Sunderland and Scafe Potential Park Space and Contributions Associated with these Developments (Staff Report)

Background

Two staff reports regarding the above noted rezoning applications were brought forward to the Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Committee on September 27th. The Committee’s resolution was forwarded to Council for consideration, which included an additional item for staff to work with the applicant in establishing a park space within the vicinity of these rezoning applications. On October 4th Council directed staff to prepare bylaws for both applications and to work with the applicant in establishing park space that would be paid for from the applicable Development Cost Charges and Amenity Contributions that each development would otherwise pay to the City. Council passed First Reading of Bylaw No. 2008 and 2009 on October 18th to rezone the two subject sites.

Commentary

Following public input at the Committee meeting, the applicant representing both rezoning applications has searched the area for suitable park space but has not found any property for sale that was appropriate, but more importantly available. Staff have also noted that it may be best if the City provided more direction on where a park would be best suited in this region rather then having the applicant take the lead.

Working with staff, the applicant put together a brief proposal from each rezoning outlining what a potential park could look like if accepted by Council, with the right property, and using the combined fees that each development would otherwise be responsible for from their respective rezoning applications. Appendix A and B are copies of the reports that outline options to move forward with either the applicant acquiring land and constructing a park or providing the City with the appliable fees to acquire land and construct a park.

The applicant is willing to work with the City to acquire land and construct a park equal to what they would otherwise financially contribute towards the applicable DCC and Amenity rates, but if no appropriate land is found, the applicant suggests that the City receive the cash payments instead. This second option would give the City the opportunity to pool this money with similar contributions from other developments in the area and establish a park space in the future that best fits with what this area could benefit from.

It should be noted that DCCs outlined in the PZAH reports for these projects were based on current rates, which are being reassessed in 2022. To ensure the total applicable fees as outlined in the reports remain the same at the time of a future building permit, Council may wish to amend the applicable rezoning bylaws so that the total amounts outlined in each report remains approximately the same. This would mean that if any fees, such as Development Cost Charges or Sewer Cost Recovery Fees were to be reduced, Amenity Contribution would be increased by an approximately equal amount. The applicant has no objection to this proposal.

Receiving the financial contribution instead of establishing a park immediately would allow better planning in determining what kind of park is best suited for this area, and where this should be placed within the perimeter of Veterans Memorial Parkway, Goldstream Avenue, Jacklin Road, and the Trans Canada Highway.

The future park in this area has come about from public input to these rezoning applications and is considered to be an amenity that would more likely service the surrounding residents outside of these developments since each development is providing their own outdoor amenity space on the roof top of each parkade for the residents of those buildings. Since a park space was a late item that was added due to public input, details of how this will be established are still being worked out, but residents can be assured a public park will be established in the neighbourhood of these developments, whether that be by the applicant’s initiative or by the City with applicable fees that are collected from each development.

Financial Implications

There are no known financial implications for the City associated with this proposal.

Legal Implications

There are no known legal implications for the City associated with this proposal.

Options

Option 1

1. That Council:

a. accept the applicant’s parkland improvement proposals and direct staff to work with the applicant to establish a park in the vicinity of the proposed developments that are the subject of rezoning applications Z21-0013 and Z21-0015, either by the applicant, for which applicable credits would be available to the applicant, or by the City utilizing the applicable DCC and Amenity contributions that would be collected at the building permit stage from these developments; and

b. consider amending Bylaws No. 2008 and 2009 such that the total Development Cost Charges, Amenity Contributions, and Sewer Cost Recovery Fees per unit would be approximately equal to the total amount that would otherwise have been paid on November 15th, 2021.

OR Option 2

1. That Council postpone the Public Hearing for each development until 2022 in order for the applicants to first secure the appropriate land for a park in the vicinity of these developments and establish an approved set of drawings for the park design.

Submitted By

SUBMITTED BY: Robert Dykstra, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner

Concurrence:
Leah Stohmann, MCIP, RPP, Deputy Director of Planning
Concurrence:
Matthew Baldwin, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning and Subdivision
Concurrence:
Michelle Mahovlich, P.Eng, P.Geo, Director of Engineering and Public Works
Concurrence:
Michael Dillabaugh, CPA, CA, Director of Finance
Concurrence:
Marie Watmough, Acting Director of Corporate Services
Concurrence:
Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer