses close to transit Conversion of employment lands subject to tests New Prime lndust~iallStrategic Reserve designation New Hi hwa 441197 Em to meat Area desi nation 5 4668 Page 9 of ~ 2 September 30.2gQ~ Report: P~~8-o9~ Commercial Poiicies Areas of Regional interest include M Direct new commercial centres greater than g,~40 sq. m.} Community Core Areas, Regional to Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Shopping Centres, and Power Centres Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes. Traditional planning approach ~i.e., retail ~ Expansions of commercial centres over 4~,g4o sq. m. must impact and transportation studies} not have a .negative affect on the planned function o areas cited above . New or expanded commercial centres must not have a negative affect on existing or planned Regional infrastructure Urban Boundary Expansions Incremental, RC~PP amendment approach ~ Considered only through five-year comprehensive review Land-use specific ~e.g., residential versus ~ Stricter criteria for urban expansions ~e.g., must meet indusfirial expansions} density and reurbanization targets} Direct future urban expansions tv Urban Reserve Countryside Line defines a fixed, Tong-term urban boundary Agriculture Urban expansions permitted into prime ~ New Protected Countryside designation agricultural areas where necessary and ~ Beverly area residential severance policies under review justified ~ Consider minor expansions to Rural Settlement Areas ar Allow for consideration of rural residential Rural employment Areas to accommodate future lots in Beverly area employment, recreational yr institutional needs Stronger support for an-farm businesses and agri-tourism Aggregate Extraction ~ More rigorous technical studies ~e.g., hydrogeological Limited groundwaterlsource water studies} tv better identify and address potential protection policies groundwater and cumulative impacts Prohibit new aggregate extraction within a two year time of travel capture zone within vvellhead Protection Areas 1,~ and 3 Housing Support a wide range and mix of housing ~ Condominium conversion policies to preserve affordable rental housing Restrict demolition of Special Needs and Community Housing Economic Development Broad support for economic development ~ ~ More emphasis on collaborative partnerships between the Jointly prepare an Economic Strategy with Region, Area Municipalities and business community ~e.g. the Area Municipalities Canada's Technology Triangle, Home Builders Association, local universities and colleges} Promote vitality of downtowns Greater recognition of relationship between quality of life and economic prosperity 514G6$ Page 1a of 12 September 30.2Q08 Report: P-48-o93 Cultural Heritage Resource Policies Encourage the conservation of cultural ~ Specific development criteria to better conserve heritage heritage resources resources Encourage the development of cultural ~ Require the development of cultural heritage inventories heritage inventories ~ Support the adaptive re-use of historic buildings Guttural Heritage Landscape policies under consideration Groundwater Protection Focus on urban well-head protection areas ~ Enhanced source water protection policies for wellheads, regional recharges areas and surface water intakes Greater protection for rural recharge areas ~i.e., vllaterloa, Paris, and. Galt Moraines through new Protected Countryside designation Reflects stronger source water protection legislation ~i.e., Clean vvater Act, Safe drinking vllater Act} Greenlands Network Focus on protecting individuat natural areas ~ Emphasis on "natural systems" approach €i.e., network of ~e.g., wetlands, naturat habitat areas, and natural areas rather than "Islands of Green"~ environmentally sensitive areas} ~ Greenlands Network consists of Core Areas, Landscape Level Areas, and Supporking Areas Protects Significant vvoodlands • New requirement for "enhancement" of key natural areas Environmental Planning Require watershed studies for large ~ Require watershed studies prior to permitting significant greenfield communities, for areas identified areas of new Greenfield development in the Region as "priority areas" only ~ Stronger Environmental Impact Statement requirements Require Environmental Impact Statements ~ New protection policies Significant IJ1loodlands for new development Air Quality~Energy Na specific policies ~ Plan far a compact urban form with a wider mix of uses Design communities that support walking and cycling Gonsideration of renewable energy production systems Consideration of alternative energy systems Infrastructure Prescribes an Integrated Infrastructure ~ Prepare separate Master Plans ~e.g., water; wastewater, Staging Plan transportation} to Improve land-use and infrastructure Allow waterlwastewater communal systems. ,coordination Regional Roads focus on motor vehicles ~ Prohibit new communal systems Emphasis on multimodal ~i.e., walking, cycling, transit Transit Identify existing and proposed transit ~ Implement new rapid transit system corridors ~ Stronger recognition of Grand River Transit Limited references to Grand River Transit ~ New policies linking land-use and certain transit corridors and Rapid Transit ~i.e., Reurbanization Corridors} New transit-oriented development principles Parking Nos ecific olicies ~ ~ New transit supportive parking policies 5~46~~ Page 1 ~ of ~ 2 September 30. X008 Report: P~o8-D93 Transporkation Demand Management No specific policies ~ Specific transportation demand management policies regarding marketing and education initiatives to promote the benefits of walking, cycling and transit. Area Municipal Partnerships Support Area Municipal partnerships ~ Greater emphasis on RegionallArea Municipal partnerships ~e.g., shift in policy language from "consultation" to "collaboration."~ Flold joint public Meetings with Area Municipalities, where ossible Implementation Guidelines Limited policies ~ New policy references to Implementation Guidelines to help shorten the Plan by vesting implementation details in other Regional Plans and guidelines. Should help reduce the number of future RflP amendments Complete Applications Recently added policies through RGPP ~ No change Amendment No. ~9 Public Consultation Public consultation reflects rninimum ~ exceed minimum legislative requirements, where possible legislative requirements 514668 Pale 12 of 1 ~