1. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study June 2012 Final Report D14-11-061

2. 3. Final Report Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study MMM Group of Companies, in association with RCI Consulting and Sweeny Sterling Finlayson & Co TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................11.1 STUDY PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................11.2 STUDY AREA..................................................................................................................................................21.3 STUDY PROCESS............................................................................................................................................22.0 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS........................................................................................52.1 PHASE 1 VISIONING WORKSHOP .....................................................................................................................52.2 PHASE 2: CONSULTATIONS AND DESIGN WORKSHOPS.....................................................................................62.3 SUMMARY OF PHASE 3 CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT FINAL REPORT (MARCH 2012) AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ...............................................................................................................................................................82.4 SUMMARY OF PHASE 3 CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT FINAL REPORT (MARCH 2012) AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................152.5 SUMMARY OF PHASE 3 CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT FINAL REPORT (APRIL 2012) AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................173.0 VISION AND PRINCIPLES FOR NORTHDALE.............................................................................................254.0 PREFERRED NEIGHBOURHOOD ELEMENTS............................................................................................315.0 PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN....................................................................................................................395.1 LAND USE FRAMEWORK ...............................................................................................................................395.2 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT YIELDS................................................................................................................536.0 PLANNING STRATEGIES .............................................................................................................................556.1 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION ...........................................................................................556.2 COLUMBIA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENT ...................................................................................656.3 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT.......................................................................................................................657.0 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................717.1 PURPOSE AND APPROACH ............................................................................................................................717.2 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................................717.3 INCENTIVE PROGRAM UPTAKE AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE ........................................................................727.4 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTIONS.............................................................................747.5 TAX INCREMENT GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTIONS.........................................................................................767.6 RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY LOAN/GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTIONS ...........................777.7 RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM...........................................................................................81Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report i 4. 7.8 URBAN DESIGN STUDY GRANT......................................................................................................................827.9 PLANNING AND BUILDING FEES GRANT..........................................................................................................827.10 SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................828.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................85List of Figures FIGURE 1.1 NORTHDALE STUDY AREA..................................................................................................................2FIGURE 1.2 STUDY PROCESS.................................................................................................................................4FIGURE 5.1 PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN ..........................................................................................................40List of Tables TABLE 5.1 LAND USE CATEGORIES .....................................................................................................................41TABLE 5.2 POTENTIAL LOW DENSITY REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS...........................................................44TABLE 5.3 PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT YIELDS...................................................................54TABLE 6.1 BONUSING FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................62TABLE 7.1 - PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHDALE BY UNIT TYPE .................................71TABLE 7.2 - PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHDALE BY YEAROF CONSTRUCTION..................................................................................................................................................72TABLE 7.3 - PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS INNORTHDALE...............................................................................................................................................................72TABLE 7.4 - PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS IN NORTHDALE............73TABLE 7.5 - PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT APPROVED FOR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS IN NORTHDALE BY PROJECT PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................................................................74TABLE 7.6 - CITY OF WATERLOO DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATES....................................................................74TABLE 7.7 - DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION MATRIX.........................................75TABLE 7.8 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GRANT FOR NORTHDALE ................................................75TABLE 7.9 AVERAGE ASSESSMENT VALUE ASSUMPTIONS BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT...........................76TABLE 7.10 TAX INCREMENT GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION MATRIX....................................................76ii June 2012 5. TABLE 7.11 - PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT GRANT FOR NORTHDALE .............................................................77TABLE 7.12 - RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY LOAN APPLICATION EVALUATION MATRIX .......................................................................................................................................................................77TABLE 7.13 PROJECTED LOAN INTEREST ON RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITYLOAN...........................................................................................................................................................................78TABLE 7.14 - RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY LOAN FORGIVENESS MATRIX .............78TABLE 7.15 LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY LOANPROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................................79TABLE 7.16 - RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY GRANT APPLICATION EVALUATION MATRIX .......................................................................................................................................................................79TABLE 7.17 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT CHARGE GRANT FOR NORTHDALE WITH RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY GRANT OPTION ....................................................................................81TABLE 7.18 PROJECTED TAX INCREMENT GRANT FOR NORTHDALE WITH RESIDENTIALINTENSIFICATION AND AFFORDABILITY GRANT OPTION ....................................................................................81TABLE 7.19 FISCAL IMPACT OF NORTHDALE CIP PROGRAMS - SUMMARY ......................................................82Appendices APPENDIX A OFFICIAL PLAN MODIFICATION (MODIFICATION TO NEW OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON APRIL 16, 2012) APPENDIX B OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT (AMENDMENT TO EXISTING OFFICIAL PLAN, JUNE 1990) APPENDIX C COLUMBIA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PLAN AMENDMENT APPENDIX D ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report iii 6. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Purpose The Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study was initiated in response to interest by the public, residents and stakeholders to develop a clear vision and plan for Northdale, and the need to address issues related to the evolving neighbourhood demographic and associated development pressures for student rental housing, the conversion of existing dwellings, and higher density housing forms, which has implications on the character and livability of the neighbourhood. Since the Study Area is bounded by the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, there is significant pressure to accommodate students in Northdale and provide services and commercial uses which serve the student population, faculty and employees of nearby businesses. The conversion of single detached dwellings to accommodate student rental housing has led to issues related to property maintenance/ upkeep, transportation/parking issues, building code violations, and other by-law infractions. Council determined that the existing planning framework is not sufficient, and a new vision/planning framework is required to guide land uses in Northdale. The Northdale Special Project Committee (NSPC) was established by Council to provide input throughout the study process, and to represent the broad interests of stakeholder groups and the community. The City of Waterloo approved the Terms of Reference for undertaking a Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study for the Northdale neighbourhood in April 2011. In July 2011, the City retained MMM Group Limited, in association with RCI Consulting and Sweeny Sterling Finlayson & Co to undertake the study. The purpose of the Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study was to develop a vision for Northdale, and a recommended land use structure and community improvement planning strategy for the Northdale neighbourhood. The study has resulted in a comprehensive planning and regulatory framework to guide change in Northdale, including a: Vision and guiding principles for Northdale; Land Use Plan to provide a recommended land use and community structure for Northdale, including an Official Plan amendment, District Plan amendment, and Zoning By-law amendment to implement the recommended vision for Northdale, goals and objectives, and policies and zoning regulations to guide decision making with regard to land use, urban design and other matters; Community Improvement Plan, which includes financial incentives or City-led programs, which may be implemented at Councils discretion to support realization of the vision for Northdale, and encourage new investment; and Urban Design/Built Form Guidelines to guide the design, location and form of buildings and structures and uses, and provide guidance on matters such as compatibility, transitions and creating attractive environments. To accomplish this, the project involved extensive consultation with residents, the public and stakeholders; a detailed review and analysis of the planning policy framework for Northdale; an analysis of current planning issues and options; and the development and evaluation of several land use options, urban design strategies and community improvement strategies. The preferred options and their evaluation provided the basis for the preparation of the recommended Land Use Plan, Community Improvement Plan and Urban Design/Built Form Guidelines. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 1 7. Recognizing that there is a wide range of planning issues to be addressed through the study, an integrated approach to land use planning, urban design and community improvement was undertaken. The Land Use Plan and policy framework will help guide decision-making to achieve the vision and development principles for Northdale over the long-term. The Northdale Urban Design Guidelines supports the policies of the land use plan through more detailed guidance and explanation of the intent of the urban design policies. The goals and objectives of the land use plan are also supported by the potential financial incentives and City programs through the Community Improvement Plan, which Council may choose to implement to help stimulate reinvestment and address specific issues, such as property maintenance, sustainable site and building design, and building code compliance. 1.2 Study Area The Study Area consists of the Northdale neighbourhood, which is bounded by King Street West to the east, University Avenue West to the south, Phillip Street to the west and Columbia Avenue West to the north. The extent of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The neighbourhood is commonly referred to as Northdale, which is located within the southern portion of the Columbia District, as indicated on Information Map 2 of the current City of Waterloo Official Plan (2004 Office Consolidation) and Schedule C of the New City of Waterloo Official Plan (adopted by Council on April 16, 2012). Figure 1.1 Northdale Study Area 1.3 Study Process The study process involves regular consultation and input from several groups. The project is primarily driven by City Council, who has endorsed the preferred vision and principles to guide the study, and will be responsible for 2 June 2012 8. endorsing the preferred land use/urban design/community improvement solution, and adopting the recommended Official Plan / District Plan amendments, the Zoning regulations, Community Improvement Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. The Region of Waterloo will be the approval authority for any potential amendments to the Citys Official Plan. The Northdale Special Project Committee (NSPC) has been formed to provide input into the study throughout the process and to represent the broad interests of stakeholder groups and the community. The consulting team is primarily responsible for preparing reports and deliverables, managing the project with City Staff support, and obtaining and considering input from Council, the NSPC, the public, residents and other stakeholders, including other levels of government (the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, for example). The study process includes several key milestones, which are illustrated on Figure 1.2. The first step in this process was to develop a definitive vision and principles to guide the planning framework for Northdale, based on input from the NSPC and the public. The vision is therefore largely community-based. The purpose of the visioning consultations was to identify principles that are generally agreed upon and which can form the common foundation for more detailed recommendations. The Visions and Principles Report for Northdale was endorsed by Council on November 28, 2011, and are outlined in Section 3.0 of this Report. Following the visioning exercise, the consulting team, in consultation with NSPC and City staff, have prepared land use/urban design and community improvement options, for consultation with the NSPC and public which provided the basis for the Phase 2 consultations as presented in the Draft Discussion Paper. In January and February 2012, various meetings, including a design workshop were held with the NSPC, as well as a public open house/design workshop, to present the land use and community improvement options. The Discussion Paper was subsequently revised to reflect the consultations and provide an evaluation of these options in order to identify preferred land use elements and community improvement incentives that should comprise the preferred Land Use Plan for Northdale. The Report identified preferred neighbourhood elements and community improvement incentive options which were presented to Council on March 5, 2012, at this meeting Council authorized the consulting team to proceed with Phase 3 of the Study. The preferred neighbourhood elements are outlined in Section 4.0 of this Report. Phase 3 of the work program involved the preparation of this Final Report, which includes the identification of a preferred land use plan (including proposed Official Plan, District Plan and Zoning By-law amendments), as well as Urban Design/Built Form Guidelines and a Community Improvement Plan, which are provided under separate cover. The fiscal analysis of the community improvement plan incentives are provided in Section 7.0 of this Report. Additional consultation with the NSPC, the public, City staff, and City Council has been undertaken to finalize the documents for consideration by Council. The preferred land use plan and community improvement options were presented to the NSPC on March 22, 2012 and at a third Public Open House meeting on April 3, 2012 for public review and comment. A revised Preferred Land Use Plan and supporting amendments and implementation documents were presented to Council at an informal Council meeting on May 7, 2012 for information. A formal Statutory Public Meeting is anticipated to occur on June 25. 2012, with a recommendation for Council adoption at that time. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 3 9. Figure 1.2 Study Process 4June 2012 10. 2.0 Public and Stakeholder Consultations The following summarizes the NSPC, public and stakeholder consultations which have informed the preparation of the Northdale Vision and Principles (outlined in Section 3.0), the Preferred Neighbourhood Elements (outlined in Section 4.0) and the preparation of the Preferred Land Use Plan and implementing/supporting documents (Section 5.0 and 6.0), as well as the Urban Design Guidelines and Community Improvement Plan (provided under separate cover). 2.1 Phase 1 Visioning Workshop Phase 1 of the Study involved extensive consultation with the Northdale Special Project Committee (NSPC), public and stakeholders to develop a vision statement and principles that should guide future development and growth within Northdale. This resulted in the preparation of the Northdale Vision and Principles Report, November 2011. With the support of the NSPC, the vision and principles were unanimously endorsed by Council on November 28, 2011. The vision statement and principles have informed the preparation of various land use and urban design/built form options which are presented in Section 8.0, and will form the basis for establishing the preferred land use planning framework, urban design options and the community improvement plan policies and programs to guide future growth and development within Northdale. Consultation Summary The vision statement and principles were developed through an extensive consultation program which included a visioning workshop with the NSPC on September 21, 2011 and the Public Open House and Visioning Workshop on October 5, 2011, and review and consideration of additional comments received through the comment forms and the on-line survey. A summary of the visioning workshops and comments received are available on the Citys Northdale Project website: www.waterloo.ca/northdale. The vision statement and principles were prepared based on the key themes that were identified through the visioning workshops, particularly the responses to the following question: What do you want Northdale to look like in 20 years? The responses to this question were categorized into a number of key themes which emerged and have been used to form the basis for the preparation of the vision statement and principles. The following is a summary of the key themes identified: Mixed Use / Diverse Northdale should accommodate a diverse range and mix of residential and community uses (i.e., commercial, retail, employment, institutional uses etc.). The neighbourhood should also accommodate a diverse mix of demographics, ranging from student housing, to housing for families and seniors. The neighbourhood is predominately comprised of students and a greater demographic mix is desired to support a broader range of community uses. University Services / Housing Northdale should accommodate uses and services which support the universities and include opportunities for student housing in various built forms, and institutional and related uses. Northdale may accommodate additional university development and amenities and should appeal to students, families and professionals who wish to reside in the neighbourhood. Green Space / Open Space Veterans Green park is the only neighbourhood park in the community and Northdale should be improved with new and/or expanded open spaces, parks, walkways and trails. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 5 11. Location / Accessibility The Northdale neighbourhood is located in proximity to the Universities, Uptown and major employers and provides an opportunity to better integrate these uses with the rest of the City and make better utilization of its location and existing and planned improvements in transit facilities, by accommodating more intensive development. Development Potential The neighbourhood has undergone significant transformation and a clear vision is required to guide future growth and development which reflects opportunities for intensification, infill and redevelopment. Sense of Community / Identity Northdale should have an improved sense of community where people wish to live, work and play. The community should accommodate more public gathering places, vibrant streets, increased pedestrian activity and be an attractive destination. Urban / Building Design Northdale should provide high quality urban design through more cohesive and integrated land use patterns and streetscaping. Higher quality building architecture and more durable building construction is desirable. Northdale should be a model community showcasing a world-class community and landmark buildings. Commercial / Recreation Needs Northdale should provide for a variety of uses that encompass various community commercial uses and recreational amenities, which cater to a broader demographic and provide for residents daily needs. Partnerships Partnerships with the Universities, the City, landowners and businesses are required to improve the economy and create employment opportunities, accommodate student housing, and achieve community redevelopment objectives. Community Services / Safety The image for Northdale should be improved as a safe community, which is supported through community/social infrastructure, improved walkways and pedestrian connections, and through improved law enforcement. Heritage The Veterans Green park memorial and housing complex should be preserved and/or better integrated within the community. Building / Property Standards Northdale should have better building/construction standards and provide safe and affordable housing opportunities. Properties and buildings should be better maintained. 2.2 Phase 2: Consultations and Design Workshops Consultations on the Draft Discussion Paper, including the draft land use options and potential community improvement plan incentives consisted of the following: NSPC Meetings An NSPC Design Workshop on January 18, 2012, followed by a subsequent meeting with just the NSPC members on February 1, 2012 to discuss and evaluate the options by completing a detailed evaluation worksheet related to the three land use options and community improvement options. On February 8, 2012, the consulting team met with the NSPC to present a summary of the comments 6 June 2012 12. received and present the draft preferred elements that have been identified by the consulting team for discussion with the NSPC. The NSPC met independently on February 15, 2012 to review and discuss the draft preferred elements in order to provide comments back to the consulting team. Public Open House/Workshop A Public Open House and Design Workshop on January 26, 2012 to present and review the draft land use options and potential community improvement plan incentives. Comment Forms/On-line Survey - Comment forms and an on-line survey were also available for member of the public to submit individual comments. Developer Stakeholders A direct mailing was provided to a number of developers who have undertaken work in the City and Northdale to request specific input on the draft land use options and potential community improvement plan incentives options. Agency Comments the draft Discussion Paper was circulated to various agencies for review and comment, a summary is provided herein. A more detailed summary of the consultation is included in the Discussion Paper, February 2012. The recorded comments from the NSPC worksheets, Public Open House comment forms, the on-line survey, developer and agency comments are provided within a separate report entitled Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study - Phase 2 Consultation Compendium. The design workshop component of both the NSPC and Public workshop focused on reviewing the three land use options, identifying the strengths and weaknesses associated with each option, and then identifying an option which represented the groups most preferred land use option. Using the groups most preferred option as a base, each group was tasked with preparing their own preferred land use option, and identifying the elements that should comprise the Preferred Land Use Plan for Northdale, by focusing on three key areas: i) roads and connections; ii) parks and open space; and iii) land use and built form.The design workshops were intended to assist in identifying what the NSPC and public feels are the most preferred elements that should comprise the Preferred Land Use Plan for Northdale, as opposed to simply selecting one of the three draft land use options. The land use options were intended to facilitate discussion, and it is anticipated that the Preferred Land Use Plan for Northdale may comprise various elements from each of the options, and/or include entirely new elements and ideas which have been identified through the workshops and the evaluation of the options. The following summarizes the key areas of discussion resulting from the design workshop and review of the land use options, and the identification of a preferred land use option. Streets and Connections Provide for the extension of the existing street grid network Provide for pedestrian/cyclist east-west links (does not have to be streets) Extension of Sunview Street to Batavia Place Provide enhanced connections from King Street to Fir Street and Hazel Street Larch Street may provide opportunity as an academic use corridor an important pedestrian link between the University lands Hickory Street should function as a main street through the neighbourhoodo Many groups saw Hickory as an important street for pedestrians and bicycles or a tree lined boulevard Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 7 13. Encourage less cars by providing for improved pedestrian / bike network, and traffic calming Open Spaces / Parks Provision of more open space which should come with higher density Courtyards should be provided in combination with mid-rise and high-rise buildings Provide for the retention and extension of Veterans Green Park Maintain open space/recreation opportunities at WCI Provide for more smaller parks/parkettes or courtyards rather than large parks The provision of more open space. Open spaces should be inter-connected, not only to themselves, but also to roads, transit etc. Many groups suggested a node or open space at the intersections of Hickory and Hemlock and/or Albert Streets Land Use The majority of groups did not support the retention of single detached homes The majority of groups suggested building heights of 4 or more storeys More height should be accommodated at the key intersections of Hickory/Albert, Hickory/Hazel and Hickory/Lester Universities should be included in development plans for Northdale Promote the development of predominately mid-rise neighbourhood More socio-economic diversity is needed within the neighbourhood Plan should include other civic, cultural uses/amenities May provide for the extension of Laurier University along the Larch Street Corridor Most groups preferred mid-rise buildings over more high-rise buildings Most groups preferred Hickory Street with active frontages or a mix of active and convertible frontages Frontage Active and convertible frontages should be included within the interior of the study area (mixed use areas) Architectural quality of the buildings should be improved The NSPC and Public design workshops and consultations and the comment sheets and on-line surveys received were a component of the evaluation of the options, and have been duly considered by the consulting team in evaluating the land use and incentive options and identifying the preferred elements for Northdale as outlined in Section 4.0 of this Report. It is important to note that the identification of the preferred elements is not based solely on the design workshop consultations and comments received, but have been evaluated based on other evaluation criteria which have been identified based on discussions and input from the NSPC. The Preferred Land Use Plan and Incentive Programs have considered these consultations in addition to the evaluation of the options, including a planning-level demand and capacity analysis, and review of traffic, servicing and feasibility considerations. The evaluation is presented in the Discussion Paper, February 2012. 2.3 Summary of Phase 3 Consultations on Draft Final Report (March 2012) and Supporting Documents The Draft Final Report, March 2012 and supporting documents were presented to the NSPC on March 22, 2012, and at a third Public Open House on April 3, 2012 to review and receive comments on the draft documents. The draft 8 June 2012 14. documents were also circulated to various agencies and staff departments, whose comments have been considered in the preparation of the revised draft documents. The following outlines the key questions that were posed on the comment forms and on-line survey related to the draft documents, and summarizes the key issues and concerns that were identified through these consultations. 2.3.1 Draft Preferred Land Use Plan a) What elements of the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan do you support? Ability to improve the area. Support the higher density NMU-6, 12 and 25 zones. Densification of lands in proximity to the proposed LRT is good for the Places to Grow Act and will benefit a growing population. The draft preferred land use plan depicts a vibrant community with a European feel. The new connections (active/pedestrian and road connections), the opening of cul-de-sacs and the breaking up of long blocks through new streets and pathways. Revitalizing the core area greatly improves the growing University sector. NMU-3 with bonuses making 6 storey 450 bedroom/ha possible is essential. All lots should be zoned a minimum of NMU-12 under the new designations. Long-term vision of reurbanized and vibrant Northdale is great. Support the use of bonuses, the woonerf on Larch Street, the plans for a pedestrian friendly neighbourhood, and the concentration of activity/density along University Avenue. In support of pedestrian walkways from Lester to Philip. Strongly support heritage designation for CMHC wartime townhouses. Support the urban streetscape along University. Support the lower densities along Hickory and its transformation into a green corridor. A good mixture of housing types. Long-term pretty vision. Paths for bicycles. We can all agree that Universities are important to Waterloo. Support the intensification highlighted in the plan (Philip and King Street). The idea of bonusing in return for improved public benefits. Ensuring active or convertible frontages along every important corridor. The use of green space (parkettes, squares and parks) Bottom section of Northdale NMU-12 will enable chunks of development as opposed to skinny strips of development and should develop rapidly. The west side of Lester being rezoned to NMU-12 will give easy access to the LRT station, should Hickory Street extend through to Philip. b) What elements of the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan do you not support? Do not support the heritage restrictions on Hickory, State, Fir and Hazel area (i.e., heritage review, Specific Provision Area 45b, and Block Planning requirements). Heritage areas should not be considered and more emphasis should be placed on architecture and green living. The heritage label will reduce property values and the full value of their investments. The 3 storey height is deceiving (Low Density Residential designation). The land use categories appear to be assigned arbitrarily to lands. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 9 15. Do not support the minimum lot area and the minimum frontage required. The 1650 sq. m. lot size requirements and minimum frontage areas are punitive to every homeowner where 80% of all residential lots are less than 800 sq. m. The NMU-3 and NMU-4 are both not acceptable. NMU-6 should be the minimum. The Low Density Residential designation needs to be removed from Northdale. Bedroom densities become smaller and contradict the mandate of the whole study. Do not support the lower density NMU zone, surrounds residents with towers and offices. The 3 storey 150 density per single family residence will never work because of the cost that it takes to make it worthwhile. Nothing should be less than 6 stories. Restrictions on taxpaying landlords lead to the poaching of the value and earning potential of all properties for no reason. Plan fails to acknowledge a supportive transition for the elderly people living in the City. Plan does not change the current situation and will keep landlords and students struggling for a place to live. There is very little green space in the plan. The Public Open House reinforced the notion that Northdale property owners are primarily interested in personal financial gain, soon and with minimal effort. Do not support parkland dedication. Philip Street to Lester Street connection should be for pedestrians and not cars. Do not support bonusing provisions. All densities should require bonusing and not just 3 storeys. The large 3 storey area will become a slum over time. Albert Street is a major collector road and should be intensified accordingly rather than creating new streets to justify intensification in Northdale. Intensify existing roads instead of building new ones. There is a lack of consistent density in Northdale. Tall buildings along University, Philip and parts of Albert will not enhance Northdale. Do not understand why Balsam Street extends to Philip Street. Only 3 storey townhouses can be combined in larger areas. Concerned about Maple and State Court townhouses being included in the 25 storey high density zone without mention of preserving the historic veterans housing area. Plan does not address orphan houses. There is major bylaw improvement required. The plan only contains vague hints of bylaw enforcement. Draft plan allows developers and Universities to profit at the expense of good taxpaying homeowners and eventually the City. The building freeze is of debatable value with 17 exceptions already and should be lifted as soon as possible. The idea that neighbours (with entirely different needs, priorities, lifestyles) should be required to combine their lots in order to receive a reasonable return is not fair. The plan is biased and is trying to turn back the clock to 1950s low density residential which has clearly not worked. See the goal, but do not see success through this report. Change density to old Official Plan levels. Should be 6 storeys across the board except for areas like Philip and King that cannot be changed. Needs to be new connections but no thoroughfares. Woonerfs should be considered for some of them at some points. The parking requirements are excessive and unnecessary. 0.25 spots per bedroom acknowledges that 75% of people can do without it. 10 June 2012 16. Zoning the Philip/Columbia corner Residential immediately after it was zoned Industrial is a potential health hazard to residents. The place of pedestrian/cycling connections cutting through existing properties and expecting property owners to assume risk/liability of damages and potential injuries. c) Additional comments on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan The specific provision area and heritage review requirements for the Veterans Green Housing and surrounding Wartime Housing is unfair (SPA 45b). What value is there on heritage level for homes built in the 1960s? No sense in having State, Fir, Hickory, Hazel as heritage areas. Veterans area should not be designated as a historical area and the homes are not worth preserving can simply use plaques to honor Veterans. Heritage is important and is needed to keep Veterans Green as open green space. Additional parkettes to the plan would be beneficial. Acknowledging the areas heritage value is a good idea and does not necessarily have to mean keeping the rundown wartime homes. Cannot understand the division of land uses between the NMU-3 and NMU-12 zones on Sunview and Albert. Land would be better used for Waterloo student housing and lecture halls. How does the plan reward the hardworking elderly homeowners in Northdale who take excellent care of their homes? Remove the minimum 1650 sq. m. lot area requirement for development. Before the introduction of the 1650 m. sq. minimum lot area requirement, no one was considering welfare, needs and right of the aging community to be able to sell an individual immaculately kept house and lot property for a fair price. Remove all MDS in all zones of the City. Remove restrictions on zoning. We now have more uses in SR zoning. Class C licensing should be allowed in the entire area. Bill 140, which allows triplexing and duplexing, should be encouraged for more affordable housing, density and urban mix to the community. Bonusing should apply to all zones and not just the low-density area. Without incentives, there is little hope for getting the desired community benefits. The southeast Columbia/Albert corner should include 3 houses on Albert the same way that there 3 houses included on Hickory and Hazel. Northdale needs higher density. Zoning outside of the Northdale centre is unfair and threatens re-sale values for small buildings. NMU-3 zoning makes existing homes worthless for development. Draft Preferred Land Use Plan looks a lot like Option 1, which was rejected at the public consultation. Prefer the maps from the second workshop which were accepted by over 90% of attendants that night. Lower density areas will turn into ghettos. Do not put roadways from Lester to Philip Street. Trying to keep Northdale a strictly residential neighbourhood is a terrible idea. Northdale should be entirely mixed use with planned greenspace, and let the new vision grow organically from demand. Zoning would work better if it were more of a form-based code like Kitcheners mixed use zones (MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3). Too much is at stake if WCI is not redeveloped. If WCI remains, the area would be without a large neighborhood park. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 11 17. d) Summary of proposed Official Plan land use categories and development permissions Low Density Residential land use is not suitable in Northdale anymore. Mixed Use Medium Density Residential can be applied along the main streets like Hazel and Hickory. Low Density Residential land use is essential. Have to get rid of 3 storey provisions for low density residential land uses because it will not work. Should be increased to 4 stories with mixed use on ground floor. Commerce on first floor is good and makes for a better mix of buildings. 25 storeys for Mixed Use High Density Residential and Mixed Use Community Commercial is too high for Northdale. High rises in Mixed Use High Density Residential areas will obliterate the Veterans Green parkette. Mixed Use Commercial is ideal for Northdale and brings heart into the community. This should be zoned on both sides of Hickory Street from King to Hazel since many people travel this area by car and foot. Convertible frontage is a strange concept for Albert. Mixed Use Medium Density Residential land uses should have their heights spread out and not have one solid block of this height. Keep the bonusing system because it is the only way that improvement can be made in the area. Hopefully Low Density Residential uses can be bonused to 6 storeys. Why are coffee shops not allowed? Worried that no coffee shops, no pubs, book stores, fruit stands, delis, convenience store are allowed. Northdale cannot be hip without this. Far too restrictive on permitted uses. Where in the plan is there adequate bylaw policing to stabilize the area in the short term? Mixed Use Medium High Density would add vibrant diversity to the area. Concerned that Mixed Use High Density land use will be too dense and opens the door for more student housing projects like the one near the corner of Philip Street and University Avenue (256 Philip Street). High density is needed for the area. Provides more forms of housing to the consumer. 2.3.2 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment a) Please provide your comments on the proposed type and range of permitted uses within the Northdale Mixed Use Zone NMU-3 does not respect the needs of the elderly who have always taken great pride of their homes. The plan is a visual utopia that takes into consideration absolutely everything except the quality of life and humanity of Northdale residents. The NMU-6 and NMU-12 proposed types should be the same. The division leads to negative results similar to MDS. NMU-6 should be applied along Hickory, Hazel and Albert. Permitted uses are vague such as the use of office. What school would build that high in NMU-6, NMU-12 and NMU-25 zones? This is not realistic planning. Very restrictive in NMU-3 and NMU-4 zones, the range of uses should be broader. Micromanagement continues and the plan devalues Northdale. The NMU-12 and NMU-6 types should be the same without any discrimination. Not fair to tell homeowners the types of businesses that should be open. Everyone should get the same opportunity. Glad to see community gardens, libraries and child care centres on the lists, however the lists are an inappropriate way to makes these kinds of rules. 