Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 24-06 Ciú/ o~ REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PO 24-06 Date: March 27,2006 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review - Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006 - Proposed Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components, dated November 2005 n- Recommel'lded Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November2005 Recommendations: 1. That Council RECEIVE Report PO 24-06 of the Director, Planning & Development as the City's comments on the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, Proposed Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components of the Durham Regional Official Plan, dated November 2005; and the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November 2005; 2. In preparing the amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan to implement the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, that Council REQUEST the Region to identify the Cherrywood Community as a Future Urban Policy Area and to expand the urban area boundary to include lands in the northeast area of Pickering (lands outside of the Greenbelt Plan) and to designate these lands as Future Urban Study Area in order to accommodate Pickering's growth potential; and in addition, review the matters set out in Appendix I to Report PO 24-06; 3. That Council REQUEST the Region to address the issues identified by City staff regarding the assumptions used in the analysis of population and land supply in the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 24-06; 4. To provide clarity to the Proposed Amendments on Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, that Council REQUEST the Region to incorporate the revisions as set out in Appendix", Appendix" I and Appendix IV to Report PD 24-06, which among other matters would include the following: · continue to permit the severance of a farm retirement lot; · permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm markets, auction barns); Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 2 · allow the limits of development for Hamlets located outside the urban area boundary to be reviewed by local area municipalities at the time of the ten-year comprehensive review of Provincial Plans; · identify Downtown Pickering (Liverpool and Kingston Roads) as an Urban Growth Centre; · phase the minimum density target of 2.5 FSI for Regional Centres over the timeframe of the Regional Official Plan in conjunction with transit and infrastructure upgrades; · identify the Greenbelt Plan area as a separate component of the Natural Heritage System and retain the existing Major Open Space designation for lands outside of the Greenbelt; · designate fOUL additional major arteriaL rQads segments as Regional Corridor, and · correction of editorial and technical matters; 5. That Council REQUEST the Region to defer the Proposed Amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan affecting Central Pickering in order to re-examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering, policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals including Dixie Road, in light of more recent planning initiatives for this area; 6. That Council REQUEST the Region to examine Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act and incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional Official Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans; 7. That Council REQUEST the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, and further, that Council DIRECT City staff to continue discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back; and 8. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PO 24-06 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. Executive Summary: The Region of Durham, as part of the next stage of its Official Plan Review process, released three documents for review and comment: Proposed Amendments relating to Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental; Recommended Directions Report relating to Population, Employment and Urban Land; and Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines. City staff has identified issues respecting the assumptions used by the Region in the analysis of land supply in the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land. The Regional assumptions resulted in a shortfall of urban land in Pickering by 2026 whereas City staff assumptions indicate a shortfall condition well before 2026. To address the urban land shortfall, it is recommended that Region identify the Cherrywood Community (as shown in Amendment 13) as Future Urban Policy Area and the northeast area of Pickering (lands outside of the Greenbelt Plan) as a Future Urban Study Area within the Region's urban area boundary. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 3 In addition, the Region should provide direction in its Official Plan requiring local municipalities to undertake a comprehensive review justifying the need and timing of additional urban land, and to prepare detailed secondary plans for expansion areas. It is further recommended that the Region's minimum floor space index (FSI) target of 2.5 for Regional Centres be phased over the timeframe of the ROP as higher order transit and infrastructure funding are provided. This provides a more realistic timeframe for the market to respond with higher density development. In general, the majority of the proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan are appropriate. The essential elements of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Amendment remain unchanged from the recommended directions that were outlined in the n Recommèndéd Directions Report, dated Octöber2004. City staff is satisfied with the commercial and transportation components of the ROP Amendment except for minor revisions to provide clarity. However, we continue to have difficulty with the direction of the proposed agricultural policies, which apply stricter land use controls over rural lands in Pickering. Council, in its earlier comment to the Region, requested that the rural policies be revised to provide greater flexibility and opportunity for Pickering's rural community. There are a number of changes relating to Central Pickering in the Region's proposed amendments. More recent review by both the City and Province indicate that the Region's current and proposed policies, land use and transportation designations are no longer appropriate. The Region should defer all official plan matters affecting Central Pickering in order to re-examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering, policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals including Dixie Road. The Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines are intended to be a "toolbox" of potential strategies to be applied in the process of the planning and design of arterial corridors by the Region of Durham, local area municipalities and other interested parties. Although the content of the Guidelines is appropriate, the financial and cost sharing details have not been adequately addressed. Until the Region provides further financial information, it is recommended that Council request the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, and further, that Council direct staff to continue discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 4 1.0 Backç¡round: 1.1 Staff previously commented on the 2004 Recommended Directions Report for the environmental, commercial and rural components of the Regional Official Plan, which formed the basis for the proposed amendments In October 2004, the Region of Durham released the Recommended Directions Report for the environmental, commercial and rural components of the Durham Regional Official Plan. The City of Pickering provided comments on the Directions Report in February 2005. After reviewing all CQmments received, the. Region released. theprgposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan as part of the statutory public consultation process in November 2005. The amendments implement the Recommended Directions that addressed the environmental, commercial, rural components. Amendments to the transportation policies and schedules were also included. 1.2 The Region released the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land in early 2006 The Region released this report in January 2006 with a request for comments from area municipalities. The Recommended Directions Report responded to comments received on the previously released Discussion Paper. The City had provided comments identifying the need for additional urban land to accommodate Pickering's growth potential to 2031. The Directions Report presents Regional staff recommendations on the Population, Employment and Urban Land component of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. The amendments related to population, employment and urban land are anticipated for release by end of April. 1.3 The Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines document was released for comment in November 2005 and is also being implemented through the Region's proposed amendments City staff comments on Draft Arterial Corridor Guidelines were provided in September 2005. A number of the comments were clarified and/or incorporated into the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines released later in the year. The Recommended Guidelines are also being implemented through the proposed amendments to the transportation component of the Regional Official Plan. Staff from both Planning & Development and Municipal Property & Engineering have reviewed and provided comments on the Guidelines. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 5 2.0 Discussion: This part of the report is divided into the following three sections: · Part A provides a response to the Region's Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land; · Part B provides a response to the proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan for the Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components; and · Part C provides a response to the Region's Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines Copies of the three documents are available in the Planning & Development Department, the Pickering Central Library, and can also be viewed by accessing the Region of Durham website at http://www.reqion.durham.on.ca Part A - Recommended Directions respecting Population, Employment and Urban Land 2.1 The Region should reallocate the surplus Ajax population to Pickering and Whitby to support Pickering's role as a western anchor and Urban Growth Centre In recognition of Ajax's Official Plan policy of setting a firm limit to urban growth, the Region has proposed to reallocate more than 40,000 people to designated urban lands within other Durham lakeshore municipalities (mainly Oshawa and Clarington) before any expansion to urban boundaries is considered. This reallocation of population eastward is contrary to Pickering's role as part of the western anchor to the Region's urban system and minimizes the importance of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre to accommodate future growth. Also, it potentially delays the timely development of Seaton. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region reallocate surplus Ajax population proportionally to Pickering and Whitby. 2.2 The Region's urban land supply table should be adjusted to reflect current development experience for residential development in designated Living Areas The calculation of urban land supply should be adjusted to reflect current development experience that a larger share of gross living area needs to be set aside for environmental protection purposes (approximately 50%, rather than the 37% assumed in the land inventory table). The remaining 50% is utilized for residential, roads, schools, parks, and stormwater management facilities. By contrast, the City's Growth Management Study assumed that 65% of lands are used for non-residential development. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 6 It is recommended that the Region reassess the actual amount of designated Living Area land available for residential development. If this more restrictive approach is taken, the current supply of designated urban lands in Pickering will be exhausted before 2026 and will require expansion of urban boundaries in Pickering sooner. It is recommended that the land inventory table be revised to reflect current development practices/restrictions and that urban boundaries in Pickering be expanded to accommodate the increased required urban land supply. 2.3 The Region's land inventory table should be adjusted to reflect a higher rate of housing starts for Seaton per annum starting in 2009 The calculation of the population forecast and the available land inventory for the next 25 years assumes the build-out of Seaton at a much lower rate than anticipated by the City. The City forecasts a higher growth rate of 2,000 to 2,500 new dwellings per year starting in the year 2009, resulting in an earlier urban land shortfall. Accordingly, it is recommended that the population forecast and the land inventory table be adjusted to reflect an increased pace of development for Seaton and that urban boundaries be expanded to provide for further forecasted population increases following the build-out of Seaton to 2031. 2.4 The Region's proposed floor space index of 2.5 for development in Regional Centres should be phased over 30 years The floor space index (FSI) target of 2.5 will apply to the Regional Centres in Seaton and in downtown Pickering. While the objective of achieving this density over time is supported, its implementation will be challenging as it is significantly higher than the FSI for most developments in downtown Pickering, except the Tridel apartments (Picore office complex is about 0.7 FSI). Developments would generally require underground or decked parking. Other challenges include the need for significant investment În community infrastructure requiring major funding assistance from the Province and Region. Also, the anticipated reduction of densities at the periphery of downtown Pickering, to be compatible with the surrounding lower densities, will drive density requirements in the central part of downtown significantly higher than 2.5 FSI. Intensification and redevelopment is not a one-time process, but rather an ongoing evolution of a community. It is therefore recommended that the minimum overall density target be phased gradually for Regional Centres over the timeframe of the Regional Official Plan, as higher order transit and infrastructure funding is provided. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 7 2.5 The Region should identify the Cherrywood Community as a Future Urban Policy Area and the northeast sector of Pickering (outside of the Greenbelt) as a Future Urban Study Area in order to accommodate Pickering's growth potential Recently, City staff met with Regional representatives to discuss Pickering's urban land deficit within the Region's 2031 planning horizon. The Recommended Directions Report indicated that Pickering would require additional lands to accommodate residential growth by 2026. The Region, in response to Pickering's request to designate additional Living Area and Employment Area lands to accommodate growth to 2031, is considering the expansion of the urban area boundary in the Regional Official Plan to include lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. Further, the Region proposed to recognize the Cherrywood Community as a potential future urban area, notwithstanding its current inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan. In light of the Region's comments, it is recommended that northeast Pickering be designated as a Future Urban Study Area within an expanded Regional urban area boundary, and the Cherrywood Community be identified as a Future Urban Policy Area through the Regional Official Plan Amendment process. The future disposition of the Cherrywood Community as an urban area would follow the review of the Greenbelt Plan and its subsequent removal from that Plan. Further, the Region should add a policy requiring a municipally led comprehensive review to be undertaken, including full public consultation, prior to designating lands within a Future Urban Study Area for urban uses. In this way, local municipalities can determine the timing and phasing of urban land to accommodate their growth needs to 2031. Prior to designating land for urban uses, interim land uses would be permitted. If the Region establishes a Future Urban Study Area, the City's proposed Countryside Area designation and associated policies in Amendment 13 reflects an appropriate interim use of land between the existing urban areas and the more permanent agricultural areas within the Oak Ridges Moraine. This would allow uses not directly related to agriculture. Part B - Proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan for the Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components 2.6 If the Region does not expand Pickering's urban area, changes are requested to the ROP Amendment relating to prime agricultural areas, agricultural related commercial uses, farm retirement lots and hamlet boundaries Prime Aqricultural Areas The Region is proposing to merge the two current agricultural designations in the Proposed Amendments for lands both inside and outside the Greenbelt Plan. Previously, Council requested the Region to establish a 'countryside' designation in the Regional Official Plan that reflects a more mixed and diverse setting for near-urban rural areas. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 8 As such, a Countryside designation would provide the opportunity for a broader range of complementary uses including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses than is permitted in the proposed Prime Agricultural Area designation. In the event the Region does not expand Pickering's urban area, it is recommended that a new Countryside Area designation be included in the Proposed Amendments to the Regional Official Plan. Aqricultural related commercial uses The Proposed Amendment has retained the strict policy to allow agricultural-related commercial uses onlv bv amendment to the ROP. As such, any stand-alone commercial use would require an amendment to the ROP. Staff considers the policy overly restrictive. An amendment is unnecessary as these uses are typically small scale, associated with agricultural activities, and have minimal impact on the broader Regional market. Any regional road impacts can be addressed through a study as part of a zoning by-law amendment requirement. As such, it is recommended that the establishment of small-scale agricultural-related commercial uses be addressed through policies in local official plans. It should be noted that the proposed Provincial Plan for Central Pickering permits stand-alone, agricultural-related commercial uses. Farm retirement lots The ROP Amendment has deleted the policy that permits consideration of one farm retirement lot from a total farm holding. It is recognized that the deletion of this policy conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement. However, it is our understanding that the Province is harmonizing the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan for consistency purposes. As an example, a farm retirement lot is permitted in the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan but not in the Greenbelt Plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region pursue this direction with the Province to consider permitting a farm retirement lot in both Provincial Plans and defer the Proposed Amendment relating to severance policies for farm retirement lots until the Province has made a decision. Hamlet boundaries The ROP amendment has carried forward the Region's previously recommended policy to implement a firm growth limit of 25% of existing residential units or current development potential identified in local official plans. For hamlets outside the urban area boundary, the growth of each hamlet should not be restricted indefinitely and should be reviewed by local municipalities at the time of the ten-year comprehensive review of Provincial Plans, such as the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Regional staff has advised that for hamlets within the recommended Future Urban Study Area designation, local municipalities would be able to establish appropriate growth limits for hamlets (i.e. Greenwood and Kinsale). The potential for growth would be assessed in the context of location, local circumstances and future servicing within the Region's urban area boundary. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 9 2.7 The Region should designate four additional major arterial roads segments as Regional Corridor in the ROP Amendment The Region is showing Kingston Road as the only Regional Corridor in Pickering on the proposed land use schedule amendment to the Regional Official Plan. Brock Road from Highway 401 to Highway 407, Whites Road/Sideline 26 from Highway 401 to Highway 407, Taunton Road from Brock Road to Whites Road, and Highway 7 from Brock Road to Townline Road should similarly be designated as Regional Corridor. These roads are major arterial and transit corridors that serve a Regional function by accommodating the movement of people, goods and services through Pickering. The emerging plan for Central Pickering designates these roads as major transit corridors. These corridors would accommodate transit stations at key nodes to facilitate local and interregional transit and inter-modal transportation. These road segments are intended to provide an important transit loop connecting Seaton to downtown Pickering, an urban growth centre in the Province's Growth Plan. To support Pickering's urban system, the Region should identify these corridors in the ROP Amendment. 2.8 The Region should defer all policies and schedules relating to Central Pickering in the Regional Official Plan The use of Section 8.3.4 in the current Regional Official Plan to permit any deviations from the designations for Seaton without an amendment to the Plan is inappropriate. The emerging plan for Central Pickering supports major changes to the policies, land-use and transportation designations in the Regional Official Plan. A number of changes relating to Central Pickering in the Region's proposed amendments do not reflect these major changes. As such, it is recommended that the Region defer all official plan matters affecting Central Pickering in order to re-examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering, policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals. In addition, this would provide the opportunity to address an outstanding deferral relating to Dixie Road. The designation of Dixie Road from Kingston Road and Third Concession Road is deferred in both the ROP and the City's Official Plan due to Council's objection to the Type B arterial designation proposed by the Region and the proposed extension of Dixie Road to connect with Sideline 22 and ultimately Highway 407. It should be noted that the emerging plan for Central Pickering show Dixie Road discontinued north of the Third Concession Road. As such, there is no need to designate Dixie Road as a Type B arterial road in the Regional Official Plan. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 10 2.9 The Region should incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional Official Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act proposes to amend the Planning Act to allow upper-tier municipalities to make grants or loans to lower-tier municipalities for the purpose of carrying out a community improvement plan, but only if the municipality providing the grant or loan has related policies in its Official Plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional Official Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans. Part C - Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines 2.10 The content of the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines is generally appropriate but the financial and cost sharing details remain vague Many of the recommended options for the various road classifications provide for more robust road and boulevard treatments (e.g. enhanced landscaping, street furniture, specialty paving) than what has been done in the past. City staff support the treatments proposed by the Region. However, questions respecting who is responsible for the increased costs to construct, maintain and rehabilitate these upgrades have not been resolved. In response to City concerns previously expressed on cost sharing, the Region has replied that cost sharing of capital and long-term maintenance for Regional roads will be further explored on a project-to-project basis, based on the results of a corridor visioning or equivalent exercise. However, the financial and cost sharing details have not been adequately addressed especially relating to improvements such as enhanced landscaping, boulevard and median treatments, and upgraded standards for street lighting and sidewalks. It will also require the City and the Region to coordinate the prioritization and scheduling of projects, and the approval of funds through their respective annual budget processes. Until the Region provides further clarification on the financial requirements, it is recommended that Council request the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, and further, that Council direct staff to continue discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back. 3.0 Conclusion 3.1 Council should request the Region to address the City's comments provided in this Report and in the Appendices Many of the issues previously raised by City staff on the Natural Environment, Commercial, and Rural components have been addressed through the ROP Amendment. In addition, staff met with representatives from the Region both on the Proposed Amendments and the Recommended Directions for Population, Employment and Urban Land and appreciated the clarifications provided. Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 11 Staff's detailed comments on the Recommended Directions Report, ROP Amendment, and Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines are provided for Council's review and endorsement (see Appendices I, II, III and IV). There is general agreement with most of the Region's directions, amendments and recommendations. It is recommended that Council request the Region to incorporate the changes set out in Report 24-06 and in Appendices I, II, III, and IV. APPENDICES: COrnrn~nts on.. the Region's Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urbánland, dated Janúary 2006 ~.- II Comments on the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment, dated November 2005 III Technical Comments on the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment Schedules IV Comments on the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November 2005 Report PO 24-06 Date: March 27, 2006 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Page 12 Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: C(1vlo- P ù~~~ Carla Pierini Planner II "~ Neil Carroll, CI PP Director, Planning & Development .5 Grant McGregor, MCIP, P Principle Planner - Policy ~~~- Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy CP:GM:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council J ~/ð6 " · DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT FOR POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND URBAN LAND, JANUARY 2006 APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 24-06 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Recommended Directions for Population, Employment and Urban land I Recommended Item # Directions POPULATION FORECASTS 1. That the Rap be amended to include population forecasts, 2011 - 2031, as summarized in Table 1 (see Attachment #1 to Appendix I). Pickering was allocated 205,800 people for the year 2031 ¡ a decrease of about 5,000 from the Proposed Directions. I Staff Comments I Recommendations Reallocate Ajax surplus population to Pickering: The Ajax Official Plan has set a firm limit to future urban expansion and the surplus population can now be reallocated to other area municipalities. Table 1 reallocates the surplus . first to the already designated Living Area lands in Oshawa and Clarington until those lands are fully occupied with the remainder then allocated to the other area municipalities. The population surplus should be allocated to Pickering and Whitby. Pickering will need significant growth potential to fulfill its new role as an Urban Growth Centre in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan. Should the Region not allocate the surplus Ajax growth to Pickering and Whitby, it should be allocated proportionately to local municipalities based on adjustments from the proposed review/monitoring of actual population data from Census Canada every five years that is recommended. The Region should not first allocate the surplus to the designated Living Area lands in Oshawa/Clarington. Include rural and urban forecasts: It is recommended that Table 1 include separate figures for the rural and urban population forecasts for each municipality. Item # 1. cont'd Recommended Directions I ~ Staff Comments I Recommendations Revise the calculation of land supply: The net land calculation methodology assumes 63% of gross land area will be developable, despite recent environmental standards that typically require approximately 50% of land to be used for non-development purposes. An up-to-date ratio should be determined and the methodology amended to reflect such a finding. Reflect a higher growth rate for Seaton: The forecasts in Table 1 assume a rate of development for Seaton that is too conservative. It is recommended that Table 1 and the land supply table be amended to reflect an increased average annual rate of growth for Seaton due to stronger anticipated demand for development in Seaton. 