|
6.
Park and trail
front-ending policy Politique initiale relative aux parcs et aux
sentiers |
Committee recommendation
That
Council approve the Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy, as detailed in Document
2.
Recommandation du comité
Que le Conseil approuve la Politique initiale relative aux parcs et aux
sentiers, telle qu’elle est expliquée en détail dans le Document 2.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability (ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0040).
2.
Planning
Committee Extract of Draft Minutes of 25 January 2011.
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité de l'urbanisme
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City
Manager, Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure
Services and Community Sustainability, Services d'infrastructure et Viabilité des
collectivités
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : John L. Moser, General Manager/Directeur général,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
(613) 580-2424 x 28869, John.Moser@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That Planning Committee
recommend Council approve the Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy, as detailed
in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver la Politique initiale relative
aux parcs et aux sentiers, telle qu’elle est expliquée en détail dans le
Document 2.
BACKGROUND
Development Charge legislation permits municipalities
to enter into front-ending agreements with developers who require certain
capital works to be completed sooner than the City’s forecasted schedule, with
an agreement by the City to pay them back over time. On June 25, 2009, Council
approved a revised Front-Ending Policy, which provides clear parameters
outlining the circumstances when front-ending will be considered as an option
for developers. This policy has been
specifically targeted to accommodate early implementation of hard services,
such as stormwater management facilities.
As a result of an inquiry at Planning and
Environment Committee on August 25, 2009 (Document 1), which identified a need
for mechanisms to have soft services, such as parks, implemented earlier in the
development process, staff put forward a park front-ending policy in a report
to Planning and Environment Committee on August 24, 2010. Prior to that meeting, the Greater Ottawa
Home Builder's Association (GOHBA) requested that the report be withdrawn from
the Augst 24, 2010 Planning and Environment Committee meeting in order to allow
for further discussions between the City and the GOHBA. As a result, Planning and Environment
Committee referred the report to staff.
Staff have since met with representatives of GOHBA and their solicitors
and revised some aspects of the park front-ending policies based on the
discussions and feedback received. One change
that has been made as a result of these discussions is the inclusion of trails within
the front-ending policy.
A front‑ending policy for parks and
trails has been deemed necessary in order to better achieve Council’s
objectives of developing complete and sustainable neighbourhoods by
facilitating earlier implementation of these soft services. The lack of front-ending policies specific to
parks and trails has been a deterrent to developers interested in front-ending,
as the process has lacked consistency and clarity. The Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy
(Document 2) will allow for a consistent approach to front-ending of parks and
trails, and will alleviate unnecessary negotiations with developers on matters
that are best addressed through a City-wide Council approved policy.
DISCUSSION
Front-ending presents an opportunity to provide
much-needed parks and local trails in developing communities sooner than what
the City is able to provide when conventional park design and development
processes are followed. Owing to funding
and legislative constraints, conventional avenues taken to design and develop
parks and trails means that they are often completed well after the surrounding
benefitting community has been built and homes have been occupied. Front-ending presents an opportunity to have
parks and trails in place earlier.
Early development of soft
services through front-ending is often viewed as an attractive opportunity by
the developer, as established parks and trails can be used as a marketing tool
by offering more complete and sustainable neighbourhoods to homebuyers seeking
to purchase homes in earlier phases of a new development. The Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy
provides a consistent and clear policy framework that protects the City’s
interests, benefits the developer by identifying the City’s expectations
up-front, and delivers a much needed amenity earlier for the neighbouring
community. These policies have been
developed with the goal of increasing up-take of the option to front-end parks
and trails by the development community, and timelier implementation of these
amenities in developing communities.
Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy
The Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy has
been developed with the objective of ensuring that such agreements do not have a negative financial impact on
the City. The advancement of the park
and trail works should not increase the City’s costs related to the
construction of the project, but the acceleration will itself increase the
operating and maintenance costs. The
policies outline that a front-ending agreement will specify appropriate
timelines for payback, firm upset limits, and that securities will be held in
an amount that is equal to the project upset limit. Upset limits for front-ended parks and trails
will be specified in a standardized Front-Ending Agreement and in accordance
with the Development Charges By-law.
The Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy
limits the option of voluntarily front-ending of parks to smaller parks
including parkettes and neighbourhood parks.
In spite of this limitation, there will be an overall benefit to all
parks development, as one of the objectives of facilitating more uptake of
front-ending for smaller parks is to free up staff time to focus on design and
development of larger community and district parks, which due to their size and
complexity, cannot reasonably be considered for front-ending.
A typical community trail has been assumed to be
unpaved (stone dust), approximately 3.0 metres wide and located adjacent
to watercourses, within hydro corridors, and within urban natural features
(excluding stormwater ponds). The
developer is to be responsible for all connections to park blocks, walkway
blocks, stormwater management ponds and other trails within the subdivision
that connect neighbourhoods and/or allow subdivisions to be connected by
pedestrian routes. Likewise transportation-related
multi-use pathways which are not currently covered by development charges would
not be eligible for front ending.
Standard Front-Ending Agreement
Upon approval of this report's
recommendation, a standard Front-Ending Agreement format will be developed that
will provide a clear and consistent way of addressing the requirements outlined
in the Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy and will create a more efficient
approval process. The front‑ending
agreement need not be a stand-alone agreement, as it can be integrated with an
appropriate development agreement where such is available. A report to Council will be required to
authorize staff to enter into a front-ending agreement.
For each project, the report to Council and the front-ending agreement will specify the developer’s involvement in the park or trail development. For parks, developers may have the option of front‑ending both the design and construction, or the construction only, depending on the particular circumstances. When the developer is involved in the design of a park, the agreement will specify that plans must be drawn by a qualified professional, in consultation with the City, and will be constructed to the City’s specifications. If a developer is only front-ending the construction of a park, the agreement will tie that developer to implementing specific design plans to the City’s specifications. For all front-ended park and trial projects, the agreement will outline the specific documentation that will be required as proof of expenditures, the specific upset limit for a project, requirements for inspections and reimbursements, and repayment timeline and parametres.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy would apply City-wide, giving both the rural and urban areas equal opportunity to benefit from earlier park and trail development. Within the rural area this policy would mostly impact park and trail development within village boundaries, as this is where the majority of new rural residential subdivisions are being located.
CONSULTATION
Prior to drafting the original Park Front Ending Report, which was referred back to staff at the August 24, 2010 Planning and Environment Committee, a steering committee was struck which included staff from Planning and Growth Management Department, Parks and Recreation Department and Legal Services Branch. The Park Front Ending Policy was put before the Planning Liaison Sub-Committee at the April 9, 2010 meeting for review and comment.
Prior to the August 24, 2010 Planning and Environment Committee meeting, when the Park Front Ending Report was to be heard, the GOHBA requested the item be removed from the agenda to allow for further consultation and discussion with the City. Since August 2010, staff have met with representatives of the GOHBA and their solicitors on a number of occasions and the revised policy (Document 2) was put before this group in December 2010 for review and comment.
N/A
This recommendation in this report are consistent with and form part of the resolution of the appeal to the park component of the development charge by-law.
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The City will reimburse the front-ender a lump sum payment in the year(s) that the project budget is appoved by Council, based on the 10-year capital program at the time the front-ending agreement is approved. The amount reimbursed to the front-ender is not to exceed the amount approved by Council, plus any applicable taxes, at the time of the front-ending agreement.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Council
Member Inquiry PEC 07-09
Document 2 Park and Trail Front-Ending Agreement
DISPOSITION
Staff will implement the proposed Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy upon Council approval.
PARK AND TRAIL FRONT-ENDING POLICY
POLITIQUE INITIALE RELATIVE AUX
PARCS ET AUX SENTIERS
ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0040 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Committee considered and heard delegations on four reports pertaining to provision of parkland, listed as Items 8 through 11 on the agenda:
·
Item 8 - Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds Policy
·
Item 9 - Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy
·
Item 10 - Amendment to the Development Charges By-Law
2009-216 with respect to the Parks Development Service Component
· Item 11 - Amendment to the Conditions for Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision – Parks
Committee discussed these reports together, before approving each separately.
Dr. Ranjit Perera spoke to Items eight through 11 (Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds Policy; Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy; Amendment to the Development Charges By-Law 2009-216 with respect to the Parks Development Service Component; and Amendment to the Conditions for Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision – Parks) He noted that he had a development application in Cumberland, and had obtained draft plan approval, but the process had been going on for three years. He noted that he had appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to certain conditions related to parkland approval. He objected to the fact that rural and urban areas were being treated equally with respect to the provision of parkland and associated policies. He also objected to the increase in the cost associated with parkland. Finally, he objected to the requirements that developments must meet in parkland areas, particularly for rural developments.
Pierre Dufresne, Greater Ottawa Homebuilders Association, spoke in support of Items nine through 11 (Park and Trail
Front-Ending Policy; Amendment to the Development Charges By-Law 2009-216 with respect
to the Parks Development Service Component; and
Amendment to the Conditions for Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision –
Parks). Specifically,
he spoke to the process that led to the development of these reports, which
involved the homebuilders working with staff to develop a series of
recommendations to improve the way parkland is funded and provided for in new
developments. He suggested the new
front-ending provisions would allow developers to front-end the parks with some
recognition that they will be paid back at a committed time. With the development charge amendments, the
City would now have enough funding to complete all works within the parks, and
developers would not be asked on a site-by-site basis to complete matters that
are outside the scope of the budget. In conclusion,
he suggested this had been a successful endeavour, and looked forward to conducting business with staff in a
similar manner in the future.
Chair Hume noted that the City would be again seeking their input as
part of the next review of the Development Charge Bylaw to see what adjustments
need to be made in keeping with the principle of creating sustainable suburban
communities. He suggested these
initiatives were a positive step on the part of the industry in working towards
rectifying the deficiency in the funding for implementation of parks.
Councillor Harder
supported the relationship the City was building with development community,
suggesting it was a long time coming. She noted that they had been talking for
years about building parks faster, and the suggested this was another positive
step, building upon the 2010 initiative by Councillor Hume and herself that had
resulted in revisions
to the development charge funding policy to allow for the prioritization of the
construction of new community-based recreational infrastructure by expanding
the use of growth-related debt.
On this particular report, Committee had the following discussions and debate:
On the front-ending policy, Councillor Bloess noted that this policy was designed for smaller neighbourhood parks and parkettes, and wondered why it was restricted and did not speak to all parks in a new development. Mr. Moser indicated the policy was geared to all parks with the exception of district parks, and the City had not contemplated using front-ending for major city-wide district park facilities.
Councillor Bloess noted that while the report spoke to this initiative not increasing the city’s costs, he suggested it would likely save money.
Committee approved the report recommendations, as presented.
That Planning Committee recommend Council approve the
Park and Trail Front-Ending Policy, as detailed in Document 2.
CARRIED