12 June 2012 18. There should be a principle about minimizing the air quality impact of the stores among the rules. Not enough thought or planning for quality Commercial uses, therefore, travelling outside the area is required. It would be beneficial to have more grocery stores and pharmacies for a more urbanized feel. NMU-3 should be eliminated completely. It defies logic to require convertible frontage that has no use. All zoning should be NMU-6 or higher for all of Northdale. Religious use - Destroying the existing church on University. Who gets to use the community centre? Both universities already have centres. Uses should not be prescribed by zoning. The restrictions limit potentially innovative businesses from arising in the area. Restrictions based on sq. footage, noise and parking makes more sense. Affordable housing is needed. There is no interim zoning to allow fair transition towards the final goal 20 years down the road. Stick construction is poor quality. Low-density homes will perpetuate the student problem. Why is there a Child Care Centre only for NMU-6 and above? Why not name the public areas? Public areas destined to become party central. Not excited about turning low density homes into community gardens or playgrounds. NMU-3 Many of the houses exceed 150 bpha already so there is no chance the existing houses will be replaced with fewer bedrooms. Have a mixed land uses for buildings that are 6, 12 or 25 storeys. Eliminate frontage requirements. Eliminate all zones except for NMU-6 and NMU-25. Support an OMB appeal of the freeze. Need more commercial uses which will create a safer community. MR-12 zoning should not be considered. Almost all units in NMU-12 have a smaller area than half of 1650 sq. m. which means that a builder will have to combine at least three lots to make a new project. But according to bpha, the three lots can only hold 120-130 bedrooms, and a 6 storey building on such a big lot is more than enough for this. b) Please provide your comments on the draft/proposed zone regulations Highly dense. No incentives for homeowners in NMU-3 residential areas to sell their current homes. A wonderful, logical and inspired presentation, however, there is a need to address the elderly and their quality of life. Maximum density is too low and should at least be doubled. Reduce In Lieu of Parkland fee to something more realistic. Zoning is too low. Suggestion of 0.33 parking spaces per bedroom. The convertible frontage and 150 person density is a combination that will not work. Minimum lot areas are a good idea; however they are too restrictive for developers. Minimum lot sizes make no sense. If a proposal meets all the design guidelines and density requirements, then they should be allowed to go ahead. NMU-3 and 1650 sq. m requirement should be eliminated. Allow duplex and triplex immediately in Northdale but only with footprint (SR) expansion. Plan does not reduce the amount of tall buildings that look down at 1-3 storey buildings. Frontage requirements encourage investors to pick off a few adjoining properties, however, they cant develop anything of significant importance with these densities. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 13 19. Eliminate or reduce parking spaces to 0.5 spaces per unit. Density should be increased to 450 bedrooms/hectare and 750 bedrooms/hectare. Parking and bike space requirements should be broken down for different zoning. 1 Bicycle space per unit is unrealistic and too excessive. Like and appreciate the change in minimum parking requirements. Promotes less car use. 2.3.3 Draft Incentive Programs a) Draft Preferred Incentive Programs Based on the public comment forms completed the following provides a summary of the ranking of highest to lowest of the most preferred draft incentive programs: 1. Development Charge Grant Program 2. Residential Intensification and Affordability Loan/Grant Program 3. Tax Increment Grant Program 4. Planning and Building Fees Grant Program 5. Urban Design Study Grant Program 6. Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program b) Additional Comments on the Draft Preferred Incentive Programs Do not see any incentives on Hickory, State and Fir area, instead there are restrictions. In favor of incentives for LEED designations and use of good materials. Makes sense environmentally. Restrictions on building seem to only reward big developers. How many years will it take to obtain such incentives while we front the costs of improvement? Do not support incentives for NMU-3 and NMU-4. The permitted height/density values should be increased to the bonus values. Consider adding incentives for preserving heritage elements. With incentive programs it is important to maintain flexibility for Council and predictability for developers. What can be done with incentives to encourage people to design for better air quality? Need to give homeowners incentives to sell and 6 storey zoning will help realize this. Incentive programs will not work. LEED is great but incentives for improved air quality would be better. The City should follow Kitchener as an example, designate wartime housing as Heritage Conservation and offer incentives for preserving the heritage elements. Will not be able to overcome added expense. Incentives are too small. Developers will move to St. Catharines for better incentives. Incentive programs appear to be very costly. Do not see Waterloo granting enough to encourage a better design. Penny pinchers at City Hall wont offer any of these incentives. Incentives in lieu of parking, parkland dedication fees are essential. The incentive program kills student housing as there are no incentives for 4+ bedrooms. Not all student housing is problematic. 2.3.4 Other Comments on the Draft Final Report and implementing/supporting Documents Restrictions on low density area do not provide any development. 14 June 2012 20. Another study (i.e., heritage review for SPA 45b) is a waste of taxpayers money. More needs to be done for Northdale residents so that their properties hold more value. Poor attempt to push out the small landowner and bring in large developers to create the vision of the City. A neighborhood plan without a human element is a failed plan. Under the impression that the originalpurpose of the plan was Protecting the People instead of Protect the Vision. The draft does not reflect what the public wanted in the last workshop which was more unified (plain level) zoning. Proposal was well done. Do not support the vision of the study. The new rental bylaw was not addressed in report. A lot of land consolidation is essential if we want to improve Northdale. Saddened that a lot of comments lack appreciation for heritage. The urban design is good. The key is to get the zoning correct and use moderate incentives to ensure development over a longer time period (20 years). The question What does this mean for me? would be a valuable addition to the report. 3 storey zoning should be eliminated completely. There is nothing in Northdale that creates an economical identity. It would be beneficial to have more publicsquares and markets. Consultants did not listen to the public but rather a few people with agendas not consistent with the area. Remove the war time homes from 45b. Try to resist the greedy property owners who are only out to sell to the highest bidder and do not care for the greater good of Northdale. The core will eventually become a total student area leading to a ghetto. In order to attract a non-student population, design for University professionals and married students at 6 stories on Hickory/Hazel block. Heritage must not be sacrificed and it is the Citys responsibility to protect it. Did a wonderful job of researching and creating alternative strategies for developing a vibrant walkable neighbourhood. Safety, elevators, supervision, management, construction and techniques are greatly improved In NMU-6 or greater vs. NMU-3. Columbia Street disaster was due to Consultants only working to the benefit of the City and themselves to renew another contract. Plan is a disguised land devaluation program as demanded by the University. This is a waste of tax dollars. Developers will not buy into purchasing land that must be converted to make financial sense. 2.4 Summary of Phase 3 Consultations on Draft Final Report (March 2012) and Supporting Documents In consideration of the input received, a revised Draft Final Report, March 2012, including draft implementing/supporting documents was prepared. Key revisions to the documents related to the following matters: a) Potential Heritage Resources (Veterans Green Housing and surrounding Wartime Housing) Concern was expressed regarding the draft Official Plan policies which would have recommended that further review be undertaken with respect to the heritage potential of the Veterans Green Housing and surrounding Wartime Housing (State, Fir, Hickory Area), prior to development occurring. This area is identified as Specific Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 15 21. Provision Area 45b in this revised draft Official Plan Modification. The Official Plan policies as presented in this revised draft Official Plan have been modified to remove the requirement for undertaking such a review, however, proponents of development applications are encouraged to consider potential heritage resources as well as appropriate tools and measures for their conservation and recognition as part of their development application. Potential redevelopment, adaptive reuse, or infill development is encouraged to reflect the character, form, and materials of the built form and landscape in recognition of the potential heritage resources. Particular consideration should be given to the Veterans Green Park and Veterans Green Housing, to retain the built form and spatial organization of the buildings and open space areas and improve integration with the Park. The Plan provides bonusing incentives (additional height and/or density) for the conservation, sensitive adaptive reuse or redevelopment for the Veterans Green Housing and surrounding Wartime Housing. b) Low Density Residential development permissions Concern was expressed regarding the viability of redevelopment of the Low Density Residential areas in the interior of Northdale neighbourhood. The Low Density Residential area previously proposed a maximum of 3 storeys and 150 bedrooms per hectare. Furthermore, the bonusing framework would be capped at 6 storeys and 450 bedrooms per hectare, which may be achieved through bonusing in exchange for the provision of public benefits. On May 9, 2012, NSPC passed a resolution requesting that the NMU-6 zone be applied throughout the interior of the neighbourhood, instead of the proposed NMU-3. The provision of a bonus in exchange for identified public benefits will be limited to increases in density (in terms of bedrooms per hectare). Hence, the provision of an additional building height in exchange for public benefits will no longer be an identified bonus in the planning framework for Northdale. The maximum building heights in Northdale have therefore been rationalized in the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. The resultant outcome for the interior of the neighbourhood is the application of a refined NMU-6 zone, which permits a maximum of 6 storeys and 250 bedrooms per hectare. In exchange for identified public benefits, the maximum density may be bonused up to 600 bedrooms per hectare. Concern was also expressed regarding the minimum lot frontage requirement of 20.0m and minimum lot area requirement of 1,650m2, which would require the consolidation of generally three lots to accommodate redevelopment. The minimum lot