2. No new designations of urban land are Revise urban boundaries to included in the Recommended Directions accommodate more urban growth in Report. Pickering: It is recommended that the Cherrywood Community be identified as a Special Urban Policy Area for consideration as a future urban area in the ROP, once necessary amendments to the Greenbelt Plan occur. Also, it is recommended that lands outside the Greenbelt in northeast Pickering (generally north of Highway #7, east of Westney Road) be designated as a Future Urban Study Area now, within the urban area boundary, subject to a policy requirement for a municipally initiated comprehensive review, including public consultation, prior to establishing urban designations and permitting development to occur. The Recommended Directions Report notes that the Province's draft GGH Growth Plan forecasts 350,000 jobs by 2031 for Durham, a 1 :2.7 ratio of jobs to population, and that the Durham Official Plan will have to conform to these figures, once they become Provincial policy. If the GGH Growth Plan forecast becomes Provincial policy, the result will be a greater relative tax burden on the residential sector, compared to the rest of thª GTð. _ further, D~rhall1 wULbe at a disadvantage in competing for scarce Provincial infrastructure investment in major transportation, piped services etc. than would those Regions with a 1:2 jobs to population ratio. The City supports the 1:2 ratio for Durham Region in the Recommended Directions Report. EVALUATION OF LIVING AREAS - BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS Recommended Directions EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 3. Employment Forecast: Item # Year Emplovment Jobs: Population 2011 2021 2031 225,800 306,600 398,800 1 :2.9 (34%) 1 :2.7 (36%) 1 :2.6 (38%) 4. Permit urban boundary expansion amendments only through comprehensive review undertaken by the Region, in consultation with the respective area municipality. 5. Areas (for urban boundary expansions) shall be required to: · be large enough to create a complete new community at secondary plan level, or to complete an existing community; · be contiguous to existing urban areas; · allow for sequential development; and · be serviced by full municipal water and sewer services. Staff Comments I Recommendations The recommended direction is unclear as to who can initiate a comprehensive review. It is recommended that only the Region or area municipalities should be able to initiate a comprehensive review. Further, it is recommended that a definition of 'comprehensive review' be added to the ROP to specify that a review of urban boundaries in one or more area municipalities would be considered as a 'comprehensive review'. Require clarification. The terms "complete new community", "complete an existing community" and "sequential development" should be defined/clarified. Item # 6. Recommended Directions Require that approved secondary plans build out to 75% of dwelling unit capacity prior to approval of sequential secondary plans. Staff Comments I Recommendations The exact percentage of build-out required to release the next sequential secondary plan should be established in area municipalities secondary plans. Also, the established amount of build-out should delav development in the next sequential secondary plan, not approval of the next secondary plan. 7. Seek to achieve the development of Regional A sampling of current Floor Space Indeces Centres to a minimum overall Floor Space in Pickering's downtown includes: Index (FSI) of 2.5. - - · Pickering Town Centre at 0.37 .~.. .T6bfawsStóre dáf 0.21 · MPAC/Picor Office Complex · Tridel Apartments · Rockport Townhouses/ Seniors Complex at 0.71 at 2.89 to 6.48 at 2.0 Additional funding for piped and transportation infrastructure may be required in downtown Pickering to service significant redevelopment to achieve a minimum 2.5 FSI overall. It is recommended that the minimum overall FSI for Urban Growth Centres and other Regional Centres be phased over the timeframe of the Rap as infrastructure funding becomes available. /-\ttachment #-1- TABLE 1 Recommended Population Forecasts 2011 ·2031 MuniciiJalitv 2011 2021 2031 Ajax 102,000 128,500 135.200 Brock 13,600 15,600 18,200 Clarinaton 95,200 131,000 177,800 Oshawa 161,700 194,000 237,200 PickerinQ 105,100 149,400 205,800 SCUgOq 23,200 25,600 26,100 Uxbridae 22,300 23,400 24,000 WhitbY '134,100 174,200 226,200 Durham '657,300 841,800 1,050,600 Source: Durham Region Planning Department. Notes: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Totals may not add due to rounding. Refer to Appendix II for further details. DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCIAL, RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS NOVEMBER 2005 APPENDIX II TO REPORT PD 24-06 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Proposed Amendments Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENT 1. 2.3.3 Item # Where residential and noise sensitive land uses are located within 750 metres of a railway corridor, Regional Council shall ensure regard is given to the noise, vibration and safety standards of the Ministry of Environment and the affected rail company through consultation with these· agencies and, where necessary; by requiring the preparation of a noise and vibration analysis. Further. in accordance with Transport Canada Guidelines. no new noise sensitive land use shall be permitted above the 25 NEF/NEP noise exposure contour for new airports. 2. 2.3.12 To ensure that water resources are available in sufficient quality and quantity to meet existing and future needs of the Region's residents, Regional Council shall: a) promote and support water resources conservation and management initiatives of other agencies; b) in the process of assessing development, require lakes and streams and adjoining lands to be retained in or rehabilitated to a natural state, the protection of fish and wildlife habitat and minimize alterations to natural drainage systems and sediments entering a watercourse or lake; c) discourage alterations to watercourses with minor adjustments considered by the authority having jurisdiction where evidence can be provided that the functions of the watercourse will not be adversely affected; Staff Comments I Revisions** The proposed increased area of influence adjacent to railway corridors from 300 metres to 750 metres is excessive. For example, a land use proposed on the north side of Kingston Road at Liverpool Road would require involvement of the railways. It is recommended that the current 300 metre area of influence be retained. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording *. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** 2. d) ensure that, where appropriate, area cont'd municipal official plans require stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control plans be prepared in the context of subwatershed plans and that stormwater management facilities be implemented as part of the pre-servicing of development proposals; The requirement that stormwater e) ensure that, for lands located on the Oak management plans and watershed plans Ridges Moraine and the lands Qoverned (and their components) for lands within the by the Greenbelt Plan, stormwater Greenbelt Plan be subject to the provisions of management and watershed plans and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan their components, - meet the requirements provides for stricter regulations. The of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Greenbelt Plan contains policies that apply to Plan; and stormwater management infrastructure proposals, and identifies the required f) promote qroundwater infiltration. throuQh components of watershed plans. improved stormwater management desiQn. It is recommended that the reference to lands governed by the Greenbelt Plan be deleted from clause (e). 3. Aquifer Vulnerability Areas It is recommended that the aquifer vulnerability area mapping and restrictions be Sections 2.3.22. 2.3.23. 2.3.24. 2.3.25 applied only to the rural area, as all uses everywhere have to demonstrate appropriate stormwater management and environmental regulations, etc. SECTION 5 - CULTURAL, HEALTH and COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SERVICES and UTILITIES 4. 