The Planning Partnership Urban Design, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Communications WHAT WE HEARD Stakeholder Workshops One of the key components in the development of a Guelph-specific parkland dedication strategy is to offer stakeholders the opportunity to provide input throughout the project, and particularly in the initial stages. This input will help to shape the direction and focus of the strategy and ultimately the new parkland dedication bylaw and associated policies. The collective goal of this project, from the perspective of the City, the consulting team, and the key stakeholders is to ensure that Guelph is able to secure and maintain a great parks and open space system for residents and visitors alike, today and well into the future. The first phase of the stakeholder workshops took place in April and June of 2017. In April, City of Guelph staff was given the opportunity to discuss the current state of the city s parks network, the city s current parkland dedication policies and by-laws, and issues and opportunities moving forward. In June, key external stakeholders, including institutional representatives and property developers, discussed the impacts of parks and parkland dedication related to their organizations and presented key considerations for the project moving forward. Key external stakeholders that have already been engaged will have additional opportunities to provide input and help guide the proceeding phases of the project as the work progresses. City staff will continue to be directly involved in all facets of the work, and the public will also be engaged in a forum as a framework for the new bylaw progresses. Internal Stakeholders Four separate group workshops were held with City of Guelph staff on April 20th, 2017. Representatives from a number of relevant city departments attended, including: development planning, policy planning, parks planning, legal services, Downtown renewal, economic development, committee of adjustment, building services, finance and communications. Additional comments and discussion were provided in writing by staff. The following is a summary of the discussions: Essential Elements of a Successful Park System Linked open space Diversity of park types Active recreation opportunities All season programming Accessibility and connectivity - access to public transit t 416.975.1556 www.planpart.ca 1255 Bay Street, Suite 500 Toronto, Ontario, M5R 2A9 Page 1 of 6
Equitable distribution Permanent park spaces/ owned by City and programmable Walkability Street frontage Opportunity for community input to animate the park space Strengths of Guelph s Current Park System Good Partnerships: GRCA, University of Guelph, Infrastructure Ontario etc. Connected Green Spaces, linked open space system and trail network Existing inventory of large more traditional landscaped parks These spaces are part of Guelph s identity Parks are embedded in people s image of the City and part of local lifestyle Large parks and Guelph s current system is an attraction that sets Guelph apart Beautiful trails with large areas of Natural Heritage System connected to public park system Older riverside parks are key to the system Good hierarchy and diversity of parks Weaknesses of Guelph s Current Park System Deficiency in some existing neighbourhoods Park assets subject to closure due to end of historical partnerships Risk of losing sports fields due to redevelopment on privately owned sites not zoned as parkland Lack of programming and amenities in some existing parks Lack of dedicated space for dogs Piecemeal approach to development creates difficulty in obtaining appropriately sized parks Historical parks located in sensitive areas or contaminated sites risk of closure Historically accepted woodlots as parkland dedication Parks Planning Influenced by Growth Objectives City accepts cash-in-lieu for high-density developments as developers aren t willing to convey land Increasing land value makes it harder to acquire parkland Limited remaining undeveloped land supply Much of Guelph s development will be infill and redevelopment Infill population increases demand for existing area parkland Less available land for new parks, particularly the size and type of parks historically expected Current Parkland Dedication Practices Collect on building permit-only developments (previously were not) Downtown parkland targets established as 1 ha/1,000 City-wide targets (3.3 ha/1,000) established through the Recreation, Parks and Culture strategic master plan (2009) based on current parkland supply at that time Trails are only accepted in special circumstances e. g. River Walk Page 2 of 6
Do not accept land dedication under P2 (Neighbourhood Park) size (1.0 hectares) or above 2% slope Only accept developable, tablelands with sufficient public street frontage, which can be developed and programmed for active recreation Urban squares currently only considered in policy for the Downtown OPA 48 forbids privately owned squares/spaces for Parkland Dedication No current plan or strategy to purchase land to get more P3 s large regional parks City takes 5% for parkland on subdivisions Cash-in-Lieu Policies Traditionally used only to purchase land Recently used to maintain/redevelop recreation facilities Clarity needed on how cash-in-lieu monies can be used and how to allocate the monies Cash-In-Lieu is held in two separate accounts: (1) Downtown Fund, (2) General Fund The existing caps imposed on Parkland Dedication keep the reserve funds low Funds are not used in a planned fashion; case-by-case basis as opportunities arise Lag in parkland planning and when cash is used to purchase land When the cash is eventually used, land value has risen City is always chasing land values Cash-in-lieu tracking procedure takes too long Key Issues with Existing Parkland Dedication By-Laws Outdated parkland provisions under Planning Act have changed substantially Don t account for alternative dedication rate potential Do not comply with Official Plan policies Lacks dedication provisions for commercial, industrial, institutional and other purposes Individual property appraisals are administratively cumbersome Existing unit rates used for residential under 5 stories don t reflect current market values Staff feel they are pushed to take cash by developers and by other City interests Downtown development is incentivized while other developments are charged full amount Revision to caps required Revision of by-law defined Downtown boundaries Small-scale development through CoA require new land valuations Perceived by the development community to be inconsistent Issues and holes in the by-law cloud negotiations and slow down the process Current Missed Opportunities Not collecting parkland using alternative rate for subdivision of land or consent Not employing alternative parkland rate for high-density development City lacks plan and strong policies to ensure parkland is obtained through high-density development Not collecting enough parkland to meet Guelph s provision targets City lack plans to ensure good sized parks are secured piecemeal development No parkland being conveyed for institutional and difficult to obtain for commercial and industrial Page 3 of 6
