HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-086 - Regional Official Plan (2009) - Response to Second DraftDevelopment &
Techrr~ca~ Services
REPORT T0: Development & Technical Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 1, 2009
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Tina Malone-Wright, Senior Planner (741-2765)
Brandon Sloan, Senior Planner (741-2648)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: May 27, 2009
REPORT NO.: DTS-09-086
SUBJECT: REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN - 2029
RESPONSE TO SECOND DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be requested to address the comments and
concerns regarding the second draft of the Regional Official Plan 2029 as outlined in
Development and Technical Services Report DTS 09-086.
BACKGROUND:
The Region of Waterloo is updating its Official Plan as required by the Planning Act. The first
complete draft of the Regional Official Plan - 2029 (ROP) was released to the public in
September 2008. The City of Kitchener provided formal comments to the Region through DTS
Report 09-015 and the corresponding Council resolution from January 26t", 2009. The
comments highlighted the following major areas of concern:
^ Roles (Region versus Area Municipalities)
^ Expectations and Impacts on Workload
^ Transportation PlanninglDominance of Rapid Transit
^ Employmentllndustrial Lands
^ Complete Communities
^ Implementation of Targets
^ Countryside Line
^ Cultural Heritage Resources/Landscapes
^ Planned Community Structure (Nodes/Corridors)
^ Greenlands Network
^ Source Water Protection
^ Several general observations/questions
In accordance with Council direction, City staff forwarded additional detailed comments and
editorial suggestions to Regional staff.
4-1
REPORT:
The second draft of the new Regional Official Plan 2029 (ROP) was released April 17, 2009 and
includes a significant number of changes. Many of the amendments made to the document
directly respond to the comments and major areas of concern raised through the January staff
report and corresponding resolution of Kitchener Council. The latest version of the ROP
includes policies that are more general and that allow some flexibility to interpret and implement.
Regional staff's response to each City of Kitchener and stakeholder/public comment is
contained in a separate Response Report. Overall, the new ROP continues to refine and
establish a vision for our region that respects and protects our natural and cultural heritage,
contains a planned community structure that is based on transit oriented principles, supports the
business community and works towards a more liveable and sustainable place. For many
decades, Kitchener's Official Plan has identified similar principles and this overall vision for our
community is something that should be embraced and supported.
The following sections provide comments on several high-level issues that staff identified
through the review of the second draft of the ROP.
Regional Role
While many policies that would have increased Regional involvement in local planning have
been eliminated or generalized there are still some examples of policies that require clarification
as to the expected Regional role or intent. These primarily relate potential new Regional
involvement in development review, heritage planning, urban design and parking.
Several of the new ROP policies appear to be intended to guide a certain form of development
or implement improvements in the public realm. In many respects this has been traditionally an
Area Municipality responsibility. We support the principles of transit-oriented development
outlined in the draft ROP and applying them to development applications as identified in Policy
2.D.2. However, we do have concern with the increased Regional involvement in development
review in general, and site plans in particular. The increased role may lead to duplication and
inefficiencies.
There are many policies that impact development applications. It should be clarified that in
many of these the City is the approval authority and the criteria suggested by the Region for
reviewing applications should be further defined. Specifically, the Regional role with respect to
condominium conversions needs to be clarified as Policy 3.A.4 identifies Regional control for
such conversions. The criteria for condominium conversions includes statistical requirements
that could cause difficulties and staff suggest that the statistical measures and implications of
this policy should be further understood, especially since each municipality may differ, and
Kitchener is currently the approval authority.
Rapid Transit
The details about Rapid Transit are now reduced to a lesser extent in the ROP policies and will
be considered after the Environmental Assessment is complete. This is consistent with other
policies that now defer specific requirements until area municipalities can confirm with the
Region at a later date. Reurbanization corridors are no longer shown on the mapping (as
requested in our comments) and will be determined with area municipalities after the Rapid
Transit details are known. Policy 2. D.9 identifies that Area Municipalities should apply flexibility
to certain standards in Major Transit Station Areas; however, it should be stipulated that the
Region should also employ flexibility to their standards.
4-2
Numerical Targets
The Region is now recommending that the intensification and greenfield density targets that
would be specific to each municipality be deferred for one year to allow more time to confirm the
impacts and the implementation. In the latest version of the ROP, the Region is proposing a
region-wide target of 45% of new residential units be constructed within the built up urban area
by 2015 instead of 40%. The explanation is that it could work in combination with the greenfield
density target to allow for a lower number then previously indicated (now 55 residents and jobs
per hectare instead of 60+). Additional time is required to review the specific implications to the
remaining lands in Kitchener; however many new development applications that we are now
receiving are near this density target.
Countryside Line
The second draft of the ROP provides clarification with respect to the Countryside Line. The
boundary of the designated City Urban Area, or Countryside Line, is a long-term boundary. The
`Protected Countryside' designation, as illustrated on Map 7, is permanent. Therefore, where
the Countryside Line is coincident with the `Protected Countryside' designation, it has the effect
of being permanent. This is the case for southwest Kitchener. Several landowners are
questioning the designation and the Region addresses this issue in their Response Report.
Environmental protection is the primary reason as this location is now identified as a Regional
Recharge Area for the Waterloo Moraine on the Source Water Protection mapping (Map 6g).
The City of Kitchener owns land at the southwest corner of Huron and Fischer Hallman Roads
that is now identified as `Protected Countryside'. According to Regional response, municipal
facilities (such as sportsfields, etc that may be contemplated for these lands) could still be
permitted. Although additional development along the west side of Fischer Hallman may be
desirable at the corner for enhanced urban form (for example to complete a potential mixed use
node at Huron Road), this may no longer be possible. We do agree with the principle of a
`Protected Countryside' provided the supporting technical documentation is sound.
The second draft of the ROP no longer refers to an `Urban Reserve'. Instead, Map 7 identifies
`Future Urban Expansion Areas' and the policies are less prominent. Kitchener does not have
lands with such a notation. The primary reason is that the only remaining non-urban lands in the
southwest portion of the City of Kitchener are identified as `Protected Countryside'.
Heritage
The Region has addressed many of the comments and suggestions regarding the new heritage
policies; however, clarification of the Region's role and responsibility with respect to Cultural
Heritage Landscapes and Heritage Impact Assessments remain. This includes the new
responsibility for the City to prepare Cultural Heritage Conservation Landscape Plans which is a
new requirement that is not described. The specific policies from Section 3 of the draft ROP that
require further explanation with Regional staff will be sent under separate cover.
Natural Environment and Source Water Protection
Staff participated in an Environmental and Water Policies ROP Working Group meeting in early
May. Numerous changes in the second, and the expected final version, of the ROP help clarify
many of the new policies that are introduced in this document and the role that the Region will
undertake. While staff still has questions and expect the details of how to implement the policies
to evolve, there are no major insurmountable policies. The impact on the development process
requires clarification. A significant amount of work and potential financial considerations may be
required of area municipalities in order to implement the ROP policies. This includes further
work on valley features and the inventory of supporting environmental features.
4-3
The source water protection mapping has changed (Maps 6a-g). The Wellhead Protection
Areas are now distributed into additional `levels' of identification. The effect is that many of the
concerns that were raised by the city are addressed as there is less restrictions on existing land
uses or planned developments with the new categories. For example, the new Central
Maintenance Facility is now in Wellhead Protection Areas 4 and 5 and therefore the entire use
should now be permitted. Staff suggests that the colour symbology of the mapping could be
further differentiated, especially the surface water intake zones on Map 6g.
Miscellaneous
Many of our editorial suggestions are now included in the second draft of the ROP. This
includes the Fairway Road Extension now being shown on the mapping and policies requiring
airport lighting warning clauses. The Region has also "softened" the language of certain policies
with respect to office location, food stores and institutional uses. Several City staff have
identified additional edits, clarifications and minor questions that will be forwarded to Regional
staff under separate cover. These relate to policies on urban design, parking, natural heritage,
and cultural heritage. Economic Development staff point out that the Regional policies should
not dismiss rail a viable transportation/shipping option for the future. Rail corridors need to be
protected because it is extremely difficult to establish new corridors in a built environment.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no direct Capital Budget impacts as this time. There will be implications to staff
workload and timing in order to complete the initiatives that are identified in the ROP.
COMMUNICATIONS:
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.
CONCLUSION:
The overall principles of the new ROP provide a noble direction for guiding enhancements to
liveability in our region. Regional staff has made significant efforts to address as many of the
stakeholder issues as possible, including the City of Kitchener's major areas of concern.
Regional involvement is now less prevalent in typical area municipal responsibilities. Also,
additional time is now given to work through policies that impact intensification and greenfield
targets.
Clarification of certain policies may be required when implementing the new ROP. There may
be impacts on the requirements for development applications and this should be clarified with
the Region. As noted in the previous staff report, area municipalities will be required to
undertake a significant amount of work to implement the ROP policies (and Places to Grow
Growth Plan) at the local level. This will primarily be done through the preparation of the new
Kitchener Official Plan which will be launched following consideration of the ROP.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager
Development and Technical Services Department
4-4