5.2.2 The establishment of municipally owned community facilities should be permitted Municipallv owned and operated community within all designations, including Prime facilities. for such purposes as day care Agricultural Areas. centres and recreation shall be encouraqed to locate within Urban Areas and if appropriate in It is recommended that the restriction scale. in Hamlets. but may be permitted in any regarding the Prime Agricultural Area be desiqnation. except the Prime Aqricultural deleted from this policy. Area. Within the Oak RidQes Moraine. such uses are encouraqed to locate in Settlement Areas and Hamlets, but may be permitted in the Countryside Area. outside of Prime Aqricultural Areas. subject to the provisions of the Oak RidQes Moraine Conservation Plan. These uses shall be directed to locations that are visible and accessible to residents of the Region. preferably in close proximity to existinq and future transit routes. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* 5. 5.2.7 The development of electric power facilities, includinQ commercial wind turbines, shall occur in an orderly manner to facilitate the efficient and reliable provision of adequate electric power. It is the policy of this Plan that electric power facilities are permitted in all land use designations, provided that the planning of all such facilities satisfies the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and is carried out having regard to the other policies of this Plan. Area Municipalities should consider the inclusion of policies in their respective Official Plans, ensurinQ that commercial wind turbines are located appropriatelv. 6. 5.3.6 Cemeteries are recognized as necessary and essential community facilities. Cemeteries may vary in scale, depending upon the location and needs of the population to be served. Existing cemeteries are recognized as permitted uses in this Plan. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording Staff Comments I Revisions** In addition to commercial wind turbines there are other forms of renewable energy sources that can supply electric power. As such, it is recommended that this policy be revised to permit a broader range of energy sources. It is recommended that the specific term "commercial wind turbines" be replaced with the more generally defined term renewable energy facilities as follows: "The development of electric power facilities, including renewable energy facilities, shall occur in an orderly manner to· facilitate the efficient and reliable provision of adequate electric power. It is the policy of this Plan that electric power facilities are permitted in all land use designations, provided that the planning of all such facilities satisfies the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and is carried out having regard to the other policies of this Plan. Area Municipalities should consider the inclusion of policies in their respective Official Plans, ensuring that renewable energy facilities are located appropriately." In light of the above, it is recommended that the following definition for renewable energy be added to Sub-Section 15A - Definitions of the Regional Official Plan: "Renewable Energy: means energy sources that produce electricity or thermal energy without depleting resources, and include solar, wind, water, earth and biomass power". ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # 6. cont'd - Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* Such cemeteries may be permitted to expand to the limits of the license issued under the Cemeteries Act, provided that they comply with the respective zoning by-law and intent of this Plan, and that provisions have been made for roads identified in this Plan and the respective area municipal official plan. The establishment of new cemeteries may be permitted by amendment to the respective area municipal official plan, provided that the proposal for a new cemetery: a) meets the general intent of this Plan; b) has no adverse traffic, parking and visual impacts on the surrounding land uses and residents; c) is situated on lands suitable to be developed as a cemetery; d) has no adverse impacts on the natural environment and satisfies the provisions of Section 2 of this Plan; e) has made provision for future roads; and f) is not located in Prime Aqricultural Areas. In addition, within the Oak Ridges Moraine, the establishment of cemeteries may only be permitted in the Countryside and Settlement Areas, subject to the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. SECTION 8 - URBAN SYSTEM 7. 8.3.10 For the purposes of this Plan, Reqional Interest in commercial planning shall be based upon the followinq: ill Anv commercial proposal of 56.000 m2 or larqer, on an individual or cumulative basis; or Q} Anv commercial proposal that would have the potential to neqativelv impact the planned function of a Regional Centre. Staff Comments I Revisions** It is unclear if this policy applies to the expansion of existing cemeteries within the "Prime Agricultural Area" designation (as it should). Further clarification is required. It is recommended that policies 8.3.10 and 8.3.11 be moved from Section 8 to Sub-Section 8A as these policies relate to implementation. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* 7. 8.3.11 cont'd Reqional Council shall require the preparation of a retail impact study for any retail commercial development proposal that is of Reqional Interest. in accordance with Policy 8.3.10. 8. 8A.2.2 Centres shall be classified in a hierarchy of functions as follows: a) Reqional Centres shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.2 as the main concentrations of urban activities within area municipalities, providing a fully integrated array of community, office, service and shopping, recreational and residential uses. Generally, Reqional Centres shall function as places of symbolic and physical interest for the residents, and shall provide identity to the area municipalities within which they are located. The Reqional Centre (Simcoe and King Streets) in the City of Oshawa shall continue to be, and function as, the dominant Centre within the Region, with specific emphasis on office, business and administrative services; Q1 Local Centres desiqnated In area municipal official plans shall be planned and developed in accordance with the followinq: U Urban Centres shall generally be smaller in scale than, the Reqional Centres, serving large segments of Urban Areas through the provision of uses which complement those offered within the Reqional Centres; ill Community Centres shall generally be smaller in scale than, the Urban Centres serving small segments of Urban Areas through the provision of uses which complement those offered within the Urban Centres' and ' Staff Comments I Revisions** The provincially proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe identifies two Urban Growth Centres in the Region of Durham. One is located in Downtown Pickering, and the other is in Downtown Oshawa. It is recommended that the ROP reflect the two proposed Urban Growth Centres, and that a new "Urban Growth Centre" classification be added to the hierarchy of centers as Clause (a). In addition, the existing Clauses should be re-alphabetized, and the reference to a single Regional Centre at Simcoe and King Streets in Oshawa be deleted from Clause (b) as follows: "a) Urban Growth Centres shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.2 as focal areas for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well as commercial , recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. Urban Growth Centres shall accommodate and support major transit infrastructure. Two Urban Growth Centres, one in the City of Pickering (Liverpool and Kingston Roads) and the other in the City of Oshawa (Simcoe and King Streets) shall accommodate a significant share of population and employment growth and serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** 8. !ill Neiqhbourhood Centres shall b) Regional Centres shall be planned cont'd generally be smaller in scale than and developed in accordance with the Community Centres, serving Policy 8A.1.2 as the main the day-to-day needs of the concentrations of urban activities residents of the surrounding within area municipalities, providing a neiqhbourhood. fully integrated array of community, office, service and shopping, recreational and residential uses. Generally, Regional Centres shall function as places of symbolic and physical interest for the residents, and shall provide identity to the area municipalities within which they are located. The Regional Centre (Simcoe and King Streets) in the City of Osha\":a shall continue to be, and function as, the dominant Centre within the Region, 'J:ith specific emphasis on office, business and administrative services; c) ." ..., In addition to the above revisions, all other text and schedule amendments to implement the proposed changes should be made in the ROP. 9. 8A.2.6 Disagree. In policies 8.3.10 and 8.3.11, the Regional interest in commercial planning has Prior to the consideration of the expansion of been clearly defined. Therefore, this second an existinq Regional Centre. as detailed in an set of policies is not necessary, and it is area municipal official plan, the Council of the recommended that policies 8A.2.6 and 8A.2.7 area municipality shall determine if there is a be deleted. Reqional Interest in accordance with Policy 8.3.10. Where there is a Reqional Interest. a retail impact study shall be required to iustify such expansion. and ensure that the proposal does not undulv affect the viability of any other Centre. · Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording .. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* 9. 