area requirements have been revised to require a minimum lot area of 1,000m2 while retaining a minimum lot frontage of 20.0m, to generally require the consolidation of at least two typical residential lots within the Low Density Residential designation, where apartment buildings may be permitted. c) Block Plans Concern was expressed regarding the preparation of Block Plans for areas of Northdale, particularly for the SPA 45b area. Clarification has been provided regarding the requirements for the preparation of Block Plans, and various areas have been subsequently removed from the Block Plan areas, where the redevelopment of larger blocks of land with few property owners may not necessitate the preparation of a Block Plan. Block Plans are intended to be submitted in support of a development application to demonstrate to Councils satisfaction that the development will not preclude the orderly and efficient development of adjacent properties and also provide the City with a means to secure neighbourhood benefits and active/pedestrian connections in a more comprehensive manner. Block Plan submissions are not intended to have the unanimous support of all the landowners within the Block Area, but simply demonstrate that the orderly redevelopment of the surrounding area will not be precluded. Council can use their discretion 16 June 2012 22. to determine whether a Block Plan is required for proponents of development applications, and whether it satisfies the criteria of the Official Plan. 2.5 Summary of Phase 3 Consultations on Draft Final Report (April 2012) and Supporting Documents Following the release of the Draft Final Report (April 2012) and supporting/implementing documents, revisions were made to this Final Report (June 2012) and supporting/implementing documents to reflect the comments received following the informal circulation and presentation of the Report and documents at the Informal Public Meeting on May 7, 2012. The following highlights the key issues and revisions that have been incorporated into the June 2012 Final Report and supporting/implementing documents to address these comments. a) Orphaned Lots Concerns were expressed regarding the potential that orphaned lots may be inadvertently left as a residual outcome of lot consolidation in Northdale, as adjacent properties are consolidated and redeveloped for more intensive uses, such as apartment dwellings and mixed use developments. This may result in existing single detached dwellings that do not meet the minimum lot area and or lot frontage requirements proposed, particularly as they relate to the NMU zones. The proposed minimum lot area and lot frontage requirements are proposed to encourage land assembly and consolidation, and the comprehensive redevelopment of a minimum of two lots to accommodate higher intensity redevelopment, such as apartment buildings. They are also proposed to encourage larger buildings which are more likely to have on-site management. Lots consisting of a minimum area of 1,000m2 and a minimum frontage of 20.0m provide more adequately sized redevelopment parcels, which would provide for more efficient use of land to accommodate more intensive development, and address the built form and urban design objectives for Northdale to create a more consistent streetwall, minimize the number of driveways accessing the street, and create a more pedestrian oriented and walkable neighbourhood. Instances of orphaned lots occurring in Northdale is likely to occur over the course of redevelopment within Northdale given the fragmented lot ownership, varying redevelopment interests, and the potential timing of redevelopment. Within the Zoning By-law, there are no appropriate tools to avoid occurrences of orphaned lots. The matter is best addressed through landowner coordination and comprehensively planned redevelopment, such as the preparation of Block Plans for specific areas. As a result, it is recognized that a minor variance, seeking relief from the zone requirements may be required, provided it is demonstrated that an orphaned lot may accommodate more intensive development, such as apartment buildings, by meeting the four tests established under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. In instances where orphaned lots may occur, the Zoning By-law does provide for the redevelopment of orphaned lots to accommodate uses such as: townhouses, townhouse-linear dwellings and terrace dwellings, in addition to duplex dwellings and non-residential uses in accordance with the zone category permissions and regulations. Even in the absence of minimum lot area and lot frontage area requirements, potential still exists for orphaned lots to be created through the redevelopment and consolidation of neighbouring properties. As a result, such instances may best be addressed on a site-specific basis, and a minor variance process provides an appropriate planning mechanism to consider these issues. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 17 23. b) Duplex Dwellings Further clarification has been provided regarding the permissions for accommodating duplex dwellings. The NMU Zone categories are proposed to permit duplex dwellings, within an existing single detached dwelling (i.e., one unit), which does not contain an accessory apartment (as opposed to the previously proposed building footprint). Furthermore, duplex dwellings are required to comply with the site regulations (i.e., building heights, landscaped open spaces, setbacks, and parking requirements) applicable to the zoning category on the property prior to the date of passing of the new Northdale Zoning By-law. The intent is to permit duplex dwellings as an interim use while not permitting substantial redevelopment (i.e., alterations to the exterior of the existing single detached dwelling, addition of a second storey) which may ultimately preclude the redevelopment of the property for more intensive uses, such as townhouse dwellings and apartment dwellings, which are more in line with the vision for Northdale. The development of a duplex dwelling would require a building permit and all applicable requirements would still apply to duplexes, such as development charges, and parkland dedication requirements, as they would elsewhere in the City. c) Tower Separation and Tower Footprints Concerns have been expressed regarding the proposed tower separation and minimum tower footprint areas of the proposed Zoning By-law (April 2012). The proposed requirements are important in ensuring an appropriate built form by managing tower separation and minimizing the extent of the tower footprint to reduce impacts associated with building massing, sun/shadow and environmental conditions. The proposed Zoning By-law has been revised to require only a 30m tower setback for towers on the same development block, and a minimum of 15m setback from the interior side and rear lot lines. It is recognized that existing towers on adjacent properties may be setback closer to the lot line than 15m, and in such instances, the development of new towers on the abutting property is only subject to a 15m interior side and rear lot line setback. Furthermore, the maximum permitted tower footprints have been increased to 800m2 (from 750m2), to provide greater flexibility in the size of the tower footprint, while still reducing potential impacts associated with building massing, sun/shadow and environmental conditions. The maximum tower footprint requirements for the NMU-8 zone have also been removed, in favour of a 3.0m stepback for storeys above the podium (i.e., above 6 storeys). d) Bicycle Parking Requirements Concern has also been expressed that the bicycle parking rates proposed in the Zoning By-law April 2012) are too onerous. Municipalities typically undertake a detailed, separate bicycle parking study to help inform requirements for bicycle parking. However, bicycle parking is being recommended in the Zoning By-law at this time in recognition of its importance in encouraging active transportation in Northdale. In the absence of a detailed study to inform requirements for bicycle parking in Northdale, a best practices review has been undertaken, as follows: The Guidelines for the Design and Management of Bicycle Parking Facilities in the City of Toronto proposes that 1.0 bicycle parking spaces be required per dwelling unit in the Citys central area, and 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit in other areas. Between 1.5 bicycle spaces per 1,000 m2 of non-residential gross floor area and 2.0 spaces per 1,000 m2 of non-residential gross floor area is proposed to be required for commercial and office uses. These recommendations are proposed to be included in the Zoning By-law. The City of Ottawa requires 0.50 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit in an apartment building or a dwelling unit associated with a non-residential use. Furthermore, 0.75 spaces are required for rooming units or dwelling units associated with post-secondary educational facilities. Requirements for most retail and 18 June 2012 24. commercial uses are 1 bicycle parking space per 250 m2 of gross floor area. As few as 1 bicycle parking space for every 2,000 m2 of gross floor area is required for industrial uses. As an international example, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) recommends bicycle parking from 0.33 bicycle parking spaces per multi-dwelling unit to 0.5 bicycle parking spaces for residential developments related to students. Requirements for non-residential uses are based on the number of employees, with about 1 space required per 30 employees. Therefore, revisions to the bicycle parking requirements have been proposed in the revised Zoning By-law to accommodate a reduction in the bicycle parking requirements in consideration of the proximity of Northdale to the Universities and proposed rapid transit facilities and existing transit facilities. The proposed bicycle parking requirements have been reduced to 0.25 bicycle spaces per bedroom plus 1.0 bicycle space for every 1,500m2.of non-residential gross building floor area. These recommendations are within the range of proposed and existing requirements by other authorities, as noted above. It is recognized that other authorities provide requirements on the basis of the number of required units, rather than bedrooms. In Ottawa, a higher requirement is provided for units associated with post-secondary institutions. For a 3 bedroom unit, the requirement of 0.25 spaces per bedroom would be the equivalent of 0.75 spaces per unit, which is equal to the City of Ottawas requirement for housing associated with post-secondary institutions. The City should monitor the bicycle parking requirements and adjustments may be required through a future Zoning By-law Amendment or through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Additional requirements regarding the location of bicycle parking facilities and the design of bicycle parking, as well as requirements respecting the designation for short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle parking may also be considered. e) Non-Residential Parking Requirements Concerns were expressed regarding the Zoning By-law parking requirements for non-residential uses, and whether there is opportunity to decrease these standards given the location of Northdale and proximity to the Universities and proposed rapid transit facilities and existing transit facilities. Since the study did not include a detailed review of the non-residential parking requirements, the requirements of the Citys Zoning By-law have been carried forward. It is recommended that further analysis and justification would be required to support reduced non-residential parking requirements, in support of the planning objectives to minimize parking requirements in Northdale. Therefore changes to the non-residential parking requirements may occur through a zoning by-law amendment, minor variance or through the Citys review of its Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The proposed non-residential parking rates are proposed to be kept the same as the existing parking requirements of the Commercial Six (C6) zone, Section 12A of By-law No. 1108. Furthermore, these rates are generally consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking rates (with the exception of a restaurant, which would require more spaces), which identifies parking rates for the specific uses as follows: Restaurant = 0.53 parking spaces per restaurant seat; Take out = range from 12.7 spaces per 1,000ft2 (93m2) to 21 spaces per 1,000ft2 (93m2) Gross Floor Area; and Office = 2.4 parking spaces per 1,000ft2 (93m2) Gross Floor Area. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 19 25. f) Street Frontage Area Requirements Further clarification has been provided regarding the street frontage area requirements, particularly as they relate to the permitted ground floor uses. The permitted uses are determined by the associated zone category as identified in the Zoning By-law; whereas, the street frontage areas establish certain site regulations applicable to the associated street frontage area (i.e., permitted uses on the ground floor, ground floor storey height requirements, minimum and maximum building setbacks, etc.). The Zoning By-law permits both residential and non-residential uses in all zone categories, including the NMU-6 zone. The scale and intensity of non-residential uses varies between the zone categories. The Residential Street Frontage Area has been renamed to Neighbourhood Street Frontage Area, so as not to imply that the permitted uses are strictly limited to residential uses, but rather, a more limited range of non residential uses may also be permitted (i.e., shops, cafes, certain retail stores, offices, etc). However, non-residential uses are not permitted on the culs-de-sac, as indicated in the Zoning By-law (i.e., Batavia Place and Hemlock Street, north of Hickory Street). Concerns were expressed regarding the required setbacks, particularly related to the Active Street Frontage Area which permitted buildings to be built at the front lot line, and the implications this may have on the provision and management of utilities and street trees within the right-of-way. A minimum setback of 1.0m to a maximum of 3.0m is proposed in the revised Zoning By-law, to require at least a minimum setback of 1.0m. Further, an additional setback of up to 6.0m may be permitted where the ground floor uses accommodate restaurants and coffee shops associated with an outdoor patio area. These specific setbacks are not included in the proposed Official Plan Amendment, to eliminate the need for an Official Plan Amendment where a minor deviation is required. g) Zoning By-law Flexibility Concerns were expressed that the Zoning By-law may be too prescriptive and some additional flexibility may be warranted to address certain matters at the Site Plan review stage and through the Northdale Urban Design Guidelines. In addition to the proposed revisions outlined above, certain zoning requirements pertaining to the level of transparency (extent of windows, glazing) of the buildings ground floor, podium, and tower, have been removed from the Zoning By-law, in favour of addressing such matters through the Urban Design Guidelines. As previously discussed, greater flexibility with respect to tower separation, tower footprints, and bicycle parking has also been proposed. h) University/Phillip/Columbia/Lester Block (Specific Provision Area 45c) Given the concerns expressed over the delineation of a potential long-term extension of Hickory Street to Phillip Street, and the on-going and recent development applications and intentions for these lands, the Official Plan policies, including SPA 45c have been revised to provide more flexibility for the City to seek to acquire a potential new street and/or active transportation connections through this block. SPA 45c has been expanded to include the entire University/Phillip/Columbia/Lester Block. Improved permeability through this entire block is recognized as a priority public benefit to improve the connectivity between Northdale, and the University of Waterloo and Central Transit Corridor, particularly through the provision of active transportation connections. The identification and provision of a potential public street right-of-way, pedestrian corridor, and/or cycling/multi-use route should be determined through the preparation of Block Plans and through the Citys review of development applications, generally in accordance with the Official Plan and related Schedules E and F. A future road or active transportation connection from generally Hickory Street to Phillip Street is viewed as an important 20 June 2012 26. public benefit to facilitate additional east west connectivity through Northdale and facilitate connections to the University of Waterloo campus and the future rapid transit station. The intent of this SPA is to establish bonusing provisions under Section 37 of the Planning Act, to permit increases in density in exchange for the provision of a public road connection and/or pedestrian connection to Phillip Street as well as active transportation connections throughout the larger blocks. i) Relationship of the Northdale Study to Active Development Proposals A series of questions and comments have been raised by the proponents of various active development applications within the Northdale neighbourhood. These questions largely relate to the applicability of the Northdale Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to these development proposals. Information about the specific development applications in process was requested from City staff for general context. In some cases, very general information was received from City staff regarding a limited number of the proposals. Therefore, the consulting team does not have sufficient information to provide any comment or analysis on individual proposals, nor it this part of the consulting teams mandate. Specific questions have been raised about excluding certain properties from the Northdale recommendations, and implementing Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, much as the recent Interim Control By-laws (2012-024 and 2012-028) exempted certain properties. In enacting the Interim Control By-law with exemptions, no adjustment was made to the Study Area for the Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study. Hence, the consulting team continues to offer recommendations relative to the entire Study Area, and does not recommend that any properties be excluded. Questions have been raised about the timing of enactment of the Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the Studys recommendations. In developing the recommendations for the Northdale Study, the consulting team has assumed that the approval and enactment of the amending documents will follow a conventional process. That is, it is assumed that the Zoning By-law Amendment will be enacted upon approval of the Official Plan Amendment by the Region. In the event that Council chooses to enact the Zoning By-law prior to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment, the consulting team offers that the City should consider the implications relative to the 17 properties that were excluded from the recent Interim Control By-laws. Given that properties that are subject to applications were exempted from the Interim Control By-law, it may be considered timely to consult legal counsel on the implications of enacting the Zoning By-law that implements the Northdale Study. j) Veterans Green Housing and Wartime Housing in State/Fir/Hickory A resolution passed by the Northdale Special Project Committee, by a margin of 7 to 5, requested that the Wartime Housing in the State/Fir/Hickory Area be removed from Special Provision Area 45b in the implementing Official Plan Amendment, which encourages heritage conservation through the redevelopment of those lands. We note as well that Council is in receipt of correspondence from the Municipal Heritage Committee, supporting the previous (March 2012) draft of Special Provision Area 45b, which required a heritage evaluation prior to redevelopment in the State/Fir/Hickory Area. We recommend in favour of the current Special Provision Area 45b because it recognizes the contributions to neighbourhood character made by the Veterans Green Housing and Wartime Housing, while acknowledging the potential for growth and change within the area. Special Provision Area 45b provides the framework for the establishment of collaborative relationships between property owners and the City as it relates to the stewardship of community cultural heritage resources, in keeping with City of Waterloos Cultural Heritage Policies. The opportunity to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee regarding the potential listing or Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 21 27. designation, creation of heritage easements or covenants, or identification of a study area for a heritage conservation district remains. k) Relationship of Student Enrolment Projections to the Regions Projections As part of the appeal of the Regional Official Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board, the Region was required to prepare updated population, employment and dwelling forecasts to 2031. As part of these projections, the Region has prepared a student enrolment forecast. The Region offered the City and the consulting team its projections for student enrolment to 2031. The Region projected lower student growth than the consulting team projected in the Student Accommodation Study Monitoring Report. It is challenging to accurately estimate student housing needs over the long-term, and establish buy-in from all of the stakeholders including the Region and universities. This is particularly true given that the universities are not positioned to project their enrolment over the long-term. Estimating student housing needs requires a projection of change in student enrolment in the future, which is dependent on numerous, somewhat unpredictable and interrelated variables, which are out of the control of the City and the post-secondary institutions. Many of these variables fall outside of the classically used methods for projecting population in Ontario (such as the cohort survival method), and include consideration for such things as university participation rates, international demographics and participation rates, and even the way that university attendance could change in the future through technological advancement. As such, the universities have limited their own projections to the short term. The 2011 Student Accommodation Study provided a projection for enrolment that was initially based on consultation with the universities and the City of Waterloo, and followed the format the City has traditionally used. At the time of preparing the Student Accommodation Study Monitoring Report, the universities stated their position that they could not estimate enrolment in the long term, but provided an anticipated percentage of enrolment growth. Thus, the consulting team was tasked with deriving reasonable assumptions about future enrolment growth to 2029, based on the universities stated position. These projections were initially included in the Student Accommodation Study Monitoring Report. The consulting team has considered trends in demographics, post-secondary education participation rates and other factors when making assumptions about long-term change in enrolment. With regard to demographics, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities reports that the key age cohort for undergraduate enrolment (ages 18-24) is expected to decline, beginning in 2013, from about 1.32 million, to a low of about 1.23 million persons in 2021. After 2021, the number of persons aged 18-24 is expected to rise to about 1.44 million by 2036.1 However, university participation rate is another major factor in the demand for university enrolment, which could result in a net increase in enrolment, despite a decline in the population. Participation rates are affected by growing 1 Presentation by MTCU to Council of Ontario Universities, May 2012. Projections by MTCU are based on Ministry of Finance population projections. 22 June 2012 28. recognition of the value of post-secondary education, economic cycles, as well as institutional changes and changes at the secondary school level. Undergraduate participation rates have been steadily increasing since at least the 1950s, from 4.3% in 1950-51 to 27.5% participation in 2011. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (2012) projects that undergraduate participation rates could increase to 35% to 40% by 2031. The long-term trend of increasing participation rates is well established, and the Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities (2012) projects that participation rates will continue to increase due to a growing understanding of the relationship between earnings and education level. Changing participation rates have a substantial impact on enrolment growth, and it is possible that enrolment may increase due to a shift in participation rates, even if the 18-24 age cohort is declining. Even a modest increase in the participation rate, however, would mean that undergraduate enrolment in Ontario will be stable or increase until 2021, and would further accelerate growth rates from 2021 to 2031. For example, should the participation rate remain the same at 27.5%, the estimated enrolment in Ontario of persons aged 18-24 decreases to about 339,000 by 2021, based on projections by the Ministry of Finance. However, at an assumed participation rate of 30%, the estimated enrolment of persons aged 18-24 increases to 370,000 by 2021. Graduate enrolment is also expected to increase substantially in the next ten years. The Council of Ontario Universities (COU) outlines its position on enrolment growth in its paper entitled Framework for Planning and Funding of Enrolment (2010). The COU projects that the annual average growth rate will be about 6% for graduate students, and 2% for undergraduate students up to 2020-2021. The report recognizes that although a decline in the main cohort of students joining universities is expected, it is also recognized that increasing participation rates and current flow-through of current high levels of enrolment will offset declining trends in population and contribute to increasing levels of graduate enrolment in the next 10 years. Responsible planning for Northdale requires a full consideration of the range of reasonable possibilities for change in enrolment. The growth scenario projected by the consulting team is reasonable, recognizing the demographic trends which suggest that the 18-24 age cohort may begin to increase again around 2022, and also recognizing that participation rates may continue to increase, as has been the very long-term trend. While the Region asserts that its low growth scenario is the most likely scenario, it is the consulting teams position that a range of reasonable and credible possibilities must be considered when planning for Northdale. The consulting team also recognizes that the Regions projection is a theoretically possible growth scenario, and that this growth scenario, too, has been accommodated in the plan for Northdale. Recognizing the discrepancy between the Regions projections and the consulting teams projections, it is recommended that the City of Waterloo closely monitor enrolment and the associated trends each Fall, and report to Council every second year. As noted in the 2012 SASM Report, actual growth has greatly exceeded the projected annual growth of 1.5%. In fact, the 1.5% annual growth projection has underestimated enrolment growth by 4,155 students over the period from 2007 to 2010, although it was recognized that unusually high growth was reported by the University of Waterloo (UW) in 2009. Therefore, the most reasonable solution to address the unpredictability of enrolment is to monitor actual enrolment, and address patterns and unexpected changes over time, if necessary. The vision for Northdale sees the evolution of the neighbourhood from predominantly student housing to a neighbourhood with a mix of unit types, demographic groups and land uses. The neighbourhoods proximity to major economic activities and employers, including the universities, and the future rapid transit stations, will allow the neighbourhood to attract a significant proportion of permanent residents. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 23 29. It is projected that between 1,400 and 6,200 new students may be accommodated in Northdale due to increased enrolment at the universities. These figures are derived from the Regions enrolment projection on the low end, and the consulting teams high end of the enrolment projection range. However, Northdale has been planned to accommodate potential growth in the student population not only from increased enrolment, but also from the migration of students from other neighbourhoods in the City, who may wish to move to Northdale given its proximity to the universities. It is estimated by the City that approximately 4,000 students currently reside in lodging houses located outside of Northdale, and a portion of these students may choose to live in Northdale to be closer to the universities. Northdale may therefore help to advance the goal of the City of Waterloo Official Plan to encourage students to live closer to the universities. The vision for Northdale does not hinge on the student enrolment projections. The plan for Northdale is intended to facilitate change to the neighbourhood; however, it does not markedly increase the neighbourhoods capacity for growth. Recognizing that the current neighbourhood is largely occupied by students, and that a mix of students and permanent residents are planned to be accommodated in Northdale, any new development entitlement will serve to house both potential growth in students as well as permanent residents. It is further noted that the consulting teams student enrolment projections should not be construed as having an impact on the Regions growth forecasts or its Official Plan. As the vast majority of households in Northdale are occupied by students. It is estimated by the City that there are relative few households in Northdale are owner- occupied. The effect of the plan for Northdale is to facilitate reurbanization and revitalization, and provide a new opportunity for permanent residents to live in a mixed use, urban neighbourhood, which is in close proximity to the universities, the future rapid transit station and major employers. The Plan for Northdale will help the City and the Region achieve its intensification target of 45%, as a logical and attractive location for intensification. 24 June 2012 30. 3.0 Vision and Principles for Northdale The preparation of the vision statement and principles involved extensive consultation with the NSPC, public and stakeholders. The vision statement and principles will form the basis for establishing the preferred land use planning framework, urban design options and the community improvement plan policies and programs to guide future growth and development within Northdale. As previously indicated, the vision and principles were unanimously endorsed by Council on November 28, 2011. Northdale is a neighbourhood in transition. It is anticipated that Northdale will accommodate a large portion of the Citys infill and intensification growth over the planning period of this Official Plan given the proximity of the neighbourhood to the Universities, designated nodes and corridors, and planned Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). As such, vision and principles for Northdale support the reurbanization of Northdale as a vibrant, sustainable and mixed use community. Northdale will become a complete community that accommodates a diverse demographic and range of land uses, housing types, institutional and community uses, commercial and retail uses and employment uses that are supported through an integrated network of pedestrian-oriented streets, pathways, and cycling facilities which support active transportation and increased densities. The cultural heritage attributes of Northdale will recognized and provide inspiration for the development of the neighbourhood. The Vision Statement for Northdale is: By 2029, Northdale is revitalized and reurbanized into a diverse, vibrant and sustainable neighbourhood, integrated with educational, residential, commercial, cultural, heritage and recreational functions, and improved open space, pedestrian, cycling and transit networks. The over-arching vision for Northdale is further supported by the following principles: Northdale will be: 1. Integrated: Northdale is ideally situated within proximity to the Universities, Uptown, and major employers and will be integrated within the urban fabric of the City and surrounding community through improved transportation, cycling and pedestrian networks. Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study | Final Report 25 31. 2. Diverse: Northdale will be a diverse, vibrant, mixed use and urban neighbourhood where residents live, work, learn and play. It will be comprised of a variety of housing types and tenures which provides affordable housing and accommodates a diverse demographic including students, families and professionals, and su