The City lacks clear and consistent staff procedure for collecting and recording parkland dedication Raising parkland dedication rates in the Downtown likely won t negatively impact development Alternative Parkland Tools Consider long-term agreements to supplement permanent city-owned assets Consider direct land purchases and land banking for future use and assets Use of section 37 POPS and Strata concerns regarding private right to restrict or limit access to the general public Parkland held in private ownership may stop being park due to redevelopment/ownership changes Maintenance standards may be lower if not within city ownership Concern over lifetime commitment by condo corp, regardless of legal agreement, to maintain strata POPS may count toward Parkland Dedication new River Walk is a POPS and a great park it is also maintained by the City POPS are cash savings for City, as long as they remain publicly accessible Parks over surface water management areas seem reasonable similar to Deer Path Park which is above a drinking water reservoir River Walk POPS accepted for parkland credits as it is brownfield and registered on title as publicly accessible in perpetuity Hazard lands and wildlife corridors are important spaces, but not acceptable for parkland dedication Parks department has right of refusal for school board properties GRCA offers land to City periodically to purchase for parkland Greatest Challenges for New By-Law and Next Steps: Hard to shift the existing cultural ideal of large green parks to something smaller and more urban Ensure that the City is collecting enough parkland for residents, current and future Striking a balance between developer s goals and meeting City s parkland needs Resistance from development community in application of alternative dedication rates Creating made in Guelph policies Bylaw that allows creative new ways to acquire parkland (not just status quo) Running out of future developable lands and potential lands for dedications Developers don t want to give land Ensure that Key Performance Indicators are established to track and measure performance Development of cross-departmental Standard Operating Procedures A streamlined process that ensures certainty will go a long way with developers In the Downtown, low parkland dedication rates is the only development incentive available Larger parks/fields are still important want to continue to purchase or acquire these spaces Clarity needed on what doesn t count for parkland dedication (trails, open space lands) City needs to ensure that intensifying areas are serviced with quality public spaces and services Older parks are aging and lacking quality a quality of space is required above a quantity of space Targeted purchases to prepare for and accommodate density By-law that accounts for parkland dedication for mixed-use developments Page 4 of 6
Land appraisals updated at a regular frequency with a new by-law Potential for City to consult with Parks Planning prior to sale of city-owned land External Stakeholders Three separate group workshops were held on April 20 th, 2017. Representatives from a number of public and private organizations took part, including: Infrastructure Ontario, the Upper Grand District School Board, Grand River Conservation Authority, Reid s Heritage Homes, Fusion Homes, GSP Group, AJC Planning, and Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Ltd. Additional comments and discussion were provided in writing by the Guelph and Wellington Development Association, Habitat for Humanity, the Upper Grand District School Board, and the University of Guelph. The following is a summary of the discussions and correspondence received: Parkland Dedication Influence on Development Parkland dedication fees should be understood upfront so developers can plan appropriately Inconsistency and lack of clarity of fees and process no issue paying fees if they re understood Real estate industry has been fortunate, but market will only bear certain costs, policy impacts this Cash-in-Lieu Policies Appraisals are costly and cumbersome Cash-in-lieu shouldn t be the base setting, land should always be taken when it s available Appraisals for cash-in-lieu should be based on a fixed rate either indexed yearly like development charges or reappraised yearly Developers could still have option to do their own appraisal if warranted/contended Exemptions and Reductions Appropriate when other municipal/social objectives are obtained: non-profit and affordable housing, places of worship, senior housing They help to make certain projects feasible -- brownfield, affordable housing Developers often going above and beyond in these scenarios and are providing additional benefits Institutional is not required to pay parkland dedication historically in Guelph this should continue for school sites, including development and redevelopment of land, buildings or structures owned by a Board of Education Developers do end up paying institutional parkland dedication for schools built as part of a subdivision Reductions should be applied when developers are requested to design and/or build any component of park or trail beyond supplying the land Alternatives to Standard s.42 Dedication Reasonable option to purchase land elsewhere to dedicate for parkland versus paying cash-in-lieu How far from the site will be considered appropriate? Page 5 of 6
Have received partial parkland dedication credits along environmental protection areas elsewhere Consider areas within cultural heritage sites as parkland (if the space is suitable) Surplus government lands could first be offered to City for purchase/public space New schools are often located adjacent to park site, and vise versa, which is a good arrangement for all it increases usable public space School Boards have community use agreements; non-profits have use of park site and facilities Currently urban squares do not count (POPS and Strata) but they should count and be credited as long as they are secured as public Recommended Parkland Policies May be useful to consider varying parkland dedication rates based on different areas Parkland per person, not per unit, should be the appropriate measure As cities densify, household size decreases, yet parkland dedication rates based on number of units remain constant Bylaw needs to be more realistic doesn t appropriately consider mid-rise, and med/ high density The required parkland dedication, land and/or cash take, must be reasonable Trails are of increasing importance, should reconsider whether trails are considered parkland Trails aren t only located on Environmental lands, they are useful connectors and recreation spaces The types of spaces that are accepted for parkland dedication should be revised and expanded (e.g. table land, slopes) this is a preference of the City that should be expanded The bylaw needs to be a coherent set of rules, not a number of sub-rules that get tacked-on have guidelines to accompany the bylaw Target new and improved parkland around river system mirroring development patterns Parkland development in the downtown core should enhance and expand the riverside public spaces Page 6 of 6