8A.2.7 cont'd 10. Prior to the designation of ª new Local Centre in an area municipal official plan or the expansion of an existinq Local Centre, the Council of the area municipality shall determine if there is a Reqional Interest in accordance with Policy 8.3.10. Where there is a Reqional Interest. a retail impact study shall be required to iustifv such desiqnation or expansion and ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect the viability of any other Centre 8A.2.11 In the preparation of area municipal official plans, Councils of the area municipalities shall ensure the inclusion of: a) policies and designations to implement the intent of this Plan and provisions of this Section, particularly Policies 8A.1.2 and 8A.1.5; Staff Comments J Revisions** Regional and Local Corridors should also be designated in area municipal official plans with defined boundaries and refined land use designations. It is recommended that Regional and Local Corridors be added to clause (b), so that it reads as follows: lib) boundaries, as well as land use designations, within all Regional and Local Centres and Corridors;" * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions boundaries, as well as land use designations, within all Reqional and Local Centres; c) a network of walkways, civic squares and parks; b) d) requirements for the preparation of traffic access studies; e) development of higher densities; f) transit nodes; g) policies to ensure and guide the development of housing in Reqional and Local Centres: and bl policies to ensure that qenerally new development alonq Corridors shall either front or flank the roadway. Reverse lottinq alonq Corridors should only be permitted, where other desiqn solutions are not feasible. Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** SECTION 9 - RURAL SYSTEM 11. 9A.2.7 The listed uses are considered to be small-scale commercial uses that support the The establishment of aqriculture-related agricultural community and have minimal commercial uses. such as farm markets. impact of the broader Regional market. auction barns. and feed stores. that support Similar to small-scale home occupations / and directly service aqriculture. and require businesses and agricultural-related industrial locations in proximity to aqriculture and uses, small-scale agricultural-related agriculture-related uses. shall be encouraqed commercial uses should be permitted within to locate in Urban Areas and Hamlets. Prime Agricultural Areas. The establishment However. such uses may be permitted in of such uses should be addressed through Prime Agricultural Areas by amendment to this policies in local official plans. Plan. In the consideration of such amendment. It should be noted that the emerging plan for reqard shall be qiven to the applicable po-licies of 9A.2.6. Central Pickering permits agricultural related commercial uses. It is recommended that this policy be revised and additional wording be added as follows: "The establishment of agriculture-related commercial uses, such as farm markets, auction barns, and feed stores, that support and directly service agriculture, and require locations in proximity to agriculture and agriculture-related uses, shall be encouraged to locate in Urban Areas and Hamlets. However, such uses may be permitted in Prime Agricultural Areas without amendment to this Plan provided appropriate policies are contained within area municipalities official plans. Area municipal official plans shall include detailed policies to limit the scale and number of agricultural-related commercial uses, and include policies to address compatibility with surrounding uses." 12. 9A.2.12 Staff disagree with the deletion of the current The severance of land for farm retirement or policy which permits the consideration of the intra-family purposes shall not be qranted. severance of one retirement lot from a farmer's total farm-related land holdings. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** 12. It is recognized that the deletion of this policy cont'd conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement. However, it is our understanding that the Province is harmonizing the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan for consistency purposes. It is recommended that the Region pursue this direction with the Province to consider permitting a farm retirement lot in both Provincial Plans and defer the Proposed Amendment relating to severance policies for farm retirement lots until the Province has made a decision. 13. 98.2.7 Staff agree with the concept of limits to growth for hamlets. However, for hamlets Hamlets within the Oak Ridqes Moraine shall outside the urban area boundary the growth be delineated and developed in accordance of each hamlet should not be restricted with the requirements of the Oak Ridqes indefinitely and should be reviewed by local Conservation Plan and the applicable policies municipalities at the time of the ten-year contained in Section 10 of this Plan. comprehensive review of Provincial Plans. For all Hamlets outside the Oak Ridqes The Region has advised that for hamlets Moraine. a firm limit to Hamlet development of within staff's recommended Future Urban 25% of existinq residential units (as of vear Study Area designation, local municipalities end 2000). or the residential development would be able to establish appropriate growth potential within the limits of the Hamlet, limits, and the potential for growth would be identified in area municipal planninq assessed in the context of location and local documents (as of year end 2000). whichever is circumstances within the Region's urban area greater. shall be established in area municipal boundary. official plans. toqether with a firm Hamlet boundary. Area municipalities may choose to be more restrictive. The delineation of Hamlet boundaries based on the above criteria shall take into account infill potential within the existinq limits of the Hamlet first. Any remaininq development potential may be accommodated throuqh an expansion to the Hamlet, in accordance with a comprehensive review as outlined in Policy 98.2.8. Once the Hamlet boundary is desiqnated in the area municipal official plan. no further Hamlet boundary expansions shall be permitted. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Amendments* SECTION 10 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM 14. 10.3.9 15. 16. The lands designated as Prime Aqricultural Area between the Oak Ridges Moraine Area and the Natural Heritage Area and Waterfront Area, as identified in Policy 10.3.8, shall function as open space linkages. Sub-Section 1 OA - Natural Heritaqe Areas - 1 0A.1 .1 Natural Heritaqe Areas are desiqnated on Schedule 'A' and include key natural heritaqe and hvdroloqic features. 10A.2.5 Within Urban Areas. the minimum veqetative protection zone shall be determined throuqh an environmental impact study. in accordance with Policv 2.3.35. Staff Comments I Revisions** In light of the recommendation that the proposed "Prime Agricultural Area" in northeast Pickering be identified as a Future Urban Study Area, it is recommended that this policy be deleted. The lands contained within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan shall function as appropriate open space linkages. As part of the proposed ROP Amendment, lands currently designated "Major Open Space" are to be designated "Natural Heritage Area". The general policies established for all lands within the proposed "Natural Heritage Area" designation are based on policies contained within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan. As such, lands located outside of the Greenbelt Plan area will be subject to the rigorous Greenbelt policies. This is considered inappropriate as the Province's Greenbelt policies should be confined to the Greenbelt area. The existing "Major Open Space" designation, and policies, are considered more appropriate for rural lands that are not part of the Greenbelt. It is recommended that the Greenbelt be identified as a separate component of the Natural Heritage System and that the existing "Major Open Space" designation be retained for rural lands outside of the Greenbelt Plan area. It is recommended that an environmental impact study in accordance with the Durham Regional Official Plan be required only when amendments to the Regional Official Plan are required, or when local official plans do not already contain policies regarding such studies or the protection of natural features. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** 16. It is recommended that additional wording be cont'd added as follows: "Within Urban Areas, where an amendment to this Plan is required or where an area municipal official plan does not contain policies regarding environmental impact studies or the protection of natural features, the minimum vegetative protection zone shall be determined through an environmental impact study, in accordance with Policy 2.3.35." 17. 10A.2.6 See comments provided for Item # 16. Outside of Urban Areas, an environmental It is recommended that additional wording be impact study, in accordance with Policy 2.3.35, added as follows: shall be required for any proposal for new development or site alteration within 120 "Outside of Urban Areas, where an metres of a key natural heritaqe or hydroloqic amendment to this Plan is required or feature. In the case of fish habitat, an where an area municipal official plan does environmental impact studY shall include the not contain policies regarding qreater of: environmental impact studies or the protection of natural features, an ill the hazardous land limit; environmental impact study, in accordance Q1 the meander belt limit; or with Policy 2.3.35, shall be required for any proposal for new development or site 9 120m from the stable top of bank. alteration within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature... " 18. 10A.2.7 See comments provided for Item # 16. Within Urban Areas, the need and/or scope of It is recommended that additional wording be an environmental impact study, in accordance added as follows: with Policy 2.3.35, for any new development or site alteration shall be determined in "Within Urban Areas, where an amendment accordance with the Council approved EIS to this Plan is required or where an area Guideline. municipal official plan does not contain policies regarding environmental impact studies or the protection of natural features, the need and/or scope of an environmental impact study, in accordance with Policy 2.3.35, for any new development or site alteration shall be determined in accordance with the Council approved EIS Guideline." * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** SECTION 11 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 19. Existing Policy 16.3.20 is to be deleted from Staff disagree with the deletion of this policy the ROP in its entirety. and recommend that a similar, reworded policy be retained as follows: "Regional Council shall endeavour to provide transit service on all arterial roads in the urban areas of Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Courtice and Bowmanville. " 20. 11.3.33 This policy needs to be strengthened in order to further clarify when to initiate the corridor The Reqion in coniunction with area plans associated with a Municipal Class municipalities may develop corridor plans in Environmental Assessment for significant coniunction with Municipal Class development. Environmental Assessments for maior road works, or siqnificant development applications It is recommended that the following be or plans. Such corridor plans will provide a added to the last paragraph of this policy: vision for the development of Reqional Road corridors over time and shall address: 'These corridor plans will be used to guide a) the transportation environment. the development of key arterial corridors and will provide implementation measures and includinq present and future mobilitv and financial commitments for activities such access requirements; as planning, design, maintenance, planting, b) adjacent land uses and the future built construction, or reconstruction." environment; and c) streetscapinq and the public realm. It is further recommended that the following paragraph be added at the end of the policy: These corridor plans will be used to quide the "These corridor plans will only be required development of key arterial corridors and will for development when the Region, in provide direction for such activities as conjunction with the local area municipality, planninq, desiqn, maintenance. plantinG, determines the need for a corridor plan." construction. or reconstruction. 21. 11.3.34 Partially Agree. This policy needs to be strengthened in order to give proper direction Where a development application or site plan is to the area municipalities on how to initiate a continqent upon road improvements that are corridor plan and a Municipal Class subject to a Municipal Class Environmental Environmental Assessment associated with Assessment or a corridor plan. the development development applications or site plans that application or site plan shall not be approved require road improvements. until the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment or corridor plan are completed to the extent required to assess the development application or site plan. * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording ** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff Amendments* Comments I Revisions** 21. It is recommended that the following cont'd additional paragraph be added at the end of Policy 11.3.34: I "The requirements for a corridor plan or Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in conjunction with road improvements will be determined by the Region in conjunction with the local area municipality." SECTION 13 - SPECIAL POLICY AREAS 22. 13.2.1 This area is currently designated as "Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors" within the Special Policy Area A (Pickering) Pickering Official Plan, and as such this policy has become obsolete and is no longer This area presently contains a mixture of required. residential, retail, personal service and industrial uses. The policy of this Plan is to maximize the It is recommended that this policy, along with area's highway exposure as a mainstreet and the Special Study Area designation shown on gateway to the Region. Development shall be Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure, intensified in a manner that will not adversely be deleted and that a "Living Area" or affect similar development within the Main "Regional Corridor" designation be applied to Central Areas of the City of Pickering. The this area. improvement of its visual impact from Highway 401 and Highway 2 shall be a major consideration in the development of this area. SUB-SECTION 15A - DEFINITIONS 23. Aqricultural use: means the qrowinq of crops. It is unclear whether or not riding and includinq nursery and horticultural crops. boarding stables would be permitted under raisinq of livestock; raisinq of other animals for this definition. As these are common uses food, fur or fibre. includinq poultry and fish; that occur on rural properties, it is aquaculture; apiaries; aqro-forestrv; maple recommended that Agricultural use definition syrup production; and associated on-farm be revised to specifically include these uses. buildinqs and structures. POLICY ADDITION 24. It is recommended that the following policy be added to Section 4-Housing as follows: "Regional Council shall promote more energy efficient buildings and infrastructure including retrofitting existing development to more energy efficient standards." * Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording *. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCIAL, RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS PROPOSED SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS APPENDIX III TO REPORT PD 24-06 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Proposed Schedule Amendments Item # Proposed Region of Durham Schedule Amendments Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure identifies a Regional Corridor designation only on Kingston Road. 1. 2. Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural Heritaqe And Hvdrologic Features identifies key natural heritage features and hydrologic features on a regional scale. Staff Comments I Revisions The segments of Brock Road from Highway 401 to Highway 407, Whites Road/Sideline 26 from Highway 401 to Highway 407, Highway 7 from Brock Road to Townline Road and Taunton Road from Brock Road to Whites Road are designated as Arterial Roads, but not Regional Corridor. It is recommended that the segments of Brock Road, Whites Road/Sideline 26, Highway 7, and Taunton Road be designated as Regional Corridor. These roads will serve a Regional function by accommodating the movement of people, goods and services through Pickering. In addition, the emerging plan for Central Pickering designates these roads as major transit corridors. These corridors would accommodate transit stations at key nodes to facilitate local and interregional transit and inter-modal transportation. These road segments are intended to provide an important transit loop connecting Seaton to downtown Pickering, an urban growth centre in the Province's Growth Plan. Staff continue to note that the scale of the mapping on the proposed schedule requires detailed mapping to be provided in local official plan schedules. It is recommended that Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' be removed in its entirety, and that the key natural heritage features and hydrologic features be identified only in local area municipalities official plans. 3. Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network omits It is recommended that this mapping error be a portion of Highway 7, west of Lake Ridge corrected. Road (the proposed Kinsale by-pass). Item # Proposed Region of Durham Schedule Amendments Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network states that Finch Avenue, west of Altona Road should be re-designated from a "Type A" Arterial to a "Type C" Arterial road, whereas the designation illustrated for Finch Avenue shows it as a "Type B" Arterial. 4. 5. Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network identifies a network of Type "A", "B " and "C" Arterial roads through Central Pickering. Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority Network identifies a transit spine and several future Commuter Stations within the Central Pickering. 6. Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network designates Dixie Road as a "Type B " Arterial road. Staff Comments I Revisions The ROP Amendment should state that Finch Avenue, west of Altona Road is proposed to be re-designated from a "Type B" Arterial to a "Type C" Arterial, not from a "Type A". It is recommended that the current "Type B" designation for this portion of Finch Road not be amended. Maintaining the existing designation provides consistency along Finch Avenue to Durham Regional Road 30, which is currently designated as a "Type B". It is recommended that the road and transit networks for Central Pickering be deferred until the plan for this area is finalized. This will ensure that the approved road and transit networks are accurately reflected in the Regional Official Plan. The designation of Dixie Road from Kingston Road and Third Concession Road is deferred in both the ROP and the City's Official Plan due to Council's objection to the "Type B" arterial designation proposed by the Region and the proposed extension of Dixie Road to connect with Sideline 22 and ultimately Highway 407. As the emerging plan for Central Pickering shows Dixie Road discontinued north of the Third Concession Road, Dixie Road should be designated as a "Type C" Arterial road. 7. Schedule E - Table E7 - Arterial Road Criteria It is recommended that the exception to allows for exceptions to right-of-way widths in arterial road right-of-way widths also apply to Central Areas and Hamlets. Regional Corridors. 8. A future by-pass at Regional Road 30 (York - Durham Townline Road) and Highway 7 is identified on the following schedules: Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure; Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural Heritage and Hydrological Features; Schedule 'B' - Map 'B2' - Aquifer Vulnerability and Wellhead Protection Areas; It is staff's understanding that there is physically insufficient room for another intersection at Regional Road 30 (York - Durham Townline Road) and Highway 7, and therefore it is unlikely that the future by-pass could be accommodated. It is recommended that the future by-pass be removed from the listed schedules. Item # Proposed Region of Durham Schedule Amendments Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C4' - Strategic Good Movements Network; Schedule 'D' - High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas. 8. cont'd 9. The future Brock Road by-pass around Brougham is illustrated close to the Hamlet on the following schedules: Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure; Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural Heritage and Hydrological Features; Schedule 'B' - Map 'B2' - Aquifer Vulnerability and Wellhead Protection Areas; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority Network; Schedule 'C' - Map 'C4' - Strategic Good Movements Network; Schedule 'D' - High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas. Staff Comments I Revisions It is recommended that the Brock Road by-pass be represented more easterly of the Hamlet of Brougham, generally reaching Sideline 16 to the east as shown in the Environmental Assessment, on the listed schedules. I DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL CORRIDOR GUIDELINES NOVEMBER 2005 APPENDIX IV TO REPORT PD 24-06 Item # 1. Region of Durham Official Plan Review Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG) Provisions for access to major commercial/activity centers. 2. Section 4.5, Noise Attenuation Strategies, Road Design: suggests reducing noise by reducing speeding. 3. Section 5.2, Crosswalks and Intersections 4. Section 5.3, Item #8, continues to read that "if a live tree must be removed, replace it with two saplings". 5. Section 9.0, Typical Street Cross Sections: some of the cross sections recommend the provision of border areas, which can be as wide as 5.5 meters. Staff Comments The guidelines do not address the provision of signalized access to major I commercial/activity centers where the minimum intersection spacing is not available. The provision of signalized access should be further explored through the Access Management Policy study. The Guidelines should give details on the design elements that could be implemented on local arterial and collector roads to reduce speeding. It is recommended that a minimum width of 2.5 metres for crosswalks be specified in the ACG. It should not matter whether the tree is alive or dead if it has to be removed. Spatial requirements for tree growth and road cross sections will dictate how many trees should be replanted. The removal of a dead or alive tree should be replaced with a tree of similar size and species, or of a minimum calliper of 50mm. Staff are concerned that large border areas may be too excessive in the urban area, particularly when combined with municipal setback requirements for development. Large borders may result in a large and under utilized boulevard. It is recommended that the guidelines promote that the size of the borders be reviewed in conjunction with adjacent developments, anticipated activity levels, and zoning provisions to ensure that the borders are appropriate in scale. Item # 6. Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG) Appendix B: Street Tree Species Possibilities. 7. Table 1.0 - Street Type Matrix with Corridor Considerations indicates a 30 metre right-of- way width for a two lane rural road under the "Type A" arterial road designations. Staff Comments This list contains only a few large deciduous tree species and does not contain any Maples, Ashes or other varieties of species, which have proven to do well under urban conditions. Arterial corridors are wide expanses of relatively flat spaces and require vertical elements with volume to break up the wide flatness. Street trees of large deciduous varieties have these characteristics and can shade and shelter pedestrians. This desire is expressed I throughout the landscaping guidelines within the ACG. Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road Classification System in the ACG, and Schedule E - Table E7 of the Rap Amendment provide a right-of-way width of 36 - 45 metres for a "Type A" arterial road. It is recommended that Table 4 of the ACG and Table E7 of the Rap be revised to be consistent with Table 1.0 of the ACG, and that a special provision which allows for a reduced right-of-way width of 30 metres for a two lane "Type A" rural arterial road be provided. 8. Table 1.0 - Street Type Matrix with Corridor Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road Considerations in the ACG indicates a 26 Classification System in the ACG, and metre right-of-way width for both two/four lane Schedule E - Table E7 of the Rap commercial main streets, and two lane Amendment provide a right-of-way width of commercial main streets under the "Type B" 30 - 36 metres for a "Type B" arterial road. arterial road designation. It is recommended that Table 4 of the ACG and Table E7 of the Rap be revised to be consistent with Table 1.0 of the ACG, and that a special provision which allows for a reduced right-of-way width of 26 metres for both two/four lane commercial main streets, and two lane commercial main streets under the "Type B" arterial road designation be provided. Staff Comments The maximum right-of-way widths as recommended in Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road Classification System should only be applicable to intersections where channelization is required. Mid-block arterial corridors should have minimum right-of-way widths to ensure that arterials do not act as physical barriers. Staff recommend amendments to the ACG and the ROP Amendment to reflect this. 10. Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road This Table is not consistent with Schedule E Classification System, Land Service/Access - Table E7 of the ROP Amendment as the for a "Type A" arterial lists the following following criteria is not provided: criteria: Permit private access generally located a Rigid/Progressive access control; minimum of 200 metres apart in Urban Areas; Permit major developments such as central business districts, regional commercial centres It is recommended that Table 4 be revised to and large industrial centre. reflect Table E7 of the ROP Amendment. Item # Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG) That roadway corridors and right-of-way widths should be kept to a minimum to support adjacent land uses. 9. 11. Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road Classification System, Land Service/Access for a "Type B" arterial lists the following criteria: I ncremental/Progressive access control; Promote higher densities with shared or combined access. 12. Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road Classification System, Transit for "Type A", "Type B" and "Type C" arterial roads states the following: Type A Arterial: May serve as major and minor transit corridors. This Table is not consistent with Schedule E - Table E7 of the ROP Amendment as the following criteria is not provided: Permit private access generally located a minimum of 80 metres apart in Urban Areas; It is recommended that Table 4 be revised to reflect Table E7 of the ROP Amendment. This Table is not consistent with the wording provided in Schedule E - Table E7 of the ROP Amendment. As such, it is recommended that both tables be revised to combine the different wording provided in each table as follows: Type A Arterial: May serve as major and Type B Arterial: May serve as major transit minor transit corridors, and as regional corridors. transit spines. Type C Arterial: May serve as minor transit Type B Arterial: May serve as major corridors. transit corridors, and as regional transit spines. Type C Arterial: May serve as minor transit corridors, and as local transit corridors and connectors to regional transit spines. -- Item # Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG) Staff Comments 13. Section 8.8 - Street for Future Intensification It is recommended that the . . minimum states the following: intersection spacing (east-west direction) for "Type A" and "Type B" arterial roads provided Frequent intersections and pedestrian access in Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road should be encouraged and should generally be Classification System of the ACG and at a minimum of every 250 metres. Schedule E - Table E7 of the ROP Amendment be revised to 250m/50 Om [not 300m/500m as currently shown] to be consistent with Section 8.8 